ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, 23 February 2016 to be held at Port Fairy Community Services Centre 16 Atkinson Street, Port Fairy Commencing 4.30pm
Page 1
Page 2
Audio Recording of Council Meetings
Please note: All open Council meetings will be audio recorded, with the exception of matters identified as confidential items in the agenda. This includes public participation sections of the meeting.
Audio recordings of meetings will be held by the Council and made available to members of the public upon written request to the Council, with recordings to be kept for a period of seven years.
By participating in open Council meetings, individuals consent to the use and disclosure of the information that they share at the meeting (including any personal/sensitive information), for the purposes of Council carrying out its functions. Individuals also consent to the disclosure of that information to any person(s) who applies/apply to the Council and is granted access to the audio recording of the meeting.
INDEX
Page # MANAGEMENT REPORTS Governance 1. Assemblies of Councillors ...... 5
Community and Corporate Support
2. Performance Report ….………….....………………………………….…..…………………….. 9 3. 2016 Municipal Election Preparation ………….…………..………………………………..... 11 4. Local Government Amendment (Improved Governance Act 2015) …………………………... 15 5. Kindergarten Services Review ……………………………………………………….…………… 19 6. Festivals and Events Funding 2015/2016 (Round 4) …………………………………………... 25
Sustainable Development 7. Review of Council’s Waste Facilities …………………………………………….…….…….. 27 Planning Permit PL15/137 – 17 High Street, Macarthur - Use of premises as a bottle shop 8. and to sell liquor for consumption off premises (packaged liquor licence) building and works to extend building … ….……………………………………………………………….…...... 53 Planning Permit PL06/304.01 – Salt Creek Wind Energy Facility 9. Amendment Application…………………………………………………………………………..… 65 10. Port Fairy Surf Club Extension ……………………………………………………………………. 93 Planning Permit PL15/010 – 4 Hughes Avenue, Port Fairy – Building and works for 11. additions and alterations to Surf Club and reduction in car parking ………………………….. 97
Physical Services 12. Walkers Lane Former Quarry ……………………………………………………………………… 121 13. Koroit Croquet Club ……………………………………………………………………………….. 123 14. Mortlake Racecourse Reserve Committee of Management …………...... …………………... 125 15. Port Fairy Folk Festival Commemorative Gates Proposal …………………………………….. 127
COUNCILLOR ITEMS 16. Mayoral & Councillors' Reports ………….…………………………………….…………………. 131 17. Councillor Notices of Motion 133 18. Personal Explanations ……..……………………………….………………………………..……. 135 19. Urgent Business ………….………………………………………………………………………… 137
CHIEF EXECUTIVE REPORT 20. Activities Report ………………………………………………………………………….. 139
TAPING OF COUNCIL MEETINGS
Please note that today’s meeting is being audio recorded. This recording will be made available to any member of the public on written request to the Council. The record will be kept and be made available for a period of seven years. By participating in and addressing those present at the meeting, you consent to any information you disclose (including any personal information or sensitive information) being recorded, and that recording being made available to any person who applies to the Council and is granted access to the audio recording of the meeting
Prayer Almighty God, we humbly beseech your blessing on the Council, direct and prosper its deliberations for the welfare of the people of the Moyne Shire. AMEN
Apologies
MOTION (if required)
That an apology be received from Cr …………………….
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 1
Declaration of Interest
Local Government Act 1989 Section 79 (2): A Councillor or member of a special committee who has a conflict of interest and is attending the meeting of the Council or special committee must make a full disclosure of that interest: (a) by either: (i) Advising the Council or special committee at the meeting of the details required under paragraph (b) and (c) immediately before the matter is considered at the meeting; or (ii) Advising the Chief Executive Officer in writing of the details required under paragraphs (b) and (c) before the meeting; and (b) Classifying the type of interest that has given rise to the conflict as either: (i) A direct interest: or (ii) An indirect interest and specifying the particular kind of indirect interest under Section 78, 78A, 78B, 78C,78D or 78E; and (c) Describing the nature of the interest; and (d) If the Councillor or member advised the Chief Executive Officer of the details under paragraph (a) (ii), the Councillor or member must make a disclosure of the class of interest only to the meeting immediately before the matter is considered at the meeting.
Confirmation of Minutes
Ordinary Council Meeting held on Wednesday, 27 January 2016
RECOMMENDATION
That the Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on Wednesday, 27 January 2016 be confirmed.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 2
Public Participation
Members of the public attending the monthly Council Ordinary Meeting may address the meeting in respect of either: a) any item listed in the business paper; or b) any other matter relevant to the activities and projects of the Council.
Any person wishing to address the Council must submit details in writing of the nature of the issue / question they wish to raise by 12 noon on the Monday prior to the meeting day.
The public participation segment for each meeting will be held at the beginning of the Council meeting commencing at 4.30 pm.
Any matters raised at a public participation session will be considered by the Council at the subsequent Council meeting.
The matters will be considered after the confirmation of minutes of previous meetings and be considered in the order they were raised at the public participation session.
Public participation attendees registered at time of printing:
Dr Steven Conte Proposed footpath - Powling Street, Port Fairy Mr Peter Coy Report # 09 Planning Permit PL06/304.01 Vivian Cook Report # 09 Planning Permit PL06/304.01 Mr David Allen Report # 09 Planning Permit PL06/304.01 Mr Chris Righetti Report # 09 Planning Permit PL06/304.01 Mr Ian Powell Report # 10 Port Fairy Surf Club Extension Mr Ian Powell Report # 11 Planning Permit PL15/010
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 3
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 4
GOVERNANCE
1. Assemblies of Councillors Presented by David Madden Report author Lesley Cook Attachment(s) Nil
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION That Council receives and notes the records of the listed assemblies of Councillors covering the period 16 January 2016 to 12 February 2016.
19 January 2016 - Planning Site Visit, PL14/122
Matters considered Dunnes Road Winslow - 14 lot subdivision and construction of access to a Road 1 Zone. Councillors present Cr Doukas, Cr Goodall, Cr Keane, Cr Leutton, Cr Ryan Staff present Mr Moles, Mr Nield Conflict of Interest None declared.
19 January 2016 - Planning Site Visit, PL15/076
Matters considered 330 Grassmere Road, Grassmere - use and development of land for animal keeping and animal training (racing dogs). Councillors present Cr Doukas. Cr Goodall, Cr Keane, Cr Leutton, Cr Ryan Staff present Mr Moles, Mr Nield Conflict of Interest None declared.
19 January 2016 - Planning Site Visit, PL15/165
Matters considered 903 Koroit-Woolsthorpe Road, Woolsthorpe - Use and Development of a dwelling in the Farming Zone Councillors present Cr Doukas. Cr Goodall, Cr Keane, Cr Leutton, Cr Ryan Staff present Mr Moles, Mr Nield Conflict of Interest None declared.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 5
Governance Assemblies of Councillors (cont'd)
2 February 2016 - Planning Site Visit, PL15/172
Matters considered 82 Bank Street, Port Fairy Councillors present Cr Doukas, Cr Goodall, Cr Keane, Cr Parker, Cr Ryan, Cr Wolfe Staff present Mr Moles, Ms Power Conflict of Interest None declared.
3 February 2016 - Halladale Black Watch and Speculant project Community Engagement Committee(CEC) meeting
Matters considered Gas pipeline construction update. Infrastructure construction progress – wellsite. Overview of Origin’s existing wellheads in the Nirranda district, the regulatory regime that is in place. Proposed usage for the former accommodation campsite, and requirement for Permit amendment. Councillors present Cr Doukas, Cr Parker, Cr Wolfe Staff present Ms Askew-Thornton Conflict of Interest None declared
9 February – Planning Site Visit, PL15/137
Matters considered 17 High Street, Macarthur General Store - use of premises as a bottle shop and to sell liquor for consumption off premises (packaged liquor licence), building and works to extend building. Councillors present Cr Doukas, Cr Goodall, Cr Keane, Cr Leutton, Cr Parker, Cr Ryan, Cr Wolfe Staff present Ms Grainger, Ms Castley Conflict of Interest Cr Wolfe has background involvement in liquor licencing approvals.
9 February – Grassmere Hall, Councillor Workshop
Matters considered Planning Permit PL15/010 – 4 Hughes Avenue, Port Fairy - Building and works for additions and alterations to Surf Club and reduction in car parking Planning Permit PL06/304.01 – Salt Creek Wind Energy Facility Amendment Application PRESENTATION – Revenue Strategy Councillors present Cr Doukas, Cr Goodall, Cr Keane, Cr Leutton, Cr Parker, Cr Ryan, Cr Wolfe Staff present Mr Madden, Mr Greenberger, Mr Moles, Mr Robertson Conflict of Interest None declared.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 6
Governance Assemblies of Councillors (cont'd)
10 February 2016 - Mortlake South Wind Farm CEC meeting
Matters considered - Status of Acciona’s proposal to submit a permit amendment application to the Minister for Planning. - Discussion about tower heights and blade length. - Explanation of amendment VC126 regarding a change in the statutory process for wind farm amendment applications. - Upcoming Acciona community Open Days, and the part-time shop front at the Mortlake Information Centre. - Next round of community fund. Councillors present Cr Goodall, Cr Keane Staff present Ms Askew-Thornton Conflict of Interest None declared.
SYNOPSIS
This report details assemblies of Councillors that have taken place since the matter was last reported to Council in January 2016.
BACKGROUND
In accordance with section 80A(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 Council is required to report as soon as practicable to an Ordinary Meeting of Council a record of any assemblies of Councillors held.
STRATEGIC LINK
Moyne Shire Council Plan 2013 - 2017 Key Result Area 1 Governance: ‘Improve our processes and operating systems’
DISCUSSION
Amendments to the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act) require records of assemblies of Councillors to be reported to an Ordinary Meeting of Council and recorded in the Minutes of that meeting. An assembly of Councillors is defined in section 76AA of the Act. It is a meeting at which matters are considered that are intended or likely to be the subject of a Council decision or the exercise of delegated authority and which is either of the following: a planned or scheduled meeting that includes at least half the Councillors and at least one Council Officer. These assemblies do not include meeting of Councillors and Council staff that are not planned or scheduled.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 7
Governance Assemblies of Councillors (cont'd)
A meeting of an advisory committee where at least one Councillor is present. An advisory committee is any committee established by the Council, other than a special committee, that provides advice to the Council or to a special committee or to a member of Council staff who has been delegated a power or duty or function of the Council. A record must be kept of an assembly of Councillors and include the names of all Councillors and Council staff attending, the matters considered, disclosures of conflict of interest and whether a Councillor left the meeting after making a disclosure. In accordance with section 80A(2) of the Act, Council is required to report as soon as practicable to an Ordinary Meeting of Council a record of any assemblies of Councillors held. The recommendation contains details of assemblies of Councillors that have taken place since the matter was last reported to Council in January 2016.
CONSULTATION
None required, statutory compliance
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
This is a routine reporting item
RISK
If not compliant will be in breach of the Local Government Act 1989 section 80A. Reporting on Assemblies of Councillors provides a level of public transparency about meetings held by the Council and ensures that the records are retained.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that Council receive and note the records of recent assemblies of Councillors as contained in this report.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 8
COMMUNITY AND CORPORATE SUPPORT
2. Performance Report Presented by Dean Robertson Report author Craig Ralston Attachment Monthly Performance Report – January 2016
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
1. That Council receive the January 2016 Performance Report.
2. That Council approves the variations listed in Attachment 4 to this Report.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 9
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 10
COMMUNITY AND CORPORATE SUPPORT
3. 2016 Municipal Election Preparation Presented by Dean Robertson Report author Susie Kewley Attachment Victorian Electoral Commission – Election Service Plan
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
That Council: 1. Having considered a change to the voting method for the general election to be held on 22 October 2016 in accordance with section 41A of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act), the Council determines that the voting method used will be postal voting. 2. Nominate the Manager Organisational Development of the Council as the Council’s representative to enter into negotiations with the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) to finalise the election service agreement. 3. That Council with regards to the Service Agreement authorise the Chief Executive Officer to: a) Finalise the election service agreement with the VEC for the provision of electoral services for the 2016 general election; and b) Sign and seal the service level agreement document. 4. Acknowledge that by authorising the Chief Executive Officer to enter into this contract, it is committing to the allocation of funds for the procurement of electoral services in the 2016/2017 Council budget.
SYNOPSIS
The report deals with a number of procedural matters that are required to be resolved prior to the 2016 Municipal Elections.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 11
Community and Corporate Support 2016 Municipal Election Preparation (cont'd)
BACKGROUND
All Victorian Councils will hold Municipal Elections on 22nd October 2016. There are a number of legislative requirements that are required to be resolved in order that preparation can begin for the conduct of the election process. The Council must decide whether to conduct postal or attendance voting (Section 41A). The Local Government Amendment (Improved Governance) Act 2015 (LG Amendment) was recently passed in the Victorian Parliament. The LG Amendment establishes the VEC as the statutory election service provider to Victorian local councils. The LG Amendment has made changes to several areas of the election program. The VEC has updated the service plan (attached) to reflect these new legislative arrangements. The VEC conducted all of the 78 Municipal Elections in 2012 (Brimbank did not hold an election). The Local Government (Electoral) Regulations 2005 are scheduled to be replaced prior to the 2016 Local Government elections. The election service plan (attached) was prepared based on the law as it stands and the VEC will adjust the program wherever necessary to accommodate any new regulations.
STRATEGIC LINK
Section 41A Election or poll by postal voting
(1) Subject to subsections (2A) and (2B), a Council may decide that all voting at an election or at a poll of voters is to be by means of postal voting. (2) If the Council makes such a decision, the returning officer must: (a) state in the public notice of the election or poll that all voting at the election or poll is to be by postal voting.
DISCUSSION
Postal or Attendance The Council must decide on the election methodology to be used (postal or attendance). In 2012, eight out of 78 council elections used attendance voting and these were all in metropolitan Melbourne. Moyne Shire Council has for at least the last two elections chosen postal voting.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 12
Community and Corporate Support 2016 Municipal Election Preparation (cont'd)
The voter turnout and informality rates for the past two elections has been as follows:
Year of Election Voter Turnout Informality 2008 82.62% 4.41% 2012 79.75% 2.55%
The return of ballot paper envelopes for 2012 can also be broken down into the categories of voters based on their entitlement as shown in the table below.
Entitlement Returned % State enrolled voters (enrolled through section 12 of the 83.1% Act) - aged 18 – 69 years old on election day 83.4% - Aged 70 years and over on election day 81.3% Council enrolled voters (enrolled through sections 13-16 of 69.0% the Act) Municipality total 80.7%
Note: The figures include all ballot paper envelopes marked as returned whether or not they proceeded to further scrutiny.
The Moyne Shire voter statistics are well above the average turnout rates for Victoria, the following table shows state-wide results for the 2012 Municipal Elections:
Election Option Voter Turnout Voter Turnout State Average Moyne Postal 72.53% 79.75%
At the local government elections in 2012, the rate for postal elections were:
Election Option Voter Turnout Informality Attendance 63.62% 9.33% Postal 72.53% 3.69%
The costs in relation to postal voting are lower than attendance voting. Based on the estimates prepared for each council for the 2016 elections, the average cost per voter is $7.15 (excluding GST) for attendance elections and $5.94 (excluding GST) for postal elections.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 13
Community and Corporate Support 2016 Municipal Election Preparation (cont'd)
Election Service Provider Recent changes to the Act remove the requirement for councils to tender for the election services. The LG Amendment establishes the VEC as the statutory election service provider to Victorian local councils. The total cost for the 2012 Municipal Election was approximately $115,000. The VEC has advised councils that since 2012 inflationary pressures have increased some of the VEC’s costs, one of the areas identified is Australia Post. Under the Act, Compulsory voting enforcement, including the prosecution of non- voters, is now a mandatory requirement, this will also impact on costs. Based on the above and to assist with budgeting, the VEC has prepared a cost estimate for the Moyne Shire Council General Election 2016. The estimated cost for the Moyne Shire Council General Election 2016 is $123,382 (excluding GST). This includes $112,465 for preparing the municipal voters’ roll and conducting the election and $10,917.04 (excluding GST) for compulsory voting enforcement.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The costs in relation to the 2016 Municipal Election will be included in the 2016- 2017 operational budget.
RISK
There is significant complexity in the undertaking of electoral processes, the recommendations provide for efficient and experienced service provision to ensure that the election process is conducted as per legislative requirements.
CONCLUSION
The recommendations are made to ensure that administration of the 2016 Municipal Elections are conducted efficiently and that the Council complies with the relevant legislation.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 14
COMMUNITY AND CORPORATE SUPPORT
4. Local Government Amendment (Improved Governance) Act 2015 Presented by David Madden Report author Susie Kewley Reforms Arising from the Local Government (Improved Attachment(s) Governance) Act 2015
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION That further reports be presented to Council as required.
SYNOPSIS
The Victorian Parliament has recently passed amendments to the Local Government Act 1989, with Royal Assent being given on 27 October 2015. The commencement of the amending legislation (Local Government Amendment (Improved Governance) Act 2015) is subject to proclamation to be published in the Government Gazette. This proclamation must be made prior to 1 September 2016.
BACKGROUND
A number of provisions have been proclaimed. These include banning Councillor Discretionary Funds; the requirement for Councils to have in place an Election Period Policy; and definitions of the Roles of Councillors and the Functions of Mayors and CEOs. It is anticipated that the remaining provisions will be proclaimed in March/April 2016. Without listing all of the amendments, the changes that may impact Council’s processes and policies are summarised below under ‘Discussion’.
STRATEGIC LINK
Council Plan 2013-2017 Key Result Area 1 – Governance: Objective: to achieve “best practice” in governance and administration in Moyne.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 15
Community and Corporate Support Local Government Amendment (Improved Governance) Act 2015 (cont'd)
DISCUSSION
Councillor and CEO responsibilities The amendments provide additional clarity in regard to the demarcation of duties, including specification that a Councillor’s duties do not include any function which is the responsibility of the CEO. The amendments include additional clarification of the CEO’s duties which include managing interactions between staff and Councillors. The amendments require Councillors to sign an Oath of Office, the wording of which is prescribed, as well as signing a Councillor Code of Conduct within three months of being elected.
Audit Committee The amendments require that the Chair of a Council Audit Committee must not be a Councillor or a member of Council staff and that the Chair must be suitably qualified. The Chair is also provided with the authority to refer any reports from the Audit Committee to the Council for Consideration.
Councillor Discretionary Funds The amendments prohibit the practice of providing Councillor or Ward discretionary funds.
Councillor Code of Conduct Review The amendments include a requirement for all Councillor Codes of Conduct to be reviewed within four months of the operation of the amendments and within four months of each Council election. The Councillor Code of Conduct will be required to contain an internal dispute/grievance resolution process. Once reviewed, the Councillor Code of Conduct will be adopted at a Special Council meeting which is to be scheduled specifically for this purpose.
Offences Councillors found guilty of either directing or seeking to direct Council employees or breaching confidentiality provisions, will be guilty of an offence. The prohibition in relation to breaches of confidentiality extend to persons who have previously been elected Councillors.
Internal Resolution Procedure (Councillor Misconduct) The amendments require that Councils must develop and maintain an internal resolution procedure to address alleged contraventions of the Councillor Code of Conduct by a Councillor.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 16
Community and Corporate Support Local Government Amendment (Improved Governance) Act 2015 (cont'd)
Caretaker Period The Council will be required to uphold the ‘caretaker’ requirements when the Parliament is considering a Bill to dismiss a Council. The Council will not be able to make ‘major’ decisions during this period.
Councillor Conduct Panel and new Definitions The Councillor Conduct Panels will now be able to consider matters relating to “Serious Misconduct” as well as to “Misconduct”, both of which now have been defined in section 3 of the Act. “Serious misconduct” includes bullying by a Councillor towards another Councillor or member of Council staff. “Bullying” has also been defined in terms consistent with the definition contained in the Fair Work Act. Matters relating to “Gross Misconduct” (which has now also been defined) will be continued to be dealt with by the Victorian Administrative Tribunal.
Principal Conduct Officer The current requirement for the CEO to appoint a Councillor Conduct Panel Registrar, is replaced by a similar requirement to appoint a Principal Conduct Officer. The Principal Conduct Officer must be a Senior Officer or another suitably qualified officer.
Councillor Code of Conduct must be published on Council Website The amendments require that the current Councillor Code of Conduct must be published on the Council website.
Ministerial Stand Down of Councillor In exceptional circumstances, the Minister will have the power to stand down a Councillor for up to six months.
Ministerial Appointment of Municipal Monitor The Minister may refer a complaint made to a suitably qualified municipal monitor for investigation. A municipal monitor is suitably qualified if the Minister considers that the monitor has relevant experience or expertise for the purposes of conducting the investigation. The municipal monitor to whom the complaint has been referred must conduct and complete an investigation into the complaint within 10 days or such other period agree to by the Minister at the monitor’s request.
Ministerial Orders The Minister will have the power to direct Councils to amend governance practices, policies and procedures, to improve the running of the organisation.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 17
Community and Corporate Support Local Government Amendment (Improved Governance) Act 2015 (cont'd)
Electoral Process A number of simplifications to the Electoral process have been included in the amending Act. The changes focus on processes in relation to preparation of Voters’ Rolls.
Election Period Policy The amendments require that a Council must publish an Election Period Policy prior to the 2016 Council Elections on procedures to be applied by the Council during the election period for a general election. For the 2016 general elections, the election policy must be adopted by the end of March 2016.
CONSULTATION
Full Management Team meeting Workplace Relations Advice – Meerkin & Apel
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Failure to comply with components of the legislation carries penalty units which translates to monetary value.
RISK
If the Council does not make changes in line with the amendments, it will be in breach of the Act.
CONCLUSION
The commencement of the amending legislation (Local Government Amendment (Improved Governance) Act 2015) is subject to proclamation to be published in the Government Gazette. A number of provisions have been proclaimed, it is anticipated that the remaining provisions will be proclaimed in March/April 2016. Councillors need to be aware of the amendments in order to carry out the functions of their role. Appropriate Managers will need to be aware of the amendments and adjust their annual plans accordingly to accommodate the changes to Councils processes and policies. Many of the changes will be in the first quarter of 2016 and will need Council adoption.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 18
COMMUNITY AND CORPORATE SUPPORT
5. Kindergarten Services Review 2015 Presented by Dean Robertson Report author Dean Robertson Attachment(s) Kindergarten Services Review 2015
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION 1. That Council receives the Kindergarten Services Review (2015) report. 2. That Council considers Option 3, Full Management, as the preferred option subject to awaiting the notification of the outcomes of the Department of Education and Training review of the Victorian Kindergarten Cluster Management Policy Framework program and subject to consultation with key stakeholders. 3. That Council note a pending increase of kindergarten per capita funding of approximately $70,000 in the 2016/17 budget due to an increase in 2016 kindergarten enrolments.
SYNOPSIS
This report presents an overview of the services and costs of Kindergarten centres operated by the Council and notes the positive financial impact of the 2016/17 budget due to an increase in 2016 kindergarten enrolments.
BACKGROUND
The State Government will be introducing rate capping starting with the 2016/17 financial year. The Minister has set the cap at 2.5% for the 2016/17 year. The Executive Management Team has identified a number of areas where savings and a review are worthwhile. This report submits the review of Kindergarten Services.
STRATEGIC LINK
Council Plan – Key Result Area 4.
4.3 Ensure that Council services and programs are responsive to the changing needs and expectations of the community.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 19
Community and Corporate Support Kindergarten Services Review 2015 (cont'd)
DISCUSSION
Council officers have completed a review of the provision of Kindergarten Services. The purpose of the review was to provide: An overview of the kindergarten service and the costs; A summary of the Semann & Slattery report on the review of the cluster management arrangements; Information resulting from consultation with stakeholders and relevant research; Options for Council’s consideration in responses to a way forward for kindergarten service delivery and management. Over the past three years, the early year’s sector has undergone significant change resulting in a number of challenges for Kindergarten Cluster organisations, including for example the introduction of fifteen (15) hours per week of kindergarten in 2013, the introduction of the National Quality Framework and changes to the learning and development curriculum for educators. In 2014, Council engaged Semann & Slattery to review the various existing kindergarten management agreements and to provide Council with a clear policy and future direction, a best practice service agreement and a relevant governance model to manage the kindergartens located in the Shire.
Services There are seven kindergartens within Moyne Shire and the Council operates six of the centres.
Kindergarten Building Owner Operator Hawkesdale Council Council Koroit Council Council Macarthur Council Council Merri Council Council Mortlake Council Parent Committee Nullawarre Education Department Council Port Fairy Council Council
Kindergarten enrolments across the six centres operated by Council average 173 enrolments per annum (last 6 years).
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 20
Community and Corporate Support Kindergarten Services Review 2015 (cont'd)
Fees and Funding The State Government makes a contribution per child attending the four-year-old program, with parent fees and Council funds meeting the balance of the costs. There is no subsidy for the three-year-old program. Three-year-old programs in Moyne are funded by the parent committee contributions. Kindergarten fees for all programs, except Port Fairy, are set by each parent committee and the fees are retained by the parent committees. This is not common practice for most kindergartens.
Parent Fees Parent fees Kindergarten per term 2015 full year 2015 Hawkesdale $180 $720 Koroit $195 $780 Macarthur $165 $660 Merri $170 $680 Nullawarre $200 $800 Port Fairy $206 $824 Average $186 $744 Fee Subsidy $329 $1,316
In 2016 kindergarten enrolments across the shire have increased to 170 enrolments. This is an increase of 25 enrolments on 2015. Council receives per capita funding based on the number of enrolments. The increase in enrolments will result in an increase of per capita funding from Government of approximately $70,000 in the 2016/17 budget.
Cluster Management The Department of Education and Early Childhood Development introduced Kindergarten Cluster Management (KCM) in 2003 to: Reduce the administrative and management burden on kindergarten committees of management; Strengthen the management and delivery of kindergarten programs, and; Provide kindergarten employees with professional employment arrangements. Moyne Shire is the Kindergarten Cluster Manager for the Hawkesdale, Koroit, Macarthur, Merri, Nullawarre and Port Fairy kindergartens.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 21
Community and Corporate Support Kindergarten Services Review 2015 (cont'd)
Victorian Kindergarten Cluster Management Policy Framework The framework defines the State Government approach to the management of kindergartens. Advice from the Department of Education and Training in early January 2016 is that the framework has been reviewed and is pending a Ministerial announcement. The advice is also that Council would be prudent to await the announcement before commencing any processes to change existing Kindergarten Cluster Management arrangements.
Resources Moyne Kindergarten Cluster Management is currently supported by 1.00 EFT resource. As identified earlier in the report the early year’s sector has undergone significant change resulting in a number of challenges for Kindergarten Cluster organisations in recent years which has added to the demands of KCM. The appointment of a Manager – Community Support in early 2016 will provide the required management support for the provision of kindergarten services and will better allow implementation of agreed changes to the kindergarten services
OPTIONS
Option 1 - Status Quo Continue with the current management model with some variations to current service agreements including Council reviewing and approving parent committee budgets, better scrutiny of parent committee financial accounts, clearly defined responsibilities for Council and the parent committee and preparation of a parent committee manual.
Option 2 - Reduce Costs to Council Options include: Ensuring that three-year-old programs are fully funded by parent committees; Introduction of an enrolment fee to cover the central enrolment process; Introduce a management fee to supplement the service support costs; Rely on enrolments being maintained at a higher level than 2015 enrolments (145 enrolments); Rationalise programs when enrolments are low.
Option 3 - Full Management Adopt the Semann & Slattery model in that Council becomes fully responsible for all aspects of service delivery including setting, collecting and retaining fees.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 22
Community and Corporate Support Kindergarten Services Review 2015 (cont'd)
Option 4 - Opt Out That Council opts out of the service delivery role and recruit an alternative Cluster Manager. Potential savings to Council would be the shortfall in direct costs however indirect costs would continue to be incurred by Council (corporate over heads, building maintenance and depreciation on assets). Parent fees would most likely need to increase as an independent cluster manager would not subsidise the service.
CONSULTATION
In preparing this service review the following have been consulted: Department of Education & Early Childhood Development; Parent Committee representatives on 25 June 2015; Educators on 25 June 2015; Early Years Managers of neighbouring Shires.
Following consideration of this service review, and awaiting notification of the outcomes of the review of the Victorian Kindergarten Cluster Management Policy Framework, it is recommended that further engagement with key stakeholders in regard to the options proposed be undertaken.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Most of the direct costs associated with kindergartens are related to staff and as staffing requirements are regulated there is little opportunity to reduce these direct costs. Fees currently vary between kindergartens and there is opportunity to implement a change to fee setting and collection.
RISK
Risk would need to be identified once the level of service change is determined.
CONCLUSION
This report identifies options available to Council in terms of management of kindergarten service and recommends Full Management as the preferred option, subject to consideration the pending Ministerial announcement in relation to the review of the Victorian Kindergarten Cluster Management Policy Framework along with further engagement with key stakeholders.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 23
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 24
COMMUNITY AND CORPORATE SUPPORT
6. Festivals and Events Funding 2015/2016 (Round 4) Presented by Dean Robertson Report author Dean Robertson Attachment(s) 1. Round 4 Festival and Events Funding Allocations spreadsheet 2015/2016 2. Mortlake Branch RSL submission
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
That the 2015/2016 Round 4 Festival and Events Funding be allocated pursuant to the attached Festival and Events Funding allocation spreadsheet.
SYNOPSIS
This report lists the requests for Festival and Event Funding and the proposed allocation made against each request for Round 4 of the 2015/2016 financial year.
BACKGROUND
This request is a special request received post the advertisements for Round 2 for Festival and Event Funding. One (1) request totalling $500 is being submitted for Council’s consideration. The total budget amount for festival and event funding in the 2015/2016 financial year was $130,000. Council has allocated $125,550 to Festivals and Events across the Shire so far in this current financial year. Total funds remaining available for allocation by Council is $4,450. Total funds recommended to be allocated in Round 4 amount to $400. If approved this would leave a contingency of $4,050.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 25
Community and Corporate Support Festival and Events Funding 2015/2016 (Round 4) (cont'd)
STRATEGIC LINK
Key Result Area 4. 4.8 Support community events and festivals throughout the Shire.
DISCUSSION
The process of applications has been opened up to the whole Shire. New initiatives for festivals and events across the Shire have been identified via this expanded process. Council has determined the criteria by which applications are to be assessed. A process for equitable distribution of Festival and Event funding across the Shire is in place.
CONSULTATION
Applicants have discussed their requests with Council Officers. In some cases, more details were requested to support the applicant’s request.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
An amount of $130,000 for Festival and Event funding has been approved in the 2015/2016 Council budget. To date Council has allocated $125,550. Remaining funds available for allocation to Festivals and Events in the 2015/2016 financial year is $4,450. One request totalling $500 has been received as Round 4. Total funds recommended to be allocated in Round 4 amount to $400. This would leave a contingency of $4,050 available for Festival and Event funding for the remainder of the 2015/2016 financial year.
RISK
There is no identifiable risk to Council.
CONCLUSION
This report sets out the process undertaken to equitably distribute the 2015/2016 Festival and Event funds across the Moyne Shire. Council is requested to approve the request as detailed on the attached list of Festivals and Event allocations so that organisers of the event can be notified.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 26
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
7. Review of Council’s Waste Services Presented by Oliver Moles Report author Sam Rudolph Attachment(s) 1. Waste Facilities maps indicating: a) Current facilities b) Closure of four facilities including Woolsthorpe c) Closure of four facilities including Hawkesdale 2. Photos of Council’s Waste Facilities
OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION That Council: a) Close the Bessiebelle Waste Facility. b) Reduce the operating hours of the Caramut Waste Facility on Sunday from 12:30pm – 4:30pm to 12:30pm – 3:30pm. c) Close the Hawkesdale Waste Facility. d) Increase the operating hours of the Killarney Waste Facility on Saturday and Sunday from 9:00am – 12:00pm and 12:00pm – 3:00pm respectively to 10:00 – 4:00pm. e) Reduce the operating hours of the Macarthur Waste Facility on Monday from 7:30am – 4:30pm to 12:30pm – 3:30 pm and Saturday from 10:30am – 4:30pm to 12:30pm – 3:30pm f) Reduce the operating hours of the Mortlake Waste Facility on Tuesday, Friday and Sunday from 10:30am – 4:30pm to 12:30pm – 3:30pm g) Close the Port Fairy Waste Facility h) Reduce the operating hours of the Woolsthorpe Waste Facility on Monday and Sunday from 12:30pm – 4:30 pm to 12:30pm – 3:30pm. i) Close the Woorndoo Waste Facility. - As detailed in tables 5 and 7. j) Give notice that as of 1 July 2016: (i) Bessiebelle, Hawkesdale, Port Fairy and Woorndoo transfer stations will be closed and; (ii) Changes to opening hours at other sites will commence as detailed above.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 27
Sustainable Development Review of Council’s Waste Facilities (cont’d)
SYNOPSIS
This report: Is provided in order for Council to consider changes to the operation of Moyne Shire Council transfer stations and forms part of the rate capping service review. Evaluates each of the ten Waste Facilities across the Shire. Reviews the costs, income, and patronage of each waste facility. Explores the potential financial savings that may be achieved by altering transfer station operating arrangements and discusses the impact changes may have on service delivery. Provides alternative waste facility arrangements.
BACKGROUND
A review of the hours of operation at all Council Waste Facilities was last conducted in 2001. With rate capping imminent it is timely to review Council’s transfer station services. Council now provides an extended kerbside waste collection service to 5,202 properties across the municipality. This accounts for approximately 67% of all developed properties across the Shire. Currently there are ten Waste Facilities across Moyne Shire, located at Bessiebelle, Caramut, Hawkesdale, Killarney, Macarthur, Mortlake, Peterborough, Port Fairy, Woolsthorpe and Woorndoo. (refer to Table 3) Moyne Shire Council’s Waste Facilities serviced 16,364 customers in the 2014-15 financial year, with a total site average of 2.6 visits per hour with five sites averaging 2.00 or less. These averages are below the South West Regional average of 3.00.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 28
Sustainable Development Review of Council’s Waste Facilities (cont’d)
Table 1: Comparing Various Councils’ Waste Facilities POPULATION # RATEABLE AREA # WASTE MUNICIPALITY: REASON: (2011): PROPERTIES: (km2): FACILITIES: Moyne Our Shire 15955 11862 5478 10 Glenelg Neighbour 19575 13867 6212 6 Southern Grampians Neighbour 16359 10853 6655 7 Corangamite Neighbour 16376 9530 4400 6 Colac Otway Close proximity 20345 14986 3433 7 Golden Plains Close proximity 18770 10616 2705 1 Pyrenees Close proximity 6669 5835 3433 6 Mount Alexander Similar population 17591 11181 1529 2 Indigo Similar population 15178 8288 2044 2 Northern Grampians Similar area 11845 9243 5918 3 Alpine shire Similar area 11881 8216 5005 3
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 29
Sustainable Development Review of Council’s Waste Facilities (cont’d)
Table 2: Moyne Shire Waste Facilities Data
Waste Facility Budget % of costs recovered Income Scrap Metal Net income 2014/15 Net cost 2014/15 Net variance 2013/14 2014/15 2014/15 Bessiebelle $3,057 $17,643 $14,586 8% 17% - Caramut $9,641 $34,742 $25,101 14% 28% $201.60 Hawkesdale $8,874 $43,083 $34,209 21% 21% $1,287.60 Killarney $144,649 $136,815 -$7,834 81% 106% $5,328.00 Macarthur $7,386 $54,471 $47,085 15% 14% $1,806.00 Mortlake $34,169 $114,731 $80,562 27% 30% $727.20 Peterborough $22,388 $65,475 $43,087 39% 34% $1,159.20 Port Fairy $39,159 $124,854 $85,695 32% 31% - Woolsthorpe $12,760 $42,462 $29,702 26% 30% $444.00 Woorndoo $5,188 $12,342 $7,154 30% 42% - Waste facility 2014-15 Financial Year Waste (tonnes) Recycling (tonnes) Visitors Hours open visits/hr Cost/visit Bessiebelle 9.25 5.87 399 156 2.6 $36.56 Caramut 62.85 31.49 964 314 3.1 $26.04 Hawkesdale 46.6 26.93 877 702 1.2 $39.01 Killarney 11.46 N/A 4988 1882 2.7 -$1.57 Macarthur 51 35.37 825 771 1.1 $57.07 Mortlake 246.11 61.53 1870 936 2.0 $43.08 Peterborough 157.32 88.43 2710 432 6.3 $15.90 Port Fairy* 326.37 79.63 2019 1040 1.9 $42.44 Woolsthorpe 92.77 54.89 1294 410 3.2 $22.95 Woorndoo N/A 16.34 418 208 2.0 $17.11 * Expected to drop with redirection to Killarney since opening of new facility – street bins and private caravan parks.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 30
Sustainable Development Review of Council’s Waste Facilities (cont’d)
Table 3: Moyne Shire Council’s Waste Facilities Opening Hours - Current Total hours Waste facility Current Operating Hours open Bessiebelle Sun 8:30am - 11:30am 3 Caramut Wed 2:30pm - 4:30pm 6 Sun 12:30pm - 4:30pm Hawkesdale Tue 8:30am - 2:00pm 13.5 Sat 8:30am - 4:30pm Killarney Mon to Fri 10:00am - 4:00pm Sat 9:00am - 12:00pm 36 Sun 12:00pm - 3:00pm Macarthur Mon 7:30am - 4:30pm 15 Sat 10:30am - 4:30pm Mortlake Tue, Fri and Sun 10:30 - 4:30pm 18 Peterborough Wed and Sun 10:00am - 2:00pm 8 Port Fairy Tue and Fri 12:30pm - 4:30pm 20 Sat and Sun 10:30am - 4:30pm Woolsthorpe Sun and Mon 12:30pm - 4:30pm 8 Woorndoo Sun 12:30pm - 4:30pm 4
Total 131.5
STRATEGIC LINK
Strategy 2 in Council’s Waste Facilities Management Strategy 2011-2016 states: “In considering current liabilities and future improvements to delivering waste disposal services to the community, Council may consider replacing existing facilities with alternative, more efficient waste disposal options. In so doing Council will need to balance both the needs of the community (distance to travel, cost of disposal, opening hours, etc) with the needs of Council to manage all sites in Moyne Shire (i.e. overall operational costs, legislative compliance, as well as costs of upgrades and rehabilitation of closed sites). Such improvements may result in site closures or waste disposal facilities being available in different locations”. “In addition, Action 2.1 specifically states “Consult with the Moyne Shire community to determine waste disposal needs and desired levels of service”.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 31
Sustainable Development Review of Council’s Waste Facilities (cont’d)
Section 5 of Council’s Waste Facilities Management Strategy Options Paper 2011 identifies that: “the method of operation and accessible hours need to be regularly reviewed, particularly as new information is available…and the number of transfer stations and level of services to be provided has been determined”. Key Result Area 3, Sustainable Development, Strategy 3.3 Improve Waste Management Practices.
DISCUSSION Why review the Moyne Shire waste transfer station services? It is incumbent upon Council to actively ensure services are provided to the community in a cost effective manner. This is particularly relevant with the impending introduction of rate capping by the State Government. Consequently, Council needs to make a decision on the service levels provided to the community for waste services. Comparisons detailed below indicate Moyne Shire provides a considerably higher level of service through the provision of waste transfer stations when compared to other municipalities. How does Moyne Shire compare to other municipalities? According to the Barwon South West Waste Resource and Recovery Group (BSWWRRG) the benchmark for the number of visits per hour at Waste Facilities is 3.00 customers, which is a conservative figure. This would mean that a Waste Facility would only be servicing one customer every 20 minutes. The recommended changes to the operating hours (refer to Table 9) will increase the average number of customers per hour and bring the average closer to or even greater than the regional average of 3.00. The Waste Facilities Comparison Table indicates that Moyne Shire is over serviced with ten Waste Facilities. The next closest number being seven at Southern Grampians and Colac Otway. Due to increasing landfill disposal costs, Councils throughout Victoria are consolidating their waste services. It is interesting to note that in Table 1 the Councils with a similar population and area to Moyne Shire Council only have two to three Waste Facilities respectively. Moyne Shire’s Waste Facilities are poorly patronised and exceed service levels provided by other municipalities shown in Table 1. The proposed changes seek to provide consistency among Waste Facilities, reduce the significant levels of staff downtime and still provide adequate waste disposal services to the Moyne Shire community.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 32
Sustainable Development Review of Council’s Waste Facilities (cont’d)
What alternatives are available to residents? The kerbside bin collection route has increased greatly over the five year contract period with a 30% increase in ratepayer collections. The main growth areas are those on route to the original township collections, which are: Crossley, Kirkstall, Toolong, Tower Hill, Yambuk, Mailors Flat, Southern Cross, Winslow, Cudgee, Ellerslie, Grassmere, Mepunga, Panmure, Purnim, Wangoom, Framlingham, Garvoc and Laang. The townships that are currently serviced with both the kerbside bin collection and a waste facility are: Hawkesdale, Killarney, Macarthur, Mortlake, Port Fairy and Woolsthorpe In preparing this report, the proximity of Moyne Shire residents to waste services in neighbouring councils has been taken into consideration. As Warrnambool provides a variety of services to the wider community, it can be predicted that a large percentage of Moyne Shire residents access these services on a regular basis, providing the opportunity to utilise one of Warrnambool’s three Waste Facilities. There are also facilities in Glenelg Shire, Southern Grampians Shire, Rural City of Ararat and Corangamite Shire available for Moyne residents to utilise (see Table 4). Table 4: Neighbouring Council Waste Facilities Operating Hours
Heywood Sun, Tues, Thurs and Fri: 10.00am - 5.00pm
Branxholme Tues, Sun: 8.00am - 12.00 noon
Penshurst Thurs, Sun: 1.00pm - 5.00pm
Hamilton Mon – Fri: 8.00 to 4.15pm
Sat – Sun: 9.30 to 4.15pm
Lake Bolac Sun: 1pm - 5pm
Wed: 1pm - 5pm
Derrinallum Fri & Sun: 1pm - 5pm
Naroghid Landfill Mon - Fri: 7am - 4pm Sat: 10am - 4pm Sun: 10am - 3pm
Timboon Wed and Fri: 1pm - 3.30pm Sun: 2pm - 5pm
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 33
Sustainable Development Review of Council’s Waste Facilities (cont’d)
What is considered a satisfactory level of service? Currently the maximum distance a Moyne Shire resident has to travel in order to visit a waste facility is 25km. This distance on average would take a vehicle approximately 15-20 minutes travelling each way to the facility. When comparing the above travel distance with a shire of similar area and/or population, the results are as follows: Northern Grampians Shire (3 Waste Facilities) – Total area 5918 km2 – maximum distance travel = 45-50km Golden Plains Shire (1 waste facility) – Total population 18770 – maximum distance travel = 50-55km Moyne Shire Council (10 Waste Facilities) – Total area 5478km2 and Total population 15955– maximum distance travel = 25km With proposed closures and changes to operating hours highlighted in the discussion for each waste facility and in Table 9, the maximum distance a Moyne Shire resident would have to travel in order to visit a waste facility is less than 35km. Comparing this with the two examples highlighted above, a maximum of 35km is considered a satisfactory level of service. Based purely on the figures shown in table 2, it could be assumed that Macarthur would be an obvious site to close. However, due to its location, if Macarthur were to close, the maximum distance residents travelling to their nearest waste facility in the north western area of the shire would increase beyond the recommended satisfactory level of service.
Why do some sites cost more to run? The main reasons why some Waste Facilities have a higher running cost than others are: Greater range of materials accepted, which have transport/recovery costs associated. Increased cartage costs, due to distance from transporting contractor Low patronage or low customers per operating hour High volumes of waste – Council subsidising the ever increasing skip hire and disposal costs (landfill costs $152/tonne) Long operating hours and low patronage equates to high costs associated with staff wages. As Council rates are being capped from mid-2016, it is appropriate for Council to review waste service levels and expenditure. Each of the ten Moyne Shire Waste Facilities have been assessed against parameters and rationale for management recommendations provided.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 34
Sustainable Development Review of Council’s Waste Facilities (cont’d)
What are the parameters when evaluating sites?
Net cost of operation – how much the site is costing Council after the income has been subtracted. % cost recovery – the percentage of costs that are recovered by the income of the site. Total number of customers Number of customers per operating hour. Geographic locations – (refer to waste facility maps attached): The maps attached provide a visual representation of the closest waste facility for Moyne Shire residents. These maps are calculated from the resident’s property to the waste facility via the closest road route. Availability of alternative sites – This parameter is of greater importance as it is critical in maintaining a satisfactory level of service. An example of this is shown when comparing the Macarthur site to the Woolsthorpe site (see Table E Page 14).
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 35
Sustainable Development Review of Council’s Waste Facilities (cont’d)
BESSIEBELLE WASTE FACILITY: TABLE A
Proposed Change Closed Services General Waste and Recycling Kerbside Collection No Hours Currently Open 3 Total no. of Closest Rateable Dwellings 547 Total no. of 2014/15 Customer Visits * 399 Total no. of Unique Users ** (March-Nov 2015) 67 Average no. of Customers per Opening Hour 2.6 Total Cost Recovery in 2014/15 17% Closest Alternative Waste Facilities Macarthur <25km (From Bessiebelle WF) Killarney <45km Heywood <35km Estimated $ Savings per Year if Proposal is Adopted $15,284
* Customer Visits = Reflects the fact a Unique User may use site multiple times. ** Unique User = Individual Customer Rationale: The Bessiebelle Waste Facility is the Shire’s smallest facility, operating for three hours each week and accepts only limited volumes of recycling and general waste. Between March and November 2015, 67 different residents used the facility with a total number of 155 visits in the same period. This number is by far the lowest of all ten Waste Facilities. This number costs Council just over $36 per person, per visit, with a total of $17,643/year. Bessiebelle is the second lowest site for cost recovery receiving a gross income of only $3,057 at 17% of total operating costs.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 36
Sustainable Development Review of Council’s Waste Facilities (cont’d)
CARAMUT WASTE FACILITY: TABLE B
Proposed Change Hours Reduced Services General Waste, Recycling, Scrap Metal, E-waste, Green waste, Car Batteries, Fridges and Freezers, Gas Bottles, Mattresses, Engine Oil and Tyres Kerbside Collection No Hours Currently Open 6 Proposed Hours Open 5 Total no. of Closest Rateable Dwellings 321 Total no. of 2014/15 Customer Visits 964 Total no. of Unique Users (March-Nov 2015) 151 Average no. of Customers per Opening Hour 3.1 Total Cost Recovery in 2014/15 28% Estimated $ Savings per Year if Proposal is Adopted $2,056
Rationale: Despite being geographically close to Mortlake, Council does not currently provide a kerbside waste collection service to Caramut so it is important to provide a local waste facility service. However, patronage numbers on Sundays suggest the hours can be reduced from by 1 hour to close at 3.30 pm, because less than one customer on average is disposing waste after 4pm.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 37
Sustainable Development Review of Council’s Waste Facilities (cont’d)
HAWKESDALE WASTE FACILITY: TABLE C Proposed Change Closed Services General Waste, Recycling, Scrap Metal, E- Waste, Green waste, Car Batteries, DrumMuster, Fridges and Freezers, Gas Bottles, Mattresses, Engine oil, Silage wrap and Tyres Kerbside Collection Yes Hours Currently Open 13.5 Proposed Hours Open 6 (if closure is not adopted) Total no. of Closest Rateable Dwellings 455 Total no. of 2014/15 Customer Visits 877 Total no. of Unique Users (March-Nov 2015) 217 Average no. of Customers per Opening Hour 1.2 Total Cost Recovery in 2014/15 21% Closest Alternative Waste Facilities (From Killarney 25km Hawkesdale WF) Penshurst <30km Macarthur <35km Estimated $ Savings per Year if Proposal of $36,490 Closure is Adopted Estimated $ Savings per Year if Proposal of $12,557 Reduced hours is Adopted
Rationale: The introduction of a kerbside waste collection service in and around the Hawkesdale area in 2010 has seen a marked drop in tonnages at the waste facility. Hawkesdale receives only 1.2 customers/hour on average, which is the second lowest site. No other waste facility is open for 8 hours on a weekend. Hawkesdale on a Tuesday has the lowest patronage with only 0.8 customers/hour significantly below the regional average of 3.00. Site closure should be considered as the Hawkesdale waste facility is in close proximity to a number of other waste facilities, as well as having the kerbside waste collection. Closure would save Council approximately $33,502/annum.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 38
Sustainable Development Review of Council’s Waste Facilities (cont’d)
KILLARNEY WASTE FACILITY: TABLE D Proposed Change Increase Operating Hours Services Inert Waste, Scrap metal, E-waste, Green waste, Car Batteries, DrumMuster, Fridges and Freezers, Gas bottles, Mattresses, Engine Oil, Silage wrap and Tyres Kerbside Collection Yes Hours Currently Open 36 Proposed Hours Open 42 Total no. of Closest Rateable Dwellings 1980 Total no. of 2014/15 Customer Visits 4988 Total no. of Unique Users (March-Nov 2015) 935 Average no. of Customers per Opening Hour 2.7 Total Cost Recovery in 2014/15 106% Estimated $ Savings per Year if Proposal is -$11,246 Adopted
Rationale: Council has spent a considerable amount of funds upgrading the Killarney waste facility to incorporate a transfer station. This site is by far the most patronised facility in the shire. With a growing population in surrounding areas of Port Fairy and Koroit, the recent upgrade of the facility will likely increase its patronage. There is also confusion in the current weekend operating hours being different on Saturday to Sunday. Therefore, it is recommended that the hours be increased and consistent 10:00am – 4:00pm every day of the week. This facility will provide a reliable every day waste disposal option for residents affected by closure of their closest site; in particular, Hawkesdale, Port Fairy and Woolsthorpe.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 39
Sustainable Development Review of Council’s Waste Facilities (cont’d)
MACARTHUR WASTE FACILITY: TABLE E Proposed Change Hours Reduced Services General Waste, Recycling, Scrap Metal, E-waste, Green waste, Batteries, DrumMuster, Fridges and Freezers, Gas bottles, Mattresses, Engine oil, Silage wrap and Tyres Kerbside Collection Yes Hours Currently Open 15 Proposed Hours Open 6 Total no. of Closest Rateable Dwellings 620 Total no. of 2014/15 Customer Visits 825 Total no. of Unique Users (March-Nov 2015) 152 Average no. of Customers per Opening Hour 1.1 Total Cost Recovery in 2014/15 14% Closest Alternative Waste Facilities (From Macarthur Branxholme 30km WF) Killarney 50km Hamilton 35km Heywood <45km Estimated $ Savings per Year if Proposal of $15,426 Reduced hours is Adopted
Rationale: The current hours of operation on Mondays at Macarthur are a historic legacy from when the site needed to be open early for contractor accessibility in order to accept kerbside waste at this site. The average customers per opening hour at this site are the lowest of all ten Waste Facilities at 1.1 and this is reflected with low gate takings (only 14% costs recovered) – there are days (particularly Mondays) where income for an entire day is well below $10 and regularly months where the figure is <$80. The proposed opening hours would provide consistent times, streamline the hours to concentrate customers, making the site busier, raising the average customers per hour and also saving Council up to $15,648. While the data suggests Macarthur should be considered for closure, the potential loss of Bessiebelle and Hawkesdale mean Macarthur would be the only facility servicing the North West area of the shire. Consequently, it is recommended Macarthur remain operational and be reassessed in twelve months’ time.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 40
Sustainable Development Review of Council’s Waste Facilities (cont’d)
MORTLAKE WASTE FACILITY: TABLE F Proposed Change Hours Reduced Services General Waste, Recycling, Scrap Metal, E- waste, Green waste, DrumMuster, Car Batteries, Fridges and Freezers, Gas Bottles, Mattresses, Engine Oil, Silage wrap and Tyres Kerbside Collection Yes Hours Currently Open 18 Proposed Hours Open 9 Total no. of Closest Rateable Dwellings 1657 Total no. of 2014/15 Customer Visits 1870 Total no. of Unique Users (March-Nov 2015) 284 Average no. of Customers per Opening Hour 2.0 Total Cost Recovery in 2014/15 30% Estimated $ Savings per Year if Proposal is Adopted $18,071
Rationale: The current hours of operation at Mortlake are a historic legacy from when the site needed to be open longer for the contractor at the time to accept kerbside waste. This has not occurred for over seven years and there is no other reason to open for this long. The patronage at the site averages 2.0 customers/hour and is well under the regional average of 3.0. The proposed opening hours would be 12:30pm-3:30pm for all three days in order to maintain consistency with other sites as well as concentrate customers, making the site busier and raising the average customers per hour (see Table 9).
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 41
Sustainable Development Review of Council’s Waste Facilities (cont’d)
PETERBOROUGH WASTE FACILITY: TABLE G Proposed Change No Change Services General Waste, Recycling, Scrap Metal, E-waste, Green waste, DrumMuster, Car Batteries, Fridges and Freezers, Gas Bottles, Mattresses, Engine Oil, Silage wrap and Tyres Kerbside Collection No Hours Currently Open 8 Total no. of Closest Rateable Dwellings 809 Total no. of 2014/15 Customer Visits 2710 Total no. of Unique Users (March-Nov 2015) 204 Average no. of Customers per Opening Hour 6.3 Total Cost Recovery in 2014/15 34%
Rationale: The Peterborough Waste Facility has the highest average customers per hour at 6.3. This indicates there is a customer visiting more than every ten minutes per opening hour. However, the cost recovery is 34-39% for the past two years. This may be due to the fact that the majority of customers visiting the site are only taking household garbage as there is no kerbside collection in Peterborough. Notwithstanding this information, the percentage cost recovery is the second highest over the past two years. Local residents require the current operating hours as there is no kerbside collection and therefore no change to the opening hours is necessary. This would be reassessed if a kerbside collection were to be introduced.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 42
Sustainable Development Review of Council’s Waste Facilities (cont’d)
PORT FAIRY WASTE FACILITY: TABLE H Proposed Change Closed Services General Waste, Recycling, E- waste, Car batteries, Fridges and Freezers, Gas bottles, Mattresses, Engine oil and Tyres Kerbside Collection Yes Hours Currently Open 20 Total no. of Closest Rateable Dwellings 2857 Total no. of 2014/15 Customer Visits 2019 Total no. of Unique Users (March-Nov 2015) 305 Average no. of Customers per Opening Hour 1.9 Total Cost Recovery in 2014/15 31% Closest Alternative Waste Facilities Killarney <15km (From Port Fairy WF) Estimated $ Savings per Year if Proposal is Adopted $76,438
Rationale: Currently Port Fairy receives a third of its waste from the transport of Moyne Shire Council’s public place bin compactor truck. Belfast and Big 4 caravan parks also deposit large volumes of waste at Port Fairy. Killarney transfer station will accept this material soon. This change will dramatically decrease the volumes deposited at Port Fairy. It also has water holding issues, when in winter months’ water pools around the skips making it difficult for the contractor to change over the skips as well as water quality issues. The newly upgraded Killarney waste facility has the ability to accept general waste as well as recycling, allowing greater variety of waste categories to be accepted compared to the limited variety accepted at the Port Fairy site. Port Fairy does not accept scrap metal, green waste, inert waste, chemical drums or silage wrap, which causes frustration and confusion for customers when disposing of these waste categories, who are then directed to Killarney Waste Facility. Further to this, the Killarney waste facility is less than 15km from the Port Fairy facility. It is therefore recommended the Port Fairy waste facility be closed.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 43
Sustainable Development Review of Council’s Waste Facilities (cont’d)
WOOLSTHORPE WASTE FACILITY: TABLE I Proposed Change Reduced hours Services General Waste, Recycling, E-waste, Car batteries, Fridges and Freezers, Gas bottles, Mattresses, and Tyres Kerbside Collection Yes Hours Currently Open 8 Proposed Hours Open 6 Total no. of Closest Rateable Dwellings 1750 Total no. of 2014/15 Customer Visits 1294 Total no. of Unique Users (March-Nov 2015) 239 Average no. of Customers per Opening Hour 3.2 Total Cost Recovery in 2014/15 30% Closest Alternative Waste Facilities Caramut 30km (From Woolsthorpe WF) Killarney <25km Warrnambool 25km Estimated $ Savings per Year if Proposal of Hours $3,371 Reduced is Adopted Estimated $ Savings per Year if Proposal of Closure is $24,566 Adopted
Rationale: The Woolsthorpe Waste Facility is in close proximity to increasing residential developments in Mailors Flat, Grassmere, Yarpturk and Winslow. This is evident with the growing total number of closest rateable dwellings to the facility at 1750, third highest amongst the Waste Facilities. The facility also averages 3.2 customers per opening hour, which is above the regional average of 3.0. There are safety issues requiring the ramp to be upgraded and the surrounding fence to be replaced, however as discussed above, the increase in surrounding population justifies an investment in the facility. The cost to upgrade the facility would come out of the budgeted 30k for site maintenance/re-seal and no extra funds would need to be budgeted. Closure of other sites would also present the opportunity to transfer waste collection containers to the Woolsthorpe waste facility, increasing the capacity to accept more waste categories.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 44
Sustainable Development Review of Council’s Waste Facilities (cont’d)
WOORNDOO WASTE FACILITY: TABLE J Proposed Change Closed Services General Waste, Recycling, Scrap metal, E-waste, Car batteries, Fridges and Freezers, Gas bottles, Mattresses and Tyres Kerbside Collection No Hours Currently Open 4 Total no. of Closest Rateable Dwellings 288 Total no. of 2014/15 Customer Visits 418 Total no. of Unique Users (March-Nov 2015) 90 Average no. of Customers per Opening Hour 2.0 Total Cost Recovery in 2014/15 42% Closest Alternative Waste Facilities Mortlake <25km (From Woorndoo WF) Lake Bolac <25km Estimated $ Savings per Year if Proposal is Adopted $12,342
Rationale: Similar to Bessiebelle, Woorndoo is one of the Shire’s smallest facilities accepting only a limited variety and volume of waste categories. Currently the site services around 90 different residents, which is the second lowest number of all waste sites. The site has an average customers per operating hour of 2.0, which is well below the regional average of 3.0 customers per operating hour. Further to this, the site is only open one day per week for four hours, so a reduction in the hours would make the site not viable, as the cost of site maintenance and skip hire remain the same. The majority of residents in and around Woorndoo travel to Mortlake, Lake Bolac or Derrinallum on a weekly basis, therefore the need to provide a waste facility within Woorndoo is not justified.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 45
Sustainable Development Review of Council’s Waste Facilities (cont’d)
COMPARISON BETWEEN THE CLOSURE OF HAWKESDALE AND WOOLSTHORPE WASTE FACILITIES
Based on the information presented in this report, it is clear that closure of the Bessiebelle, Port Fairy and Woorndoo waste facilities are reasonable. The closure of a fourth site would also be appropriate, leaving six waste facilities to provide an adequate service level to the Moyne Shire. According to their location, costs and patronage, the closure of either Hawkesdale or Woolsthorpe is justified. Hawkesdale is the larger site of the two, accepting a wider range of waste categories, however with the growing population north of Warrnambool and the absence of a Waste Facility in the central eastern area of the Moyne Shire, there is a case for retaining and upgrading the Woolsthorpe waste facility. Woolsthorpe received 417 more customers in the 2014/15 financial year than Hawkesdale. If Council were to close the Hawkesdale waste facility, residents in the surrounding area would have a number of options to dispose of their waste at Killarney, Macarthur, Woolsthorpe or Penshurst. Further comparing the two, Hawkesdale serves an average of 1.2 customers per hour with only a 21% cost recovery compared with the average of 3.2 customers per hour and 30% of cost recovery at Woolsthorpe. The Woolsthorpe waste facility received $3,886.00 more income, costing council $4,507 less than Hawkesdale in the 2014/15 financial year. Council would save $2,737 more if the Hawkesdale waste facility was to close as opposed to closing the Woolsthorpe waste facility.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 46
Sustainable Development Review of Council’s Waste Facilities (cont’d)
Hawkesdale Woolsthorpe Income 2014/15 $8,874 $12,760 Income Scrap Metal $1,287.60 $444.00 Services General Waste, Recycling, General Waste, Recycling, Scrap Metal, E-Waste, E-waste, Car batteries, Green waste, Car Batteries, Fridges and Freezers, Gas DrumMuster, Fridges and bottles, Mattresses, and Freezers, Gas Bottles, Tyres Mattresses, Engine oil, Silage wrap and Tyres Kerbside Collection Yes Yes Hours Currently Open 13.5 8 Proposed Hours Open 6 6 Total no. of Closest Rateable 455 1750 Dwellings Total no. of 2014/15 Customer 877 1294 Visits Total no. of Unique Users (March- 217 239 Nov 2015) Average no. of Customers per 1.2 3.2 Opening Hour Total Cost Recovery in 2014/15 21% 30% Closest Alternative Waste Killarney 25km Caramut 30km Facilities (From Hawkesdale WF) Penshurst <30km Killarney <25km Macarthur <35km Warrnambool 25km Estimated $ Savings per Year if $36,490 $24,566 Proposal of Closure is Adopted Estimated $ Savings per Year if $12,557 $3,371 Proposal of Reduced hours is Adopted Estimated $ Savings per Year if $37,123 Proposal of Reduced hours to Hawkesdale and Closure to Woolsthorpe Waste Facility is Adopted Estimated $ Savings per Year if $39,861 Proposal of Reduced hours to Woolsthorpe and Closure to Hawkesdale Waste Facility is Adopted Difference in Estimated $ Savings $2,737 more if Hawkesdale is $2,737 less if Woolsthorpe per year closed is closed
Comparison of Hawkesdale and Woolsthorpe waste facilities
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 47
Sustainable Development Review of Council’s Waste Facilities (cont’d)
CONSULTATION
Due to the nature of the recommendations made in reducing services to the community, there has been limited consultation, which has been confined to discussions between Council officers.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Closure of facilities and reduction in operating hours would provide a significant cost saving to Council and an increase in customers per hour at the facilities. (Figures based on 2014/15 financial year). Option 1 a) Four facility closures = $140,554 (Bessiebelle, Hawkesdale, Port Fairy and Woorndoo) b) Hours changed = $27,677 (Caramut, Killarney, Macarthur, Mortlake and Woolsthorpe) Option 2 a) Four facility closures = $128,630 (Bessiebelle, Port Fairy, Woolsthorpe and Woorndoo) b) Hours changed = $36,863 (Caramut, Hawkesdale, Killarney, Macarthur and Mortlake) All savings do not include disposal costs as most of these costs are expected to be passed on to the remaining waste sites within the municipality. Reduction in services may result in some redundancies. Costs associated with upgrading the Woolsthorpe facility can be met using the capital works budget typically allocated to upgrade Council’s waste facilities each year. In 2015/16 $45,000 was allocated to seal the Mortlake ramp and replace the site hut at Caramut.
Table 5: Option 1 - Closure of Four Waste Facilities (including Hawkesdale) and Reduced Operating Hours Waste Facility Total Estimated Savings Bessiebelle $15,284 Caramut $2,056 Hawkesdale $36,490 Killarney -$11,246 Macarthur $15,426 Mortlake $18,071 Peterborough $0 Port Fairy $76,438 Woolsthorpe $3,371 Woorndoo $12,342 Total $168,231
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 48
Sustainable Development Review of Council’s Waste Facilities (cont’d)
Table 6: Option 2 – Closure of Four Waste Facilities (including Woolsthorpe) and Reduced Operating Hours
Waste Facility Total Estimated Savings Bessiebelle $15,284 Caramut $2,056 Hawkesdale $12,557 Killarney -$11,246 Macarthur $15,426 Mortlake $18,071 Peterborough $0 Port Fairy $76,438 Woolsthorpe $24,566 Woorndoo $12,342 Total $165,493
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 49
Sustainable Development Review of Council’s Waste Facilities (cont’d)
Table 7: Recommended Operating Hours and Predicted $ Savings
Total Current Total proposed Predicted Wage Waste Facility Current Operating Hours Proposed Operating Hours hours open hours open $ Savings
Bessiebelle Sun 8:30am - 11:30am 3 Closed 0 N/A Tue & Fri 12:30pm - 4:30pm Port Fairy 20 Closed 0 N/A Sat & Sun 10:30am - 4:30pm
Woorndoo Sun 12:30pm - 4:30pm 4 Closed 0 N/A Tue 8:30am - 2:00pm Hawkesdale 13.5 Closed 0 N/A Sat 8:30am – 4:30pm Wed 2:30pm - 4:30pm Wed 2:30pm - 4:30pm Caramut 6 5 $2,056 Sun 12:30pm –4:30pm Sun 12:30pm - 3:30pm Mon 7:30am - 4:30pm Mon 12:30pm - 3:30pm Macarthur 15 6 $15,426 Sat 10:30am – 4:30pm Sat 12:30pm - 3:30pm
Mortlake Tue, Fri & Sun 10:30am - 4:30pm 18 Tue, Fri & Sun 12:30pm - 3:30pm 9 $18,071
Woolsthorpe Sun & Mon 12:30pm - 4:30pm 8 Sun & Mon 12:30pm - 3:30pm 6 $3,371 Mon to Fri 10:00am - 4:00pm Killarney Sat 9:00am - 12:00pm 36 All week 10:00am - 4:00pm 42 -$11,246 Sun 12:00pm - 3:00pm
Peterborough Wed & Sun 10:00am - 2:00pm 8 Wed & Sun 10:00am - 2:00pm 8 $0
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 50
Sustainable Development Review of Council’s Waste Facilities (cont’d)
RISK It is expected Council will receive negative feedback from local communities affected by the loss of a service or reduction of hours; however, these changes are partly attributable to managing Council’s budget in line with the State Government’s rates capping regime which requires savings to be made.
CONCLUSION There has not been a comprehensive review of the Council’s ten Waste Facilities since 2001. During this time there has been a significant expansion in Council’s kerbside waste collection service and an upgrade to a number of Waste Facilities. However, the hours of operation and closure of sites has not been performed to reflect these improvements. By closing sites and changing operating hours, Council will make a significant financial saving and achieve an increase in the average customers per operating hour at the Waste Facilities. This, combined with the introduction of rate capping means it is timely to review the provision of Waste Facilities and hours of operation to ensure services are maintained at an appropriate level. This review considered the proximity of facilities and their hours of operation to ensure residents maintain an acceptable level of access to waste services. As a consequence of the review, approximately $168,000 worth of potential savings have been identified. These findings have assisted Council officers to make the following recommendations: That Council give the Moyne Shire community notice of the closures and changes to operating hours for Council Waste Facilities as outlined in the attachments to this report, regarding the following nine recommendations: Bessiebelle - Closure Caramut - Reduce operating hours Hawkesdale - Closure Killarney - Increase operating hours Macarthur - Reduce operating hours Mortlake - Reduce operating hours Port Fairy - Closure Woolsthorpe - Reduce operating hours Woorndoo - Closure
If the proposed recommendations are accepted the level of service to the Moyne Shire community will still be adequate. This is highlighted in the waste site information above where the distance to alternative Waste Facilities is provided.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 51
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 52
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
8. Planning Permit PL15/137 – 17 High Street, Macarthur – Use of the Premises as a bottle shop, to sell liquor for consumption off the premises (packaged liquor licence) and buildings and works to extend the building Presented by Oliver Moles Report author Fiona Castley Attachment(s) Copy of application, plans and associated documents
OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION
That Council having caused notice of Planning Application No. PL15/137 to be given under Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and having considered all the matters required under Section 60 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 decides to Refuse to Grant a Permit under the provisions of the Moyne Planning Scheme in respect of the land known and described as 17 High Street, Macarthur (Lot 1 on TP945630G), for Use of premises as a bottle shop and to sell liquor for consumption off premises (packaged liquor licence), building and works to extend building, with the application dated 24 June 2015, for the following grounds:
1. The location and use of the premises proposed for the sale of packaged liquor is inappropriate and inconsistent with the orderly planning of the area, contrary to Clause 52.27 (Licensed Premises) of the Moyne Planning Scheme.
SYNOPSIS
The application is for the Use of the premises as a bottle shop, to sell liquor for consumption off the premises (packaged liquor licence) and buildings and works to extend the building at 17 High Street Macarthur. The site is located in High Street Macarthur and is accessed via the existing service lane. The application received two objections from nearby residents and business operations. The key issues are whether it is appropriate to sell packaged liquor from a premises that presents as a convenience shop and consideration of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1988; whether selling packaged liquor from the premises is consistent with the purpose, and decision guidelines of Clause 52.27 License Premises and the concerns raised in the objections.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 53
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL15/137 – 17 High Street, Macarthur (cont'd)
Council is placed in a difficult position in considering this application as the liquor licensing process requires an application for a license to already have planning approval. This removes the ability of Council to defer its decision on this application until such time a liquor license decision has been made. On balance, this is a proposal to introduce packaged liquor sales into a convenience shop where the community already has access to packaged liquor through the Macarthur Hotel. It is considered that the sale of packaged liquor is inconsistent with the orderly planning of the area and would contravene the provisions of the Liquor Control Act 1988 and as such is recommended for refusal.
BACKGROUND
Application Details:
Use of premises as a bottle shop and to sell liquor for consumption Application is for: off premises (packaged liquor licence), building and works to extend building. Applicant’s Name: Joseph Mooney Date Received: 24/06/2015 Application Number: PL15/137 Planner: Fiona Castley Land/Address: 17 High Street MACARTHUR Zoning: Township Zone Overlays: None applicable Clause 32.05-8 – Section 2 Use and buildings and works Under what clause(s) is associated with a Section 2 Use a permit required?: Clause 52.27 - Use land to sell alcohol Current use and Milk Bar / Convenience Shop development: Cultural Heritage A Cultural Heritage Management Plan is not required. Management Plan
Proposal The application is for use of part of the convenience shop as a bottle shop (licensed area), alterations and additions to the building and to sell packaged liquor from the bottle shop premises. The application was amended on 27/8/2015 to reduce the red line area and alter the sale of liquor hours.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 54
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL15/137 – 17 High Street, Macarthur (cont'd)
The additions extend to the adjoining building to the south. The buildings are approximately 1.0m apart and currently connected by a narrow hallway. The hallway is to be extended to allow construction of a new storage area for packaged liquor extending between the buildings and into the adjoining garage. Approximately 4.0sqm of the storage area will be additional floor area. No elevation or building detail apart from a floorplan has been submitted with the application to detail the proposed extensions. The licensed area includes the existing counter (21.0sqm), new storage area (11.37sqm) and pizza kitchen (6.95sqm). The total area proposed to be licensed is 39.0sqm. All licensed areas are only accessible by staff. The existing trading hours are: Monday to Saturday - 7am to 9pm. Sunday - 9am to 9pm. Good Friday and Anzac Day - 12 noon to 9pm. Christmas Da - 9am to 5pm. The trading hours for the bottle shop will be from 10am to the current closing times listed above.
Subject site and locality The subject land (17-21 High Street) comprises two lots: Lot 1 on TP19982P - This lot (measuring 6.1m x 50.29m) contains the convenience shop. Part CA2 Section 3 - This lot contains a large garage/store and a separate dwelling. Both titles are in the same ownership. The convenience shop is 60.5m2, behind which is a kitchen and private area. The adjoining garage/store area includes the pizza kitchen which has an internal connection to the convenience shop with a total area of 212m². To the south of the garage/store is a freestanding dwelling on the same title occupied by the convenience shop owner/operator. The convenience shop has a single door and display window, as well as a verandah over the footpath. The garage/store building is setback approximately 1.0m from the convenience shop building. This building is clad with corrugated iron to High Street, and blockwork to the other facades. A roller door/loading bay is located on the garage/store street frontage. There are picnic tables, outdoor seating and an ice Se located on the footpath outside the convenience shop.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 55
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL15/137 – 17 High Street, Macarthur (cont'd)
Surrounds The site is surrounded by existing dwellings used for residential purposes to the north, south and west. There are residential properties on the east side of High Street opposite the site. Macarthur is a small township in the north west of the Shire. The town is 7.5km east of the Mount Eccles National Park. Mount Eccles campground includes 22 unpowered campsites. See attachment 1 for an aerial photograph detailing subject site and closest licensed premises – Macarthur Hotel and Macarthur Bowling Club. See Attachment 1 for an aerial photography detailing the subject site, the township boundary and location of all licensed premises in Macarthur.
Current Liquor licences in Macarthur
Licensee Licence Restrictions Trading hours Hawkesdale Renewable Operates February to October only Supply on club premises: Macarthur Football Limited Allows on premises consumption to Mon - Thur: 6pm-11pm Netball Club Licence club members and guests, to pre- Sat/Sun: 12pm-1am (No 36073598) booked functions and during a For a function- sporting event. Fri/Sat: 6pm-1am Sun: 6pm -12am Suffoir Winery Wine and On and off premises consumption of Mon - Sat: 8am-11pm (No 32608642) Beer licensees own product – on Sunday, Good Friday and 144 Mount Eccles Producers premises consumption of liquor that Anzac Day: 10am-11pm Road Licence is not licences product Macarthur Bowls Restricted Allows on premises consumption to Mon - Wed: 11.30am-2pm Club Club club members and guests within the and 4.30pm-7.30pm (No 31409621) Licence club room. Thur: 11.30am-11pm Can conduct special events outside Fri: 11.30am-10pm licence hours provided notice given Sat: 11am-10pm to local licensing inspector Sun: 12pm-8pm Macarthur Cricket Restricted Operates December to March only Tue, Thur and Fri: 6pm- Club Club Allows on premises consumption to 10pm (No 31403536) Licence club members and guests Sat: 2pm-1am Sun: 12pm-6pm Macarthur Golf Restricted Allows on premises consumption to Mon - Sat: 12pm-10pm Club Club club members and guests within the Sun: 12pm-8pm (No 31411767) Licence clubroom and office Macarthur Hotel General Allows supply of liquor for Mon - Sat: 7am-11pm (No 31915428) Licence consumption on and off the Sun: 10am-11pm premises. Limited licence approval Good Friday/Anzac Day: until 1am on New Year’s Eve, 12pm-11pm St Patricks Day and 2016 Campdraft weekend (5/3/2016)
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 56
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL15/137 – 17 High Street, Macarthur (cont'd)
Permit/Site History There is no recent permit history on the site.
Public Notification The application has been advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, by: Sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land. Placing a sign on site. The notification has been carried out correctly. Council has received two objections to date from a nearby resident and the Macarthur Hotel. Both objectors submitted an original objection and an additional response to the response to objections. The key issues that were raised in the objections are: The sale of alcohol from a milk bar in a small country town is inappropriate given the potential to expose young children to alcohol. No need within the community for an additional packaged liquor outlet Proximity of shop to existing residences and amenity impacts from people drinking out the front of the shop Increase in antisocial behaviour within the township as a result of increased availability of alcohol and cumulative impacts from proximity of two packaged liquor sales outlets in close proximity to each other Increase in traffic within the service road creating risk to children Concern the sale of packaged liquor will lead to more ‘party buses’ stopping within the township to purchase and consume alcohol No toilets are provided for shop patrons Insufficient rubbish collection/bins provided and potential for on-street rubbish to increase Inappropriate hours of operation for liquor sales (from 7am in the morning). Amenity impacts on residences from external speakers and refrigeration motor noise Increased risk of crime/vandalism from intoxicated persons An additional packed liquor outlet may impact the revenue of the Macarthur Hotel Negative impact on property values near the premises
CONSULTATION
Consultation included: Request for further information from the applicant An amended application on 27/8/2015 to reduce red line area and alter the sale of liquor hours A response to objections received 3/8/2015 Discussions relating to Section 22 Liquor Control Reform Act 1998. Additional submission received regarding Section 22(2) of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 where Minister may grant a licence which is otherwise prohibited for specific reasons.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 57
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL15/137 – 17 High Street, Macarthur (cont'd)
A submission responding to the planning scheme and additional objections.
Referrals
Referrals/Notice Advice/Response/Conditions Section 52 Notices Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation The commission did not offer any comment on the application. The commission noted that the Commission makes a decision under the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 in respect of any application made to the commission if a planning permit is granted. Advised Council of Section 22 of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 which prohibits the Commission from granting a liquor licence to premises that are used primarily as a milk bar, convenience store or mixed business. Victoria Police Victoria Police have no objection to the application. The Officer in Charge of the Macarthur Station provided the following observations: When the Macarthur Hotel is closed there is no other packaged alcohol sales outlet in the area. The proposal is not likely to have a noticeable impact on policing as the clientele is limited due to Macarthur’s isolation, the trading hours are not excessive or unreasonable and there will be no alcohol consumed on or at the premises.
Internal Referrals Advice/Response/Conditions Municipal Building No objection - Registered Building Surveyor to assess BCA Surveyor compliance. Environmental Health No objection. Officer
PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
The land is within the Township Zone and is not subject to any overlays. The use of land for a ‘bottle shop’ within the Township Zone is a Section 2 use (permit required). A bottle shop is defined in the Moyne Planning Scheme as “Land used to sell packaged liquor for consumption off the premises.” The buildings and works associated with a Section 2 use require a planning permit under Clause 32.05-8 of the Township Zone. A permit is required to use land to sell or consume liquor if a licence is required under the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 58
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL15/137 – 17 High Street, Macarthur (cont'd)
Clause 32.05 - Township Zone The purpose of the Township Zone (relevant) is as follows: To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies. To provide for residential development and a range of commercial, industrial and other uses in small towns. To encourage development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area. To allow educational, recreational, religious, community and a limited range of other non-residential uses to serve local community needs in appropriate locations. The Township Zone at Clause 32.05-11 includes the following decision guidelines (as relevant): The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies. The protection and enhancement of the character of the town and surrounding area including the retention of vegetation. The effect that existing uses on adjoining or nearby land may have on the proposed use. The scale and intensity of the use and development. The safety, efficiency and amenity effects of traffic to be generated by the proposal.
The State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) Planning should strengthen the region’s economy through increased industry diversification, innovation and development by supporting development and investment in small towns that are facing economic and population challenges, and supporting rural production and associated economic development opportunities including rural industry, rural sales, accommodation and tourism (Clause 11.09 Great South Coast Regional Growth Plan). The Great South Coast Regional Growth Plan encourages the enhancement of tourism assets including the Mount Eccles National Park. Planning should encourage development which meet the communities’ needs for retail, entertainment, office and other commercial services and provides net community benefit in relation to accessibility, efficient infrastructure use and the aggregation and sustainability of commercial facilities. (Clause 17.01-1 Business). Relevant strategies aim to provide small scale shopping opportunities that meet the needs of local residents and workers in convenient locations.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 59
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL15/137 – 17 High Street, Macarthur (cont'd)
The Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF)
Municipal Strategic Statement The Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) identifies Mount Eccles as an important natural resource that provides opportunities for tourism within the surrounding district, particularly the township of Macarthur (Clause 21.04). The MSS also identifies tourism as a key sector of the local economy and as having significant growth potential. Tourists are attracted to local reserves and national parks and the various volcanic features present throughout the Shire including Mount Eccles national Park. The objectives aim to support and facilitate the development of local employment opportunities. (Clause 21.07 Economic Development) The LPPF identifies Macarthur as a rural service centre with good access to Port Fairy and Hamilton and aims to strengthen and diversify Macarthur’s economic and social functions in a sustainable manner that promotes on-going prosperity and a good quality of life for its residents. Specifically, development of a range of retail and commercial facilities consistent with the town’s role as a commercial centre for the surrounding rural area should be facilitated (Clause 22.01-7 Macarthur).
Particular Provisions
Clause 52.27 - Licensed Premises This provision aims to ensure that licensed premises are situated in appropriate locations and that the impact of the licensed premises on the amenity of the surrounding area is considered. Before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate: The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies. The impact of the sale or consumption of liquor permitted by the liquor licence on the amenity of the surrounding area. The impact of the hours of operation on the amenity of the surrounding area. The impact of the number of patrons on the amenity of the surrounding area. The cumulative impact of any existing licensed premises and the proposed licensed premises on the amenity of the surrounding area
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 60
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL15/137 – 17 High Street, Macarthur (cont'd)
Clause 65 Because a permit can be granted does not imply that a permit should or will be granted. The responsible authority must decide whether the proposal will produce acceptable outcomes in terms of the decision guidelines of this clause. Before deciding on an application or approval of a plan, the responsible authority must consider a range of matters, of which the following are considered relevant to a packaged liquor licence application: The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies. The purpose of the zone, overlay or other provision. Any matter required to be considered in the zone, overlay or other provision. The orderly planning of the area. The effect on the amenity of the area.
Reference Documents
Practice Note 61 “Licensed Premises – Assessing Cumulative Impact” This document provides guidance about the concept of cumulative impact in relation to licensed premises, the Victorian Government released Practice Note 61 (‘the practice note’) entitled Licensed premises: Assessing cumulative impact in March 2011. Under the practice note, ’cumulative impact’ refers to both the positive and negative impacts that can result from clustering a particular land use or type of land use, for instance, licensed premises. Positive cumulative effects can be the enhanced vitality and economic benefits in an area. Negative cumulative effects can be increased violence and anti-social behaviour. The practice note can be utilised for any proposal that may benefit from its use but it is particularly intended to be applied to any new or expanded licensed premises that: Will be licensed and open after 11am. Is in an area where there is a cluster of licensed premises.
Definitions
Moyne Planning Scheme A bottle shop is defined as “Land used to sell packaged liquor for consumption off the premises.” A convenience shop is defined as “A building with a leasable floor area of no more than 240 square metres, used to sell food, drinks, and other convenience goods. It may also be used to hire convenience goods.”
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 61
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL15/137 – 17 High Street, Macarthur (cont'd)
Liquor Control Reform Act 1988 A convenience store is defined as “A premises of not more than 240 square metres on which food, drinks and other convenience goods are sold” This is consistent with the planning scheme definition.
Macquarie Dictionary - (Used where the Act/Scheme does not provide a specific definition) A Milk Bar is defined as “A shop, often with an open front, where milk drinks, ice cream, sandwiches etc are sold” A Mixed Business is defined as “A small grocery shop which also sells a selection of other types of merchandise”
DISCUSSION
Summary of Key Issues There are three key issues to consider in this matter: The appropriateness of selling packaged liquor from a premises that presents as a convenience shop and consideration of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1988. Whether selling packaged liquor from the premises is consistent with the purpose, and decision guidelines of Clause 52.27 License Premises. Consideration of objections.
Sale of Packaged Liquor from a convenience shop The applicant seeks to vary goods offered by the existing convenience shop with the addition of a bottle shop component where alcohol is proposed to be stored and displayed behind the counter and purchased by customers at the counter. Section 22 (1)(b) and (c) of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1988 prohibits the granting of a Liquor License to a petrol station, milk bar, convenience store or mixed business. Section 22 (2) states that the Commission, with the approval of the Minister, may grant a license for a milk bar, convenience store or mixed business if the Minister is satisfied that the area in which the premises are situated is a tourist area or an area with special needs and that there are no adequate existing facilities or arrangements for the supply of liquor in the area. The intent of this prohibition is assumed to be a desire to avoid any public perception that alcohol can be bought as easily and freely, at the same time and in the same premises, as items sold in a convenience shop. It is considered that the Macarthur township could not be considered a tourist area or an area with special needs given there are adequate existing facilities, the Macarthur Hotel has a license to sell packaged liquor (7 days a week) is located opposite the existing convenience shop. There are also other liquor licenses in effect at the Golf, Bowling, Cricket and Football Club.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 62
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL15/137 – 17 High Street, Macarthur (cont'd)
While a planning permit decision should not be made purely on the basis of another Act, it should be given serious consideration in the assessment of the application. As the Liquor Control Reform Act 1988 prohibits the sale of packaged liquor from a convenience shop, it is considered that the issuing of a permit to include the sale of packaged liquor from a premises that presents as a convenience shop would result in an inappropriate outcome.
Clause 52.27 License Premises The decision guidelines to Clause 52.27 have been outlined above. In terms of considerations under the decision guidelines, it is anticipated that the sale of packaged liquor from the subject site is at the low end of the assessment spectrum. This is because alcohol purchased from a packaged liquor premises is generally consumed away from the outlet in private settings. Although, depending on circumstances, packaged liquor could have amenity impacts of people purchasing liquor at the premises and consuming it nearby. It is noted that there are no local laws prohibiting the consumption of alcohol in public places in Macarthur. The application was referred to Victoria Police where no objection is made to the sale of packaged liquor. It is therefore assumed that there are no existing or potential concerns with the consumption of alcohol in public places in Macarthur and the proposed operating hours are satisfactory. Whilst selling packaged liquor from the convenience shop is unlikely to have any material detriment on the surrounding area in terms of amenity, the sale of alcohol from a premises that presents as a convenience shop does not result in an appropriate mix of activities under the Liquor Control Reform Act 1988, and as such would be inconsistent with the orderly planning of the area.
Response to grounds of objection
The sale of alcohol from a milk bar in a small country town is inappropriate given the potential to expose young children to alcohol Objection not supported Officer Comment The licensing of the premises to enable the sale of packaged liquor would need to comply with the relevant sections of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1988. The Liquor Licensing Commission is the responsible authority for regulating when minors (children) can be on a licensed premises and this would be matter for them to consider.
No toilets are proposed Objection not supported Officer Comment There is no requirement to provide toilets for customers purchasing packaged liquor from a licensed premise.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 63
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL15/137 – 17 High Street, Macarthur (cont'd)
Litter - no places to dispose of empty drinks consumed outside the shop Objection partly supported Officer Comment The proposed packaged liquor license would require liquor to be consumed off the premises. There are rubbish bins located in front of the existing milk bar for any packaging to be disposed of appropriately. Any littering concerns would be a matter for Local Laws to further investigate. A condition can be included on any permit issued for appropriate disposal of litter to protect the amenity of the area.
Inappropriate hours of operation for liquor sales (from 7am in the morning). Objection Not supported Officer Comment The proposed trading hours for the sale of packaged liquor are from 10am each morning. The proposed trading hours for the sale of packaged liquor do not extend beyond the existing trading hours of the milk bar/convenience shop premises. The proposed hours are also less than the existing trading hours of the approved liquor licence for the Macarthur Hotel.
Audible Music External to the Premises and Refrigeration Noise Objection Partly supported Officer Comment There is no audible music external to the premises proposed. The refrigeration of packaged liquor may necessitate additional freezers and fridges to be provided for the bottle shop associated with the Milk Bar. However, a condition could be included on any permit issued restricting noise to an appropriate level under the relevant EPA noise guidelines for commercial premises.
CONCLUSION
Council is placed in a difficult position in considering this application as the liquor licensing process requires an application for a license to already have planning approval. This removes the ability of Council to defer its decision on this application until such time a liquor license decision has been made. On balance, this is a proposal to introduce packaged liquor sales into a convenience shop where the community already has access to packaged liquor through the Macarthur Hotel. It is considered that the sale of packaged liquor is inconsistent with the orderly planning of the area and would contravene the provisions of the Liquor Control Act 1988 and as such is recommended for refusal.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 64
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
9. Planning Permit PL06/304.01 – Salt Creek Wind Energy Facility Amendment Application Presented by Oliver Moles Report author Aaron Moyne Attachment(s) 1. Copy of amend planning application and associated documents 2. Copy of submissions 3. Copy of existing planning permit – PL06/304 4. Trustpower response to objections 5. DELWP (Environment) – agency response Confidential 6. Legal Advice from Council’s solicitors – Harwood Attachment Andrews
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION Planning Permit That Council having caused notice of Planning Application No. PL06/304.01 under Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and having considered all the matters required under Section 60 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 decides to Grant an Amended Planning Permit under the provisions of the Moyne Planning Scheme in respect of the land known and described as Hexham-Woorndoo Road WOORNDOO, 3272 (Lots 4-28 TP 892899A and Lots 33-38 TP 892899A Parish of Cobra Killuc), for the Use and development of land for a Wind Energy Facility comprising up to fifteen (15) wind turbines, associated switchyard, underground power and telecommunications cabling, access tracks, road upgrading and up to three (3) wind monitoring towers and temporary site office, hard stand areas and concrete batching plant in accordance with the endorsed plans (amended to change the permit description and vary the wording of related megawatt output, blade length, noise and shadow flicker conditions) in accordance with the endorsed plans, with the application dated 11 December 2015, subject to the following conditions: Amended Conditions (included in the Recommendation only – existing permit as an attachment): Specifications 3. The wind energy facility and wind turbines must meet the following requirements to the satisfaction of the responsible authority: a) A maximum of fifteen (15) wind turbines in total.
b) Deleted
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 65
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL06/304.01 – Salt Creek WEF Amendment Application (cont’d)
c) The overall maximum height of the wind turbines (to the tip of the rotor blade when vertical) shall not exceed 150 metres.
d) Wind turbines to be mounted upon a tubular steel tower with a height of no greater than 103 metres and a base diameter of approximately 4.8 metres.
e) Each wind turbine to have three rotor blades, with each blade having a length of no greater than 65 metres.
f) The colour of the wind turbines to be light grey and of a non- reflective surface.
g) The electricity generated by the wind energy facility to be transferred to the switchyard/substation at, or near, the location shown in Figures 3.1 and 3.2 of the Planning Permit Application Report.
h) All new electricity cabling associated with the collector network within the wind energy facility generator cluster must be placed under the ground.
i) The transformer associated with each wind generator must be located beside each tower and pad mounted, or be enclosed within the tower structure.
j) The access tracks within the site are to be sited to ensure minimum impacts on the site, including impacts on overland flows and, where appropriate, having regard to the farming attributes of the land.
k) All wind turbines must be setback at least 340 metres from neighbouring (non-stakeholder) property boundaries.
Noise
12. The operation of the wind energy facility must comply with New Zealand Standard 6808:2010 Acoustics – Wind Farm Noise (the standard) in relation to any occupied dwellings existing on the land (other than the site) at 8 May 2007, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. In determining compliance with the standard, the following requirements apply:
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 66
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL06/304.01 – Salt Creek WEF Amendment Application (cont’d)
a) The sound level from the wind energy facility, when measured outdoors within 10 metres of a dwelling at any relevant nominated wind speed, must not exceed the background level (L90) by more than 5dBA or a level of 40dBA L90, whichever is the greater. b) Compliance at night must be separately assessed with regard to night time data. For these purposes the night is defined as 10.00pm to 7.00am. For sleep protection purposes, a breach of the standard set out at Condition 12a), for 10% of the night, amounts to a breach of the condition. c) Where special audible characteristics, including tonality, impulsive sound or enhanced amplitude modulation occur, as assessed in accordance with Appendix B of the standard, the noise limit will be modified by applying a penalty of up to + 6dB L90 in accordance with Section 5.4 of the standard. This condition does not apply if the operator of the wind energy facility has entered into an agreement with the landowner under which the landowner acknowledges and accepts that the noise standards in this condition may be exceeded at the landowner’s dwelling(s). Evidence of this agreement must be provided to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, and must be in a form which runs with the land for the life of the wind energy facility. 14. An independent post-construction noise monitoring program must be commissioned by the proponent within 2 months from the commissioning of the first turbine and continue for 12 months after the commissioning of the last turbine, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The independent expert must have experience in acoustic measurement and analysis of wind turbine noise. The program must be carried out in accordance with New Zealand Standard 6808:2010 Acoustics – Wind Farm Noise. The permit holder must pay the reasonable costs of the monitoring program.
Blade Shadow Flicker
28. Shadow flicker from the wind energy facility must not exceed 30 hours per annum at any dwelling existing at 8 May 2007 to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 67
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL06/304.01 – Salt Creek WEF Amendment Application (cont’d)
This condition does not apply if the operator of the wind energy facility has entered into an agreement with a landowner under which the landowner acknowledges and accepts that shadow flicker may exceed 30 hours per annum at the landowner’s dwelling(s). Evidence of this agreement must be provided to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, and must be in a form which runs with the land for the life of the wind energy facility.
Note: This permit has been amended pursuant to Section 72 and 74 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 on xx February 2016 to the effect that changes have been made to the permit description to remove the 29.9MW restriction and to vary the wording of related megawatt output, blade length, noise and shadow flicker conditions.
SYNOPSIS
This application seeks to amend Planning Permit PL06/304 (the Permit) which allows for the use and development of the Salt Creek Wind Energy Facility (WEF). The specific provisions of Moyne Planning Scheme at Clause 61.01-1 (Minister is the Responsible Authority) which make the Minister for Planning the responsible authority for new applications for WEFs, specifically lists that the Minister is not the responsible authority in relation to permits issued for a WEF prior to 2 April, 2015 under Division 1 of Part 4 (by Council). Therefore, Council is clearly the decision maker for this application. On 5 November 2015 (and amended on 11 December 2015), Trustpower Australia lodged an application with Council to amend its planning permit. The applicant states that the amendment to the permit has been made to make consequential changes to the WEF as a result of developments within the wind energy sector and advancements in turbine technology since the grant of the permit. This report provides an assessment of the amendment application having particular regard to the State and Local Planning Policy Framework, the Farming Zone and Clause 52.32 (Wind Energy Facilities). Seven (7) submissions have been received for the amendment application – two (2) in support and five (5) in objection. It is recommended that Council resolve to Grant an Amended Planning Permit, subject to conditions.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 68
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL06/304.01 – Salt Creek WEF Amendment Application (cont’d)
BACKGROUND
Application Details:
Application is for: SALT CREEK WIND FARM: Use and development of land for a Wind Energy Facility comprising up to fifteen (15) wind turbines, associated switchyard, underground power and telecommunications cabling, access tracks, road upgrading and up to three (3) wind monitoring towers and temporary site office, hard stand areas and concrete batching plant in accordance with the endorsed plans (amended to change the permit description and vary the wording of related megawatt output, blade length, noise and shadow flicker conditions) Applicant’s Name Trustpower Australia
Application Received: 5 November 2015 (amended under S.50(1) 11 December 2015) Application Number: PL06/304.01
Land Owner: Salt Creek Estate Pty. Ltd.
Land/Address: Hexham-Woorndoo Road WOORNDOO VIC 3272 (Lots 4-28 TP 892899A and Lots 33-38 TP 892899A Parish of Cobra Killuc) Zoning: Farming Zone (FZ)
Overlays: Nil
Under what clause(s) is a Clause 35.07-1 (Use – FZ) permit required?: Clause 35.07-4 (Development – FZ) Clause 52.32-2 (WEF – Particular Provisions) Current use and development: Land used for broad-scale agricultural purposes
Date Received: nil Cultural Heritage Management Require:
Plan Yes No
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 69
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL06/304.01 – Salt Creek WEF Amendment Application (cont’d)
Proposal A planning application to amend PL06/304 for the Salt Creek Wind Energy Facility (WEF) was received by Council on 5 November 2015 and subsequently amended under Section 50(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 on 11 December 2015 by way of further information and additional plans. The amendment application made by Trustpower Australia (the proponent) does not seek to increase the number of turbines nor their overall height, as approved by PL06/304. Rather, the primary basis of this application is to remove an electricity output restriction imposed on the original permit of 29.9MW and make changes to the turbine model and design as a result of ongoing turbine advancements within the wind energy sector to maximise electricity output. If developed as approved, PL06/304 allows for a WEF to be constructed which would comprise of between thirteen (13) and fifteen (15) wind turbines (dependent on Mega Watt (MW) output), with a total output capacity of 29.9MW, a maximum height of 150m and individual blade length of 45m. As a result of this application, the applicant proposes to make relevant changes to the applicable noise and shadow flicker conditions of the Permit to reflect the current standards of the Victorian Planning Provisions (VPPs) and for practicality of use. Table 1 provides a descriptive overview of the approved parameters and proposed changes sought by this amendment application. Figure 1 then provides a visual overview of the current versus indicative turbine design which is proposed. Table 1 – Salt Creek WEF: approved parameters and proposed changes
Parameter Existing Approval Proposed Change Proposed wind turbine Between 13 and 15 (based 15 turbines numbers on MW output) Overall height 150m 150m (no change) Turbine siting 15 turbines based on No change proposed 28/02/2012 endorsed plans Generation capacity Max. 29.9MW 49.5MW Nacelle (hub) height 103m 85m Blade length 45m 65m Rotor Diameter (diameter 90m 130m the blade covers) Lowest blade tip point 58m 20m
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 70
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL06/304.01 – Salt Creek WEF Amendment Application (cont’d)
Figure 1 – Current versus Indicative Proposed Turbine Design
Subject Site and Locality
The site of the WEF has a total area of approximately 750ha and currently contains: Three (3) existing dwellings owned by the landholder. Grazing land on the eastern extent of a large (approximately 2,100ha), contiguous property known as ‘Salt Creek’ with road frontage to the Hexham-Woorndoo Road and accessed via an existing road reserve. The land has been modified for broad-scale agricultural use and is used for grazing, mainly by sheep. There are various scattered stands of native vegetation across the property. An operational quarry exists on the land for stone extraction, as approved by PL07/138. The main locality characteristics are: The land is located directly 1.5km south of the township of Woorndoo. The area is characterised by flat to gently undulating farmland which other than roadsides, is generally devoid of native vegetation.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 71
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL06/304.01 – Salt Creek WEF Amendment Application (cont’d)
There are various shelterbelts of vegetation primarily run along the boundaries of properties and paddocks, whilst there is also established remnant vegetation that exists around the gullies and drainage lines. All dwellings within 1km of the wind farm are owned by farmers who are ‘hosting’ the use and development of the WEF.
Zoning Map
Wind Farm Site Boundary Woorndoo Township
WEF site entrance
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 72
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL06/304.01 – Salt Creek WEF Amendment Application (cont’d)
Aerial Map
Wind Farm Site Boundary Woorndoo Township
WEF site entrance
Permit/Site History On 8 May 2007 Council, as the Responsible Authority (RA), granted Planning Permit PL06/304 for the Use and Development of Land for the Salt Creek WEF. Conditions of the Permit originally specified that the development must start within three (3) years and be completed within six (6) years of the date of approval. However, numerous requests for extensions of time by the proponent, primarily influenced by policy changes within the wind energy sector along with connection issues to the electricity grid, have prolonged the Permit and its resultant commencement and completion timeframes. 4 December 2014 – The Permit was extended by Council to the effect that the development must be completed by 15 March 2018. An amendment application to the Permit has also previously been lodged with Council by the proponent which sought to reduce the number of approved turbines to facilitate an electricity grid connection. However, this application was subsequently withdrawn in October 2011. Final development plans were approved for the WEF by Council in February 2012 and the proponent subsequently commenced development soon after, by way of constructing a hard stand area for a site office and vehicular access, to comply with the timeframe conditions of the Permit.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 73
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL06/304.01 – Salt Creek WEF Amendment Application (cont’d)
Public Notification The application has been advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, by: Sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land within 2km of the WEF site boundary. Placing a sign on-site at the intersection of Woodcutters Lane and Hexham- Woorndoo Road, another sign at the Woorndoo Town Hall. Notice in the Mortlake Dispatch (Thursday, 7 January 2016) and the Hamilton Spectator and Warrnambool Standard (Saturday, 9 January 2016) Providing a link to the application documents on Council’s website (Planning Notices). The notification has been carried out correctly. Council has received seven (7) submissions to date – two (2) in support of the proposal and five (5) in objection. The submissions in support of the application refer to: Economic benefit of the wind farm to local businesses Growth in local employment opportunities Large scale projects providing long term benefit for business Subsidiary increase in local service provision associated with the project construction The use of an existing quarry on-site for construction The key issues raised in objection against the application are: Clarification of the number of turbines which can be constructed Deletion of the 29.9MW output capacity restriction Changes to the approved turbine specifications Noise impacts through increased emissions Adverse impacts to human health – electromagnetic emissions and other Increased shadow flicker impacts Adverse ecological impacts – flora and fauna Proposed location and construction of transmission line Social and community impacts from wind farms Adverse landscape impacts Depreciation of land value Lack of certainty as the permit has been extended and now amended. Each of the submissions received for the application have been referred to the permit applicant (Trustpower) for it review and an opportunity to respond to the issues raised.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 74
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL06/304.01 – Salt Creek WEF Amendment Application (cont’d)
Consultation Consultation was undertaken and included: A pre-application meeting between the proponent and Council Officers, prior to lodgement of the amendment application, to discuss their purpose for the amendment and intentions for the Salt Creek WEF. Following receipt of the application, a Section 54 request for further information was made to the applicant on 1 December 2015. A formal response to the further information request was received on 11 December 2015 and the application was subsequently amended under Section 50(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Whilst not the subject of this permit application, further discussions have also occurred between the proponent and Council Officers in January 2016 regarding proposed options for a transmission line route and electricity grid connection for the WEF.
Referrals External Referrals/Notices Required by the Planning Scheme:
Referrals/Notice Advice/Response/Conditions Section 55 Referrals Nil Section 52 Notices DELWP (Planning) – Does not object to the granting of a permit. DELWP (Environment) – (see response as attached) Does not form a view on the amendment application but provides relevant comments to Council on: The possible impacts on bat and avifauna flights from a lowering of the blade tip height. The predicted increase in the Rotor Swept Area (RSA) per turbine and across the wind farm – increased from 6,400m² to 13,300m². Potential impacts on Brolga through increased collision risk, although Brolga have not been noted to breed or flock within the site. The low risk to Southern Bent-wing Bat as the species is not known or noted to use the area. Native vegetation – specifically that there will be no further impacts on-site but remains concerned about the potential off- site impacts from a transmission line or road upgrades, which is not subject to the current assessment. Management and amenity of the Cobra Killuc Wildlife Reserve. EPA – Does not object to the granting of a permit. VicRoads – Does not object to the granting of a permit. Internal Referrals Advice/Response/Conditions Nil Nil
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 75
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL06/304.01 – Salt Creek WEF Amendment Application (cont’d)
PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
The zoning of the land and any relevant overlay provisions The subject land is located within the Farming Zone (FZ) and does not fall within any overlay. A planning permit is required under the zone to Use and Develop land for a Wind Energy Facility. The purpose of the FZ is as follows:
Purpose To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies. To provide for the use of land for agriculture. To encourage the retention of productive agricultural land. To ensure that non-agricultural uses, including dwellings, do not adversely affect the use of land for agriculture. To encourage the retention of employment and population to support rural communities. To encourage use and development of land based on comprehensive and sustainable land management practices and infrastructure provision.
The State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) The State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) provides principles for land use and development planning which must be considered. The key State policies which specifically apply to this amendment application include: Clause 11 (Settlement) which specifically recognises the need for planning to contribute to adaption in response to changing technologies.
Clause 11.09 provides linkage to the Great South Coast Regional Growth Plan which specifically aims to strengthen the region’s economy through support and facilitation of energy facilities in appropriate locations where they take advantage of existing infrastructure and provide benefits to the regional community, and also to plan for sustainably manage the cumulative impacts of alternative energy development.
Clause 13.04 (Noise and Air) does not specifically relate to wind energy development but does aim to ensure that sensitive land uses are not adversely effected from unreasonable noise and air emissions.
Clause 19.01 (Renewable Energy) is the key policy of the SPPF in relation to provision of renewable energy and aims to promote this sector in a manner that ensures appropriate siting and design considerations are met. The clause aims to facilitate renewable energy development and consider economic and environmental benefits to the broader community from renewable energy, whilst also bearing in mind the need to minimise the effects of a proposal on the local community and environment.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 76
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL06/304.01 – Salt Creek WEF Amendment Application (cont’d)
The Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) - including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies The LPPF within the Moyne Planning Scheme also contains key strategic directions and policies. With respect to this amendment application to an approved WEF, there are limited policies that specifically apply. Clause 21.07 (Economic Development) of the MSS does identify the increasing demand for wind farms within the municipality and aims to support the protection of agriculture as the Shire’s primary economic base.
Relevant Particular Provisions
Clause 52.32 (Wind Energy Facility) This clause applies to land use and developed or proposed to be used and developed for a Wind Energy Facility. The purpose of the clause is:
Purpose To facilitate the establishment and expansion of wind energy facilities, in appropriate locations, with minimal impact on the amenity of the area.
Clause 52.32-4 of this particular provision sets out specific application requirements and information which must be accompanied with applications, which includes an assessment of the noise impacts of the proposal prepared in accordance with the New Zealand Standard NZS6808:2010 – Wind Farm Noise. A responsible authority may waive any specific information requirement. Decision guidelines for WEFs are provided specifically at Clause 52.32-5 and refer directly to the following: The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies. The effect of the proposal on the surrounding area in terms of noise, blade glint, shadow flicker and electromagnetic interference. The impact of the development on significant views, including visual corridors and sightlines. The impact of the facility on the natural environment and natural systems. The impact of the facility on cultural heritage. The impact of the facility on aircraft safety. Policy and Planning Guidelines for Development of Wind Energy Facilities in Victoria (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, November 2015). The New Zealand Standard NZS6808:2010, Acoustics – Wind Farm Noise.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 77
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL06/304.01 – Salt Creek WEF Amendment Application (cont’d)
Clause 52.32.7 specifically addresses amending a planning permit for a wind energy facility. It exempts an application from the decision requirements of Section 64(1), (2) and (3) of the Planning and Environment Act and review rights of Section 82(1) where the amendment to the permit does not increase the number of turbines or change the location of the turbines to move them closer to an existing dwelling (within 1 kilometre) than the closest permitted turbine to that dwelling. The implications of these provisions on Council making a decision is that it can receive an objection and consider the matters raised in it when deciding on this application but issues a permit or a refusal, not a notice of decision to grant a permit. The objector does not have any right to appeal to VCAT the decision of Council. This provision does not remove the applicant’s right to appeal Council’s decision to VCAT.
Clause 61.01-1 – Minister is Responsible Authority The specific provisions which make the Minister for Planning the responsible authority for new applications for windfarms specifically lists that the Minister is not the responsible authority in relation to permits issued for a wind energy facility prior to 2 April, 2015 under Division 1 of Part 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Therefore, Council is clearly the decision maker for this application.
The Decision Guidelines of Clause 65 Before deciding on an application, guidelines set out in Clause 65 of the General Provisions, amongst other things, must be considered. Because a permit can be granted does not imply that a permit should or will be granted. The responsible authority must decide whether the proposal will produce acceptable outcomes in terms of the decision guidelines of this clause.
Relevant Planning Scheme Amendments Since the original approval of Permit PL06/304 on 8 May 2007, there have been some important amendments made to the VPPs regarding WEFs. These include: VC78 (gazetted 15 March 2011) – removed the decision making power of the Minister for Planning for WEFs with an output capacity of 30 megawatts or greater, leaving local councils as the RA for all permit applications. This amendment also affected an update in the noise assessments for WEFs, substituting the 1998 New Zealand Standard for Wind Farm Noise – NS6808 with the 2010 edition.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 78
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL06/304.01 – Salt Creek WEF Amendment Application (cont’d)
VC124 (gazetted 2 April 2015) – amended Clause 52.32 ‘Wind Energy Facility’ relevantly to: Reduce the allowable distance of a turbine to a dwelling from two kilometres to one kilometre (consent is required from the owner of a dwelling to locate a turbine closer than one kilometre to a dwelling). Clarify the application of the one kilometre rule to applications for minor amendments to existing permits. This amendment also made the Minister for Planning the RA for all new planning permit application for the use and development of land for the purpose of a WEF.
VC107 (gazetted 26 November 2015) – made changes to the wind energy planning provisions by making the Minister for Planning the RA for all new planning permit applications for use and development of a WEF and changed the definition of WEF at Clause 74 (Land Use Terms) to remove reference to the use of the transmission or distribution system of power lines to connect the WEF to the electricity network.
VC 126 (gazetted 28 January 2016) – made changes to the wind energy planning provisions at Clause 19 and Clause 52.32, relating to Ministerial processing of an application, to exempt an application made for a wind energy facility under Section 97I of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 from the requirements of Section 97E (if the amendment does not increase the number of turbines or change their location so that they are located closer to a dwelling within 1km of a turbine). The amendment also clarifies the location for measuring a turbine from a dwelling.
Summary of Key Issues The key issues for consideration in the assessment of this amendment application include: Whether the proposal is consistent with the objectives and policy directions of State and Local Planning Policy Framework? Whether the proposal will respond appropriately to the purpose and decision guidelines of the Farming Zone? Whether the proposal provides an acceptable outcome in response to the particular provisions and decision guidelines of Clause 52.32 (Wind Energy Facilities)? Whether the proposal will result in the proper and orderly planning of the area?
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 79
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL06/304.01 – Salt Creek WEF Amendment Application (cont’d)
Assessment/Discussion The assessment of this amendment application to the Salt Creek WEF is not a question of merit as to whether or not the land use and development of a WEF is a suitable planning outcome. Rather, assessment of this amendment application (in accordance with Section 73 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987) relates specifically to the changes proposed by the amendment along with any other relevant planning provisions. The specific changes proposed by the applicant relate directly to the change in wind turbine specifications and design. Clause 52.32 (Wind Energy Facilities) of the Particular Provisions provides the most pertinent decision making direction for WEFs and will form the primary component of this assessment.
State and Local Policy Framework From a review of the relevant provisions of the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks, particularly at Clause 19.01 (Renewable Energy), it is clear that support should be given to the provision of renewable energy sources, including wind energy facilities, which are sited and designed appropriately. Importantly for this amendment application, there is nothing within the State or Local Policy Frameworks that clearly contradicts this proposal to amend PL06/304 or sets out that the granting of a permit should not be supported by Council.
Farming Zone (FZ) The FZ is clear in its purpose and objectives which is fundamentally to protect and retain land to be used for productive agriculture. As there is no proposed change within this application to either the use or turbine siting components of the WEF, it is considered that there will be no additional or unacceptable impact caused to the ongoing use of the land for agricultural purposes, or any other adjoining land for that matter. The application proposes to make changes to the design of the wind turbines to reflect technological advancements within the sector, within the approved height endorsed by the permit however, this change in itself will not have any adverse impact on agricultural production. It is considered that the purpose and decision guidelines of the FZ are satisfied in this case.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 80
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL06/304.01 – Salt Creek WEF Amendment Application (cont’d)
Clause 52.32 (Wind Energy Facilities) This particular provision of the Planning Scheme provides clear decision making direction and application requirements which must be met for any WEF proposal, including an amendment. Having regard to the applicable and relevant decision guidelines of this clause, the following discussion is made: The effect of the proposal on the surrounding area in terms of noise, blade glint, shadow flicker and electromagnetic interference. The matter of noise emissions from the WEF will be addressed when assessed against the current standards – NZS6808:2010 (as applicable section). A response and assessment of the impacts of blade glint, shadow flicker and electromagnetic interference (EMI) for the WEF has been submitted. In response, the following comments are made: Regarding blade glint, Condition 3b of PL06/304 currently requires the wind turbines (including blades) to be finished in a non-reflective material. The applicant maintains that this outcome will be achieved and it remains as a requirement of the Permit. Shadow flicker refers to the effect of the wind turbine blades passing between the sun and an observer. The VPPs for shadow flicker direct that a limit of 30 hours per year should apply in the area immediately surrounding a dwelling. Despite the overall height of the wind turbines remaining the same, as a larger rotor blade and swept area is proposed, the applicant has engaged an expert consultant to carry out a further shadow flicker assessment at all dwelling locations. Testing and analysis by the applicant’s consultant indicates that two (2) involved landholder dwellings are predicted to experience some shadow flicker, with one (1) of these dwellings predicted to experience shadow flicker in excess of 30 hours per annum. However, Council must note that Condition 28 of Permit PL06/304 does exclude any involved landholder dwelling from the shadow flicker requirements, whilst a declaration has also been provided by the applicant on the behalf of this landholder that they consent to these increased shadow flicker emissions. Shadow flicker impacts at non-involved landholder dwellings has been measured and will not exceed the 30 hour per year threshold of the VPPs.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 81
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL06/304.01 – Salt Creek WEF Amendment Application (cont’d)
Minor changes to reword Condition 28 of the Permit are also proposed by the applicant which further address the issue of shadow flicker, which require an agreement (Section 173 or other) to be entered into for the land of the involved dwellings to acknowledge the shadow flicker emissions. The changes proposed are deemed to be acceptable and suitable for a WEF permit. Shadow flicker has been acceptably considered and addressed for the WEF. EMI (electromagnetic interference) is an issue caused by large structures in the landscape which may interfere with radio and television transmission and reception. Again, the applicant has engaged an expert consultant to consider any resultant impacts from the proposed amendment application through EMI. This assessment has found that no further or adverse impacts would be caused from the altered wind turbine design through EMI, whereby radio and television transmission and reception coverage will be retained with good or moderate coverage. The impact of the development on significant views, including visual corridors and sightlines. As shown in Figure 1 earlier in this report and outlined within the proposal, the amendment seeks to make changes to the approved turbine specifications to reduce the nacelle height to 85m, increase the blade length to 65m, but not change the overall height of the wind turbines from 150m (max.). In support, the applicant has provided Council with A1 sized photomontages to assess the change in turbine design and appearance within the landscape. When considering the WEFs amended appearance and design, it must be noted by Council that the subject land or surrounding area is not included within a Significant Landscape Overlay (or other related planning control) which would afford the land important landscape value. Further, as required by Condition 1 of Permit PL06/304, the proponent would still have to provide Council with additional plans and specifications of the final turbine selected for construction, which provides opportunity for an additional design assessment to be undertaken, although the parameters will generally be set by other related permit conditions. Although the wind turbine nacelle height will be lowered and the blade length increased to 65m (a total rotor diameter of 130m), it is considered that there will be a negligible visual impact caused from the amended specifications and design, and this would not result in an unacceptable planning outcome.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 82
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL06/304.01 – Salt Creek WEF Amendment Application (cont’d)
The impact of the facility on the natural environment and natural systems. The only possible adverse ecological impact that could be caused as a result of the proposed amendment is to native birds and bats through increased collision risk from blade strike, caused by an increase in blade length from 45m to 65m. This in turn would result in a greater rotor diameter of 130m and reduced lowest turbine blade point to 20m above ground level. Accordingly, the applicant has provided a further ecological assessment from their expert consultant to address this issue, which has made the following conclusions: The proposed increase in blade length for the WEF will lead to a small potential increase in bird collision risk, however, the species most regularly flying at the turbine rotor swept area height are common birds of farmland habitats. 69.6% of mean bird flight heights will remain below the 20m rotor swept zone. For these reasons, no significant bird population effects are anticipated as a result of the proposed amendments. No significant impacts have been identified either in this updated review or past research to suggest significant adverse impacts on bats or Brolga. No FFG or EPBC Act listed bird or bat species are likely to be significantly impacted by the proposal. In carrying out an assessment of ecological and biodiversity matters, Council has sought expert advice and comments from the DELWP Environment Unit. The DELWP response focuses on the potential biodiversity impacts to native Bat and Avifauna, particularly the protected Southern Bent-wing Bat and Brolga, as a result of lowering the blade tip height to 20m and an increase in the blade length and RSA for the wind farm. In their response DELWP have identified that there is a potential increased collision risk to Bat and Avifauna as a result of the amendment. However, in relation to these species the following comments are also made: For Brolga, the on ground footprint of the wind farm has remained the same, and while there are nearby records of both breeding and general observations, none are within the actual wind farm footprint and there have been no new significant records that would cause new concerns. For Southern Bent-wing Bat, this site is a considerable distance from any known roost caves, and is not an obvious route between known caves. Bat activity overall was identified as being low and no Southern Bent-wing Bat calls were identified at a species level. It is therefore considered likely that this site remains a low risk site for Southern Bent-wing Bat. No quantitative or measurable data currently exists to confirm that the amendment will result in any further unacceptable or adverse ecological impact that would warrant refusal of a permit. In light of such findings, it is concluded that the proposal will produce an acceptable ecological outcome.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 83
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL06/304.01 – Salt Creek WEF Amendment Application (cont’d)
It must be noted that Conditions 33 and 34 are already in place on the planning permit which respectively relate to Bat and Avifauna Management and the support of the proponent in the conduction of a further Cumulative Risk Assessment Research Programme. These conditions are aimed to support the principles of ecological management, but should also provide Council with further certainty that the proponent will engage in the ongoing protection and monitoring of Bat and Avifauna species, particularly the Southern Bent-wing Bat and Brolga, A Bat and Avifauna Management Plan has been previously endorsed by Council for the permit on 28 February 2012 and sets out the proponent’s required obligations of management, but will require a further review by Council to determine its suitability and in the context of the changes proposed by this amendment.
The impact of the facility on cultural heritage. A CHMP has previously been prepared and approved for the WEF, whereby the amendments proposed within this application will not create any further impact on issue of cultural heritage. The impact of the facility on aircraft safety. As this amendment application makes no change to the overall height of the approved wind turbines there has been no further assessment of aviation issues. It should be noted however, the Permit does include aviation requirements at Conditions 30 and 31, which must be satisfied prior to the approval of any further development plans. Policy and Planning Guidelines for Development of Wind Energy Facilities in Victoria (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, January 2016) The updated policy and planning guidelines of DELWP for WEFs have been considered in the assessment of this amendment application, including the need for further information. The guidelines have specifically been used when considering the requested changes to specific permit conditions relating to noise and shadow flicker emissions. The New Zealand Standard NZS6808:2010, Acoustics – Wind Farm Noise Planning Permit PL06/304 for the Salt Creek WEF was previously approved in 2007 at a time when the earlier 1998 wind farm noise standards were in effect. As a result of this amendment application and having regard to the change made to the VPPs through VC78 to apply the 2010 standards, Council must consider this amendment application against the current planning provisions. In submitting this application, the applicant has provided an updated noise assessment by their expert consultant (Garrad Hassan Pacific Pty. Ltd) in accordance with NZS6808:2010 and its relevant standards. The findings of this assessment have been considered in detail by Council who has sought a peer review from an independent expert acoustic consultant.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 84
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL06/304.01 – Salt Creek WEF Amendment Application (cont’d)
The New Zealand Standard proposes a noise limit at a maximum of 40dBA or 5dBA above background noise levels, whichever is the greater. The noise assessment undertaken on behalf of the applicant makes the following findings: The noise values for the amended turbine design and specifications against NZS6808:2010 are shown to be slightly higher than those previously predicted in the original assessment. The predicted noise limits from the WEF however will meet the 40dBA noise limit at all non-involved landholder dwellings. For the involved landholder dwellings (of which there are three (3)), an increased noise limit of 45dBA has been applied. Two (2) dwellings have been found to fall within this limit, whilst one (1) landholder dwelling will slightly exceed the 45dBA limit.
Overall, Council’s peer review by its independent acoustic consultant has found that the methodology used by the applicant is appropriate and there are no substantive issues which have not been addressed by the applicant in relation to the noise assessment. It is agreed that ‘high amenity’ criterion of NZS6808:2010 should not be applied to this WEF for a base noise limit of 35dBA, which would apply to other sensitive land use areas. Permit PL06/304 currently provides at Condition 12 that the noise standards and controls do not apply to any dwelling on the land on which part of the WEF is erected. However, in considering the amendments in relation to noise, Council has sought further information from the applicant, in the form of an agreement or otherwise, that the landholders of the three (3) host dwellings are aware of the acoustic revisions made by NZS6808:2010 and agree to noise levels greater than 40dBA (or as specified within the Permit’s noise conditions 12-17). The applicant, on behalf of the sole landholder of the Salt Creek Estate, has provided written agreement to Council that they consent to the increased noise emissions from the WEF. In addition, Salt Creek Estate Pty. Ltd. (the landholder) have provided further consent to enter into a Section 173 Agreement with Council to give effect to the increased noise and shadow flicker levels determined. This process is now commonplace as a condition of contemporary WEF permits. In effect, it is considered that the amended WEF and updated noise assessment satisfactorily comply with the provisions for noise set out within NZS6808:2010, which now include the matter of special audible characteristics. Furthermore, basic changes are also proposed by the applicant to the noise conditions of the Permit from Condition 12-17, which seek to provide for better operation of these conditions and make reference to current wind farm noise standard. There is no objection with these changes as proposed by the amendment application and it is considered that the WEF will comply with the required noise standards set out by the Planning Scheme.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 85
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL06/304.01 – Salt Creek WEF Amendment Application (cont’d)
The 29.9MW Output Restriction When previously assessed and determined by Council, a provision of the Planning Scheme at Clause 61 (Administration and Enforcement of this Scheme) set out that for Council to be the Responsible Authority, the WEF must be no greater than 30MW in output capacity, otherwise the Minister for Planning was responsible. As such, this restriction was included within the Permit’s preamble and also as a condition. Since this time the VPPs have been amended (VC78) and no such restriction or condition applies within the Planning Scheme which limits the electricity output capacity of the WEF. Including a 29.9MW restriction is therefore no longer necessary and should not be a restriction imposed by Council. Rather, Council’s interest should focus on the planning merits of the WEF which exist around operation of the use, turbine siting and design. It is therefore acceptable to support the applicant’s request to remove this permit restriction and not impose an arbitrary MW output capacity control on the amended permit.
Response to Grounds of Objection Clarification of the number of turbines which can be constructed.
Objection not supported A submission has been made which seeks clarification that the number of turbines allowed to be constructed under the original permit was thirteen (13). This is not the case and the original permit (PL06/304) gave consent for up to fifteen (15) turbines to be constructed, subject to the overall megawatt output of the WEF. Council has sought its own legal advice on this matter which confirms that this amendment application will not result in an increase in the number of permitted wind turbines on the land. Accordingly, the permit application is exempt from the notice of decision and VCAT review process for objectors in accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987. As the permit allows up to fifteen (15) turbines and the amendment seeks to maintain this number, this matter is not considered to be a significant issue.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 86
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL06/304.01 – Salt Creek WEF Amendment Application (cont’d)
Deletion of the 29.9MW output capacity restriction. Objection not supported It has been raised within submissions that Council should not support deletion or removal of the 29.9MW output capacity restriction for the WEF. It is contended that the purpose of imposing such a restriction initially was to protect amenity and limit the WEFs total operational scale. This however is not the case and the objection is not supported. When undertaking assessment and making an original decision on this permit in May 2007, the VPPs stated that any WEF with an energy output capacity of greater than 30MW became the responsibility of the Minister for Planning. Therefore, in order to maintain Council as the permit decision maker, the proponent (then NewEn) maintained their WEF within the 30MW output for between thirteen (13) and fifteen (15) turbines. Relevantly, the original officers report for the permit application makes no reference that the intent of also applying a 29.9MW restriction was to protect amenity or directly restrict the operating capacity of the WEF. The VPPs for WEFs have now been amended and the 30MW output capacity restriction no longer applies or is relevant in planning decision making, and it is consequently considered acceptable that this condition of the permit be deleted. Changes to the approved turbine specifications. Objection not supported In completing an assessment of this amendment application detailed consideration has been given to the proposed changes in turbine design and specifications, including increased blade length, rotor diameter, rotor swept area and MW output capacity, but not overall height which will be kept at status quo (150m to the blade tip). Firstly, it must be noted that the project is not actually getting bigger (i.e. the wind turbines will remain within their approved height envelope). The proposed changes to the turbine design and specifications are, in the most part, considered to the negligible in the context of the WEF and will not cause an unacceptable noise, landscape, ecological or other relevant impact.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 87
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL06/304.01 – Salt Creek WEF Amendment Application (cont’d)
Noise impact through acoustic emissions. Objection not supported Submissions received by Council claim that the proposed amendments will create adverse amenity impacts from increased noise emissions. The assessment of this amendment application for the WEF warrants the applicant to demonstrate that they can now comply with the current noise standards – NZS6808:2010. The applicant has prepared and undertaken an updated acoustic assessment (Garrad Hassan Report) to demonstrate compliance with this standard. Council has subsequently had this assessment reviewed by an independent acoustic consultant. Whilst the proposed amendments will result in a minor increase in noise emissions to nearby dwellings, the assessment and peer review concludes that the WEF will comply with the current planning and industry standards for noise and will not exceed 40dBA at all non-stakeholder dwellings, therefore, will not unreasonably impact on the amenity of the area. Adverse impacts to human health – electromagnetic emissions and other Objection not supported Submitters to Council claim that as a result of granting a planning permit there will be increased impacts to human health and physiology from electromagnetic emissions or other means, which might include infrasound (although infrasound is more relevant to noise emissions). In response to this point of objection, the applicant states that the following: ‘Wind turbines are not intended to emit significant amounts of electromagnetic radiation (EMR), and are typically required to comply with standards for electromagnetic compatibility (EMC). In addition, electromagnetic fields in the vicinity of a wind turbines are typically either shielded by turbine components, or their strength reduces rapidly a short distance from a turbine. Therefore, there is a negligible chance of emissions from a turbine harming an individual residing in a nearby dwelling, and a negligible chance of emissions from a wind turbine interacting with other telecommunications equipment in a manner that could cause harm to an individual residing in a nearby dwelling.’ The applicant has engaged an expert consult to consider impacts from electromagnetic interference, whilst an objective assessment has been undertaken of the WEF against the applicable provisions of the Moyne Planning Scheme, whereby it is considered that the proposed amendment will provide an acceptable planning outcome. The proposal is deemed to comply with the approved noise standards, whilst other matters such as ecology, electromagnetic interference, shadow flicker and blade glint have been suitably addressed and meet the necessary tests. It is therefore not considered that the proposed amendments to the WEF will result in an adverse impact through EMR.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 88
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL06/304.01 – Salt Creek WEF Amendment Application (cont’d)
Adverse effects from increased shadow flicker. Objection not supported Submitters claim that their amenity and properties will be adversely affected by increased shadow flicker as a result of the WEF. The applicant has undertaken further testing and an expert assessment (Garrad Hassan Report) on the impacts of shadow flicker resulting from amendments to the WEF, whilst an assessment against the relevant VPPs has been undertaken by Council. The applicant’s expert assessment describes that the expected shadow flicker impact in the vicinity of the project will not cause an adverse amenity impact to non-stakeholder dwellings, as they are all outside of the assumed shadow flicker distance limit, and will therefore not be subject to greater than 30 hours per annum of shadow flicker. The issues raised on this matter are not considered to be significant. Adverse ecological impacts – flora and fauna. Objection not supported Submissions have been made which argue that the proposed amendment will cause further adverse ecological impacts, both to flora and fauna. Firstly, in relation to flora the application does not propose any changes to be made to the siting of turbines or access tracks for the WEF, therefore, this matter is not a relevant consideration for assessment. Regarding fauna, primarily birds and bats from an increase in the risk of blade strike due to an increased rotor swept area, the applicant has provided further information from their expert ecological consultant which concludes that although there will be an increased risk of blade strike and bird collision, the increase in blade length will not have a significant impact on native bird or bat species, particularly those including the Brolga and Southern Bent Wing Bat listed as FFG or EPBC species. The DELWP Environment Unit response does identify that there will be an increased collision risk to bat and avifauna as a result of the amendment, although no significant impacts are expected to occur to the protected FFG or EPBC species of Brolga and Southern Bent-wing Bat. These species are not known to breed, inhabit or frequently flock within the wind farm footprint.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 89
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL06/304.01 – Salt Creek WEF Amendment Application (cont’d)
Proposed location and siting of a transmission line. Objection not supported Submissions have been made to Council in objection to a proposed route of siting and construction of a transmission line to connect the Salt Creek WEF to the electricity network. An electricity transmission line and ancillary infrastructure is no longer included within the definition of a WEF and does not fall within the parameters of assessment for this permit application. Based on recent amendments to the VPPs, any proposal for a transmission line is the responsibility of the Minister for Planning and does not fall within Council’s jurisdiction as the responsible authority. This is not an issue that Council can consider at this time in determining this amendment application, and in fact the transmission line voltage level of this project (66Kv or below), would not require a planning permit for its use or development in any case (excluding any native vegetation removal). Social and community impacts from wind farms. Objection not supported The claim that wind farms divide communities and are a social burden on residents and their liveability is a subjective one which cannot be properly tested in an application of this nature. There is nothing within this assessment to demonstrate that this proposal to amend an existing permit will cause unacceptable social or community outcomes, and more relevantly this is not an assessment of whether the use or development can occur, rather whether the proposed changes to the approved WEF are acceptable. An objection on this basis is not supported. Adverse landscape effects from the wind farm. Objection not supported The earlier assessment of the amendment application on landscape character and significance has found that there will be a negligible impact caused by the proposed amendment. It must be noted that the subject land and surrounding locality has not been afforded any special or additional landscape protection by the Planning Scheme, whilst the changes to the design and specifications of the turbines are deemed to be minor overall and within the existing approved turbine envelope. An objection on this basis is not supported.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 90
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL06/304.01 – Salt Creek WEF Amendment Application (cont’d)
Depreciation of land value. Objection not supported It has continuously been held by planning tribunals and decision makers that financial considerations or the depreciation of land value is not a relevant matter in deciding upon a permit application. Rather, the tests of assessment for an application lie with the relevant planning decision guidelines and protection of amenity. Lack of certainty as the permit has been extended and now amended. Objection not supported It is acknowledged that the existence of this permit has been longstanding since being initially approved in May 2007 and extended numerous times, however, the permit holder (Trustpower) have followed all necessary requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to ensure that the permit does not expire and that the proposed changes are properly assessed by Council.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
WEF projects are a major contributor to both the local economic and employment sector. The construction and operation phase will also support job creation within the local community. Should Council unnecessarily delay in deciding upon the amendment application or resolve to refuse the permit application, this may cause the proponent to decide not to proceed with this project which may have implications both at a local economic and broader community scale. The proponent also notes, that whilst yet not approved by the Minister for Planning, the outcome of this amendment application may influence the feasibility and development of the proposed Dundonnell WEF., although the Salt Creek WEF may still occur as a standalone project.
RISK
There is a risk that if Council delays or decides to refuse a permit for this amendment application, the applicant may make an application for review with VCAT which will require Council representation.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 91
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL06/304.01 – Salt Creek WEF Amendment Application (cont’d)
CONCLUSION
Having considered this application to amend PL06/304 for the Salt Creek WEF, it is considered that the proposal will provide a suitable response to both the provisions of the State and Local Planning Policy Framework and the Farming Zone. Clause 52.32 (Wind Energy Facilities) as a particular provision of the Planning Scheme is the most pertinent clause when considering an application for a WEF, including an amendment, whereby it is again considered that an acceptable outcome will be achieved in relation to the specific matters of design and visual impact, ecology and noise emissions. The amendment application is considered to support the principles of ecologically sustainable development. The proposal will result in the proper and orderly planning of the area and it is recommended that Council support granting of the amended planning permit, subject to conditions.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 92
PHYSICAL SERVICES
10. Port Fairy Surf Lifesaving Club Extension Presented by Trevor Greenberger Report author Trevor Greenberger Attachment Nil
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Permit the Port Fairy Surf Lifesaving Club to pursue the development of a training room and increased storage by way of an extension to the existing facility subject to a planning permit. 2. Clarify the existing lease requirements including the requirement for the club to honour the lease agreement for rental payments. 3. Consider a contribution of up to $100,000 for the extension of the Port Fairy Surf Lifesaving Club as part of the 2016-17 budget discussions.
SYNOPSIS This report outlines a number of issues associated with the proposed extension to the Port Fairy Surf Lifesaving Club.
BACKGROUND Port Fairy Surf Lifesaving Club (The Club) was awarded a lease for the Port Fairy Surf Lifesaving Clubrooms in 2008. The lease is for 21 years with an option to extend of 8 years. Rental details are as follows: Rental was to commence from 2015 based on 25% of the rental paid for any retail or commercial sub-lease arrangement entered into by the club. Rent is to be payable two months in arrears with the first payment due on 1 March 2015. The Club is to provide a statement of the gross income the Club derives from sub-letting, hiring or licensing the upper level of the premises of the rental period and a calculation of rental due for the rental period. The lease requires Council to undertake the majority of maintenance at the facility with the Club responsible for some minor maintenance. Council also insures the building and provides $20,000 worth of contents insurance. The Club has enjoyed significant growth in membership in recent years, particularly in the Nippers program. The Club has also been more successful in events at Surf Lifesaving carnivals.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 93
Physical Services Port Fairy Surf Lifesaving Club Extension (cont'd)
The Club has recently applied for a planning permit to extend the existing building to the West to create storage area on the lower level and a training room and administration area above on a first floor level. The rationale for the training room includes: the need to maintain a larger space in the function area the need to have an easily accessible administration area the conflict of use for training versus café space (i.e. noise) the need to be close to the beach and Club facilities for training events such as qualification updates.
DISCUSSION Council staff are currently seeking information from the Club in relation to rental details and other issues relating to the lease arrangements. No response was received from letters from Council Officers to the Club earlier this year and consequently Council’s solicitor sent a request for information in September 2015. A response from the Club is yet to be received. In the meantime, the Club has written to Council seeking relief from having to pay rent in order to allow them to pay for the planned extension to the building. It is also understood that the club will be seeking a contribution to the extension of the facility from Council as applications for funding to Sport and Recreation Victoria have been unsuccessful. The planning permit application for the extension has been prepared but has yet to be presented formally to Council for a decision.
CONSULTATION
Various correspondence between Council and the Club has occurred in relation to the rental and planning permit issues.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS It is understood that the Club is currently receiving approximately $32,000 in rental for the function area. This would equate to an income from Council of approximately $8,000 per year from 2016 onwards. Council provides around $16,000 per annum each year to Victorian Surf Lifesaving Association to cover the costs of lifeguards and an additional $2,000 over the Folk Festival period. Council has in the past also contributed to minor improvement works at the facility (e.g. windows in 2014-15, $10,000). The Club has also been successful in the past with applications to Council’s Community Assistance Fund. The extension is estimated at $500,000.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 94
Physical Services Port Fairy Surf Lifesaving Club Extension (cont'd)
A request for a contribution to the extension of the facility is yet to be formally received but is anticipated to be approximately $100,000 which would comply with Council’s policy guidelines. It is understood the club has secured the remaining funding. Any capital contribution from Council during the budget process would exclude the club from applying for future Community Assistance Fund grants for the extension project.
OPTIONS Council first needs to consider whether to allow an extension to a Council owned facility. The argument for additional storage rooms is supported as the club does require a lot of equipment to function properly and the additional space will allow equipment to be stored in a safe and functional manner. While there are a range of other facilities that the club could use for training such as Reardon Theatre, Port Fairy Community Services Centre, Port Fairy Yacht Club and the Gardens oval grandstand or football clubrooms facility, it is acknowledged that the club ideally should have street frontage for its administration activities and be close to the beach and club equipment for training purposes. On this basis the extension to the facility appears to be justified. The next issue for consideration is the request from the club for rent relief. Given that the Club has already had a period of 7 years rent free it is recommended that the request for relief be denied and that the rental agreement proceed as per the lease conditions. Lastly, Council can consider a contribution to the extension when a formal request is received as part of the 2016-17 budget deliberations.
RISK Risks to do with planning issues will be included as part of the planning permit considerations.
CONCLUSION There is a range of issues currently being considered as part of the Club’s lease of the Port Fairy Surf Lifesaving Club facility. Council Officers are currently in discussions with the club regarding clarification of the lease details and a further report regarding these arrangements will be presented to Council at a future meeting. The proposed extension, use of the area and associated financial arrangements will be considered as part of the lease clarification discussions. Council as the building owner needs to first consider approval for the extension to allow the Club to progress its planning for the future.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 95
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 96
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
11. Planning Permit PL15/010 – 4 Hughes Avenue, Port Fairy - Building and works for additions and alterations to Surf Club and reduction in car parking Presented by Oliver Moles Report author Fiona Castley Attachment(s) 1. Application and associated documents 2. Objections 3. Response to objections 4. Referral responses 5. Existing Aerial Photos
OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION
That Council having caused notice of Planning Application No. PL15/010 to be given under Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and having considered all the matters required under Section 60 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 decides to Grant a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit under the provisions of the Moyne Planning Scheme in respect of the land known and described as 4 Hughes Avenue, Port Fairy, for the Buildings and Works for additions and alterations to Surf Life Saving Club (Restricted Recreation Facility) and reduction in car parking in accordance with the endorsed plans, with the application dated, for the following grounds:
Conditions:
1. Before the development starts, a landscape plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The landscaping plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and show: a) A minimum of fifteen (15) bicycle spaces and racks accessible to patrons. b) A survey (including botanical names) of all existing vegetation to be retained and/or removed. c) Details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways. d) A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers, including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant. e) Landscaping and planting within all open areas of the site.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 97
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL15/010 – 4 Hughes Avenue, Port Fairy (cont’d)
f) The New Zealand Mirror Bush (Comprosma repens) growing along the fence line at the rear of the property must be removed as it is an environmental weed. g) All species selected must be native species endemic to the local area and to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. 2. Before the development starts, a Construction Management Plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plan must include the following instructions: a) All works must be undertaken in a manner that minimises soil erosion, and any exposed areas of soil must be stabilised to prevent soil erosion, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. b) During construction, works must comply with the requirements of the Environment Protection Authority ‘Industrial Waste Management Policy’ (Waste Acid Sulphate Soils). c) During construction works, no materials should be blown off site. Materials should be removed as created or placed in containers/bins with heavy lids that can be closed during rain and strong winds, as well as being locked when not in use. Soil erosion control measures must be employed throughout the construction stage of the development to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. d) No polluted and/or sediment laden run-off is to be discharged directly or indirectly into Council drains, watercourses or coast. e) No environmental weeds as referred to in ‘Indigenous Plants and Environmental Weeds of Moyne Shire, Moyne Shire, 2002 may be planted on or allowed to invade the site. f) In order to prevent noxious weed spread, construction of the access ramp must be made with material excavated on-site or sourced from a product quarried from a reputable, legal source and transported and laid with machinery that has followed adequate plant hygiene protocols. g) All vehicles, earth-moving equipment and other machinery must be cleaned of soil and plant material before entering and leaving the site to prevent the spread of weeds and pathogens. 3. The plans to be endorsed and which will then form part of the permit are the plans submitted with the application by Jakob Kelly Architect dated 12- 01-2015 and the endorsed plans submitted under Conditions 1 and 2 of this permit. 4. The development, and various uses as shown on the endorsed plans, must not be altered without the written consent of the responsible authority.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 98
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL15/010 – 4 Hughes Avenue, Port Fairy (cont’d)
5. Before the use of the development starts or by such later date as is approved by the responsible authority in writing, the landscaping works shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. 6. No more than 60 persons may be present in the Training/Education Room at any one time without the written consent of the responsible authority. 7. The west wall must be designed by a suitably qualified engineer and constructed as a full retaining wall to ensure a building can be safely built on the common east/west boundary of Lots 1 and 2. 8. The ground floor of the building must be designed to waterproof the interior and exterior walls and the ground floor must be graded towards an exit/internal drainage system. 9. Electrical sockets must be located above the predicted year 2100 threshold sea level rise (of 1.2 metres above sea level). 10. The exterior colour, cladding and finish of the building permitted under this permit must be non-reflective to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. 11, Stormwater must be contained onsite or discharged to a legal point of discharge to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. 12. The use and development must be managed so that the amenity of the area is not detrimentally affected, through the: a) Transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land. b) Appearance of any building, works or materials. c) Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil. d) Presence of vermin.
13. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies: The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit. The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit. The responsible authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 99
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL15/010 – 4 Hughes Avenue, Port Fairy (cont’d)
Referral Authority Conditions: Wannon Water 14. The development to obtain the necessary consents and approvals for: a) Alteration to or connection of on-site plumbing. b) Changes to the natural surface levels that result in a portion of the building or allotment not being able to be provided with gravity sewerage services. NOTE:
Prior to the commencement of works, the contracted builder should brief Moyne Shire Council on the proposed program of construction works and management processes to be implemented during the build.
SYNOPSIS
The application proposes to extend the Port Fairy Surf Life Saving Club premises by extending the ground floor store room on the western side of the site and constructing a training room above it. Moyne Shire Council owns the land and leases the building to the Port Fairy Surf Life Saving Club. Two submissions were received regarding impacts on views and unsympathetic built form. The form of the building has been assessed against the relevant guidelines and complies with all requirements, except site coverage. The proposal utilises existing excavated land and is sited sensitively, matching the existing building. In addition, the extension will reasonably maintain views of the coast. The building has been designed to cater for anticipated sea level rise at year 2100 of 1.2 metres with the store room located on the ground floor and training room on the upper floor. The proposed addition generates the requirement for 24 spaces and no parking is proposed to be provided on site. During peak periods the area around the Surf Life Saving Club attracts high demand due to the patrolled beach and proximity to the kiosk and other amenities and it is unlikely the training room will add significant parking demand in this area as training already occurs on the beach during this period. In non-peak periods, there is ample on-street parking to satisfy the demand generated by the training room. Given the public benefit of this community asset in this location, waiving car parking is justified. It is proposed to require the construction of 15 bicycle parking spaces to encourage sustainable transport practices as a waiver of car parking is proposed. This recommendation does not impact Moyne Shire’s role as landowner and any further approvals that are required under the conditions of the lease or other legislation will be addressed at a later stage by the Moyne Shire Council.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 100
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL15/010 – 4 Hughes Avenue, Port Fairy (cont’d)
The Club President has advised that the education and training area is an essential part of the proposed building. The Club will continue to use the ‘Ray and Lorna Stokie Room’ for smaller training events. The recommendation to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit gives approval only under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and the Moyne Planning Scheme.
BACKGROUND
Application Details
Building and works for additions and alterations to surf club and Application is for: reduction in car parking Applicant’s Name: Jakob Kelly Architect Date Received: 22/01/2015 Application Number: PL15/010 Planner: Fiona Castley/Lucinda Peterson Land/Address: 4 Hughes Avenue PORT FAIRY Zoning: Public Park and Recreation Zone Overlays: Design and Development Overlay Schedule 1 Clause 36.02-2 – Buildings and works – permit is required to construct and building or carry out works (unless undertaken by or on behalf of the public land manager) Under what clause(s) is a permit required? Clause 43.02-02 (Design and Development Overlay) – buildings and works Clause 52.06-3 (car parking) – a permit is required to reduce (including reduce to zero) the number of car parking spaces required under clause 52.06-5. Current use and Port Fairy Surf Life Saving Club premises, kiosk, restaurant and development: function room. Under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007, as the Cultural Heritage use and building was established prior to 2007 Date Received: Management Plan and the site has previously been extensively 22/01/2015 excavated, a Cultural Heritage Management Plan is not required.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 101
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL15/010 – 4 Hughes Avenue, Port Fairy (cont’d)
Proposal The application is for the extension of the existing Port Fairy Surf Life Saving Club to the western boundary of its site. The extension comprises a store room at ground level to accommodate club equipment for the purpose of lifesaving training and emergency response, including trailers, skis, boats and other associated items, in addition to club competition boards. The first floor is proposed to comprise a foyer, office, disabled accessible toilet, store room to store tables, chairs and education equipment and a class room, with the capacity for 60 people, to be used for lifesaving education and training courses such as Bronze Medallion, Senior First Aid, Advanced Resuscitation, Spinal Management, and available for schools and community groups. The proposed extension is separate to the commercial activities of the kiosk and restaurant which are leased separately.
Siting and Built Form The proposed addition is located on the western side of the existing building, built to the western boundary and approximately 6 metres from the southern boundary. The addition is 8.195 metres wide and 18 metres long. A 3 metre wide 1:14 ramp is proposed along the western boundary to double aluminium glazed doors fronting Hughes Avenue. The combined building wall and retaining wall of 33 metres in length is proposed to be constructed along the western boundary. At natural ground level (on the western boundary) the limestone coloured concrete block retaining wall is proposed, rising 0.8 metres to 1.2 metres, with a timber paling fence constructed above it, at a combined height of 3 metres. The total height of the extension at the western boundary is 4 metres, including the facia, while the height of the southern elevation is 5.7 metres (including 1.8 metres below natural ground level). From Hughes Avenue the addition will appear as single storey. The ground floor level is proposed to comprise floor to ceiling heights of 2.4 metres and the upper floor 2.8 metres. Clear glass brick highlight windows (1.2 metre x 0.4 metre) located 2 metres above the ground floor level (store room) are proposed to be located on the western and southern elevations. In addition, 3 sets of windows (2 metres x 2.3 metres) are proposed on the southern wall of the first floor, with frosted glass extending 1.7 metres above finished floor level to prevent overlooking. The remaining upper portion of the windows (600mm high) would comprise glazing. The proposed roof comprises a skillion roof of 2 degrees pitch. A new 2.2 to 2.7 metre high timber screening fence is proposed to be constructed on Hughes Avenue with a series of double gates to screen the existing cool room, skip and bins. Relocated air conditioners are also proposed to be included in this location. This area is currently unscreened.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 102
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL15/010 – 4 Hughes Avenue, Port Fairy (cont’d)
Materials The proposed addition would be constructed with a combination of rough and smooth concrete block work coloured limestone, glass bricks, frosted and clear glazing, timber paling and Colourbond ‘Deep Ocean’ roof and eave gutters to match the remainder of the original building.
Car Parking The proposal retains existing on-street car parking spaces, including four car parking spaces located outside the kiosk, previously provided for the Life Saving Club development in 1999. The proposal does not include any additional car parking spaces and in this context the application proposes to waive all car parking associated with the extended building.
Subject site and locality An inspection of the site and the surrounding area has been undertaken. The site is located on the south west corner of Hughes and Beach Street and sits within a previously excavated depression with direct frontage to East Beach. The site is approximately 40 metres by 23 metres, with a total area of approximately 1,000 square metres and currently contains: A split level single, two to three storey building with a total floor area of approximately 930 square metres used for the Port Fairy Surf Life Saving Club, and commercial restaurant, kiosk and function room. The building presents as single storey to Hughes Avenue and Beach Street, with the exception of a three storey high observation tower. Bins, a waste skip and a cool room are located on, and are visible from, Hughes Avenue. The building’s two storey component fronts East Beach, comprising a balcony at the upper level. Given the land has been excavated, a two storey building faces the western (rear) and southern (side) boundaries however at these boundaries the building is approximately 4 metres in height when measured from natural ground level. The existing building is set back 8.19 metres from the western boundary and 6 metres from the southern boundary. An informal garden and paved area is located on the western side and two large water tanks located in the south western corner of the side, within a previously excavated area approximately 1.8 metres below natural ground level. The existing building comprises limestone coloured masonry block, Colourbond roofs and roller doors and a Colourbond observation tower. Entrance into the building is from Hughes Avenue (from the northern frontage) and via the roller doors off the beach (at the eastern elevation). The locality characteristics are: Vacant land on the western side of the lot, owned by Moyne Shire Council. Dwellings in Moyne Court, generally two storey in scale with balconies to the rear of the dwellings overlooking the western side of the site.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 103
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL15/010 – 4 Hughes Avenue, Port Fairy (cont’d)
Formal on-street car parking along Beach Road and along the northern frontage of the subject site. East beach and forecourt area along the eastern frontage of the site.
Permit/Site History The history of the site includes: Planning Permit 99/014P was issued on 12 February 1999 for the use and development of land for the purposes of a Surf Life Saving Club (Club). The endorsed plans included ground floor Storage for rubber duckies, boats, surf boards and gym, first aid room, toilets and workshop. The upper floor included a kiosk, kitchen and servery, hall and training room separated with a moveable partition, toilets, and two entries, an outdoor eating area and four car spaces, including a dedicated deliveries space and an ambulance space. Planning Permit 2001-055 was issued on 5 April 2001 for a two lot subdivision (with the Life Saving Club located on Lot 1 (eastern half fronting the beach) and Lot 2 comprising vacant land (western half). Planning Permit application 2001-224 was lodged on 16 August 2001 for the display of signage. Further information was sought on 30 August 2001 and the application was not resolved. Planning Permit PL2001-222 was issued on 25 September 2001 for an On- Premises Liquor Licence.
Public Notification The application has been advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, by: Sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land. Placing a sign on site Notice in the Moyne Gazette on 3 September 2015 and The Warrnambool Standard on 5 September 2015. The notification has been carried out correctly. Council has received two objections to date. The key issues raised in the objections are: Obstruction of views. Building will dominate the predominantly residential landscape. The bulk and mass of the building will be overbearing on neighbouring properties. Capital funding should be used to upgrade the existing facility. There is no need for the additional training area as there are other education centres in Port Fairy which are underutilised. The use of the extension will be for other uses other than training, such as a ‘bunk house’ and concern regarding noise associated with that use.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 104
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL15/010 – 4 Hughes Avenue, Port Fairy (cont’d)
Consultation Consultation included seeking a response from the applicant to concerns raised in the objections. The applicant provided a response on 1 October 2015 which was provided to the objecting parties and objections still stand. Consultation included seeking a response from the Club as to whether the Club was interested in progressing the proposal to include only the storage area. The Club advised on 25 November 2015 that the education and training area is an essential part of the proposed building. Further consultation was undertaken with the applicant in February 2016. The applicant has confirmed the Surf Club is willing to construct 15 bicycle parking spaces.
Referrals External Referrals/Notices Required by the Planning Scheme:
Referrals/Notice Advice/Response/Conditions Section 55 Referrals Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority No objection. This property is outside the area that would be inundated by 1% AEP floods but may be cut off from essential and emergency services during large floods. In general, the CMA considers that intensification of development on Port Fairy’s east beach dune should be avoided until uncertainties associated with the lack of flood warning and the availability of safe access/egress via Griffiths Street are addressed. However given this building is not a permanent place of residence it is considered that the proposal can be supported. Section 52 notices Wannon Water No objection subject to standard conditions. Internal Referrals Advice/Response/Conditions Environment No objection subject to conditions relating to landscaping, remove of noxious weeds, construction management details, design measures to address coastal hazard risk. The Coastal Hazard Vulnerability Assessment Report is quite rudimentary. However, the ground level appears to be solely for storage purposes, and the majority of the lifesaving equipment is designed to withstand being wet. Having regard to projected sea level rise, the ground floor of the building should be designed to waterproof the interior and exterior walls and the concrete floor be graded slightly towards an exit/internal drainage system. To aid the removal of water, locate electrical sockets above the predicted water threshold levels (of 1.2 metres above sea level). A condition is also recommended that the ground floor should never be used for anything other than storage space. Coastal Erosion Risk will rely on the improvement and ongoing maintenance of the condition of the existing rock wall. A financial contribution should be provided by the applicant to maintain and improve the rock wall.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 105
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL15/010 – 4 Hughes Avenue, Port Fairy (cont’d)
Internal Referrals Advice/Response/Conditions Recreation and Objection relating to car parking and bicycle parking Community The vacant land to the west of the site cannot be relied upon for car Development parking. Parking is already an issue, especially with regard to major events. Current parking is congested. Using the new facility for additional participation and community activity, particularly functions, will generate an increased demand for parking that cannot be met. It is recommended additional bicycle racks could be requested near the club and café. If schools from out of town use the facility, a bus parking space should be considered. Assets and Forward Objection relating to reduction in car parking. Planning Unit Advice in relation to construction methods, internal design, coastal hazard Recommended conditions relating to stormwater Since the building was constructed, there have been changes to the type and frequency of use of the building including operating hours of the kiosk, bistro and functions area, which has had an effect on the parking demand for the facility. Residential development has also meant on-street parking has reduced in that time. The club has 4 car spaces in the road reserve adjacent to the building, which will be retained in their current configuration. The current sub-lease of the kiosk, bistro/function area requires the lessee to operate during the summer period, which is when parking demand exceeds supply. An assessment of the parking sought to be waived, includes a waiver of 24 spaces associated with the education centre and retention of 4 existing spaces. In Beach Street between Hughes and Bourne Avenues there are 62 designated parking spaces. It is unlikely the additional demand from the use of the Surf Club will be absorbed during peak times, given existing parking is at capacity during these periods. Allowing the additions to proceed without providing additional parking spaces will exacerbate the existing peak parking problems within the area. Any permit needs to include reference to Lot 1 not to be used for parking for the purpose of this permit. Building No objection. A registered Building Surveyor will be required to assess the BCA compliance. Fire rated walls and windows will be required on the wall near the boundary.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 106
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL15/010 – 4 Hughes Avenue, Port Fairy (cont’d)
PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK Use Definition The Surf Life Saving Club Premises is best defined in Clause 73 as a Restricted Recreation Facility - Land used by members of a club or group, member’s guests, or by the public on payment of a fee, for leisure, recreation, or sport, such as a bowling or tennis club, gymnasium and fitness centre and may include food and drink for consumption on the premises. This use is included within the wider definition of Minor Sports and Recreation facility. For the purpose of Car Parking, as the Car parking Table 1 does not include the above uses, parking rates for Education Centre have been applied by the applicant.
Zoning The subject site is located within the Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ). The purpose of the PPRZ is to recognise areas for public recreation and open space; to protect and conserve areas of significance where appropriate; and to provide for commercial uses where appropriate. Under Decision Guidelines the following matters are required to be considered: The comments of any public land management or other relevant land management having responsibility for the care or management of the land; and Whether the development is appropriately located and designed, including in accordance with any relevant use or guidelines.
Overlays The site is subject to the Design and Development Overlay. Places included with a Design and Development Overlay have specific requirements that relate to the design and built form of new development. Specifically, the site is affected by Schedule 1 to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO1). Design objectives of DDO1 include: To retain and enhance the beach’s natural feel and protect it from intrusive development. To protect the beach from visually intrusive development and ensure the beach remains the dominant visual feature. To ensure the sand dunes retain their visual integrity when viewed from key viewpoints. To protect the dunes form excavation. To protect existing native coastal vegetation and to encourage additional appropriate planting. DDO1 contains a series of Design Guidelines derived from the Port Fairy Design Guidelines 2001, pertaining to overall height, façade height, building bulk and mass, setbacks, car parking, garages and outbuildings, building materials and colours, fencing, fencing, roof pitch and landscaping and also requires consideration of Clauses 21.01-3 and 21.01-4.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 107
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL15/010 – 4 Hughes Avenue, Port Fairy (cont’d)
Particular Provisions Car parking Under Clause 52.06-5A, where a use of land is not specified in Table 1, before the floor area of an existing use is increased, car parking spaces must be provided to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. If parking is not provided, a planning permit is required to reduce or waive parking. Before granting a permit to reduce the number of spaces below the likely demand assessed by the Car Parking Demand Assessment, the responsible authority must consider the following, as appropriate: The Car Parking Demand Assessment. Any relevant local planning policy or incorporated plan. The availability of alternative car parking in the locality of the land, including: - Efficiencies gained from the consolidation of shared car parking spaces. - Public car parks intended to serve the land. - On street parking in non-residential zones. - Streets in residential zones specifically managed for non-residential parking. - On street parking in residential zones in the locality of the land that is intended to be for residential use. The practicality of providing car parking on the site. Any adverse economic impact a shortfall of parking may have on the economic viability of any nearby activity centre. The future growth and development of any nearby activity centre. Any car parking deficiency associated with the existing use of the land. Any credit that should be allowed for car parking spaces provided on common land or by a Special Charge Scheme or cash-in-lieu payment. Local traffic management in the locality of the land. The impact of fewer car parking spaces on local amenity, including pedestrian amenity and the amenity of nearby residential areas. The need to create safe, functional and attractive parking areas. Access to or provision of alternative transport modes to and from the land. The equity of reducing the car parking requirement having regard to any historic contributions of existing businesses. The character of the surrounding area and whether reducing the car parking provision would result in a quality/positive urban design outcome; and Any other relevant consideration.
Bicycle parking Under Clause 52.34, bicycle parking must be provided for the additional floor space based on a rate of 1 space per 4 employees and 1 space to each 200 square metres of floor area (based on Minor Sports and Recreation facility).
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 108
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL15/010 – 4 Hughes Avenue, Port Fairy (cont’d)
The State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) Under Clause 11.05-5 - Coastal settlement, requires planning for sustainable coastal development. Strategies to achieve by supporting a network of diverse coastal settlements which provides for a broad range of housing types, economic opportunities and services. Port Fairy is identified as a District Town within Clause 11.09 Great South Coast Regional Growth Plan. A key relevant strategy is to support sustainable management of growth around coastal assets to protect environmental values, and to achieve regional economic and community benefits (Clause. 11.09-6). Enhancing equity of access to infrastructure, facilities and services is also a priority (Clause 11.09-7).
Clause 12.02-2 Environmental and Landscape Values Requires development of coastal areas to be considered in the context of conserving, protecting and enhancing coastal biodiversity and ecological values. The clause seeks to recognise and enhance the value of the coastal areas to the community and ensure sustainable use of natural coastal resources. Land use planning needs to have regard to the requirements of the Coordinated land use and planning with the requirements of the Coastal Management Act 1995 to provide clear direction for the future sustainable use of the coast, including the marine environment, for recreation, conservation, tourism, commerce and similar uses in appropriate areas; protect and maintain areas of environmental significance; and identify suitable areas and opportunities for improved facilities. Principle 4 of the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008 is pertinent – to ensure development on the coast is located within existing modified and resilient environments where the demand for development is evident and the impact can be managed. Under Environmental Risks Clause 13.01 Climate change impacts coastal inundation and erosion resulting from climate change is required to be considered. Under the SPPF, an increase of 0.2 metres over current 1 in 100- year flood levels by 2040 may be used for new development in close proximity to existing development (urban infill) and consideration of a possible sea level rise of 0.8 metres by 2100. The combined effects of tides, storm surges, coastal processes and local conditions such as topography and geology must be considered when assessing risks and coastal impacts associated with climate change. The Policy requires that land subject to coastal hazards are identified and appropriately managed to ensure that future development is not at risk. In addition, development should be avoided in identified coastal hazard areas susceptible to inundation, erosion, landslip/landslide, acid sulphate soils and geotechnical risks.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 109
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL15/010 – 4 Hughes Avenue, Port Fairy (cont’d)
Clause 12.02-4 Coastal tourism Encourages suitably located and designed coastal and marine tourism opportunities. Planning must ensure developments are of an appropriate scale, use and intensity relative to its location and that it minimises impacts on the surrounding natural visual, environmental and coastal character.
Clause 15 Built Environment and Heritage Requires planning to ensure all new land use and development appropriately responds to its landscape, valued built form and cultural context noting that creating quality built environments supports community’s social, cultural, economic and environmental wellbeing. Planning should achieve high quality urban design and architecture that contributes positively to local urban character and sense of place, enhances liveability, diversity, amenity and safety of the public realm, and minimises detrimental impact on neighbouring properties.
Clause 15.01-1 Urban Design Requires urban environments that are safe, functional and provide good quality environments with a sense of place and cultural identity. Development should respond to its context in terms of urban character, cultural heritage, natural features, surrounding landscape and climate and new development does not detract from the coastline’s natural quality.
Clause 17.03-1 Facilitating tourism (under Economic Development) Seeks to encourage tourism development to maximise the employment and long- term economic, social and cultural benefits of developing the State as a competitive domestic and international tourist destination. The clause encourages the development of a range of well-designed and sited tourist facilities and to ensure that tourism facilities have access to suitable transport and be compatible with and build upon the assets and qualities of surrounding urban or rural activities and cultural and natural attractions.
Clause 18.02-5 Car parking (under Transport) Seeks to ensure an adequate supply of car parking that is appropriately designed and located. A key strategy is allocating or requiring land to be set aside for car parking subject to the existing and potential modes of access including public transport, the demand for off-street car parking, road capacity and the potential for demand management of car parking.
Clause 19 Infrastructure Planning for development of social and physical infrastructure should enable it to be provided in a way that is efficient, equitable, accessible and timely. Planning should also recognise social needs by providing land for a range of accessible community resources, such as education, cultural, health and community support facilities.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 110
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL15/010 – 4 Hughes Avenue, Port Fairy (cont’d)
Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) Municipal Strategic Statement Clause 21.05 Settlement and housing Identifies for Port Fairy there is pressure from development on views from the public domain on the coast, which contribute to the character of the town and are sensitive to the height of development. Built form should respect existing character, the integrity of the dune formations and significant view lines to and from the coast. The MSS seeks to provide an environment with the capacity to support a range of community and leisure facilities. With regard to views the clause recognizes that views form an important part of the amenity of a property and that development should be designed to provide for a reasonable sharing of views of significant landscape features, including views of the ocean and coastal shoreline. Built form is a major issue for Port Fairy and in this context the clause requires consideration of the Port Fairy Design Guidelines to protect the neighbourhood character of the town. Development is encouraged to locate a sufficient distance from the high water mark of the coast, estuary or wetland to enable protection from erosion hazards and the impacts of sea level rise and to allow for landward migration of shorelines. Coastal tourist and commercial recreation development should be concentrated within existing settlements where existing infrastructure and community services can be utilised
Clause 21.06 Environment Identifies that the coast is under threat from the effects of climate change including sea level rise and increased storm surges which may threaten development from eroding shorelines. This risk needs to be considered in the siting and design of development close to the coast. The clause considers development located close to the coast estuarine areas may also threaten the capacity of the environment to adapt to climate change impacts through limiting the ability of wetland vegetation and shorelines to migrate landwards under rising sea levels and increased tidal penetration landwards. Such limitations can be in the form of sea walls and other protective structures which can effectively lead to the loss of coastal features such as beaches and wetland vegetation communities from coastal squeeze. The MSS identifies the coastline as an important recreational and leisure asset for the Shire, offering environmental, conservation and social values and experiences that are strongly interconnected to recreation and leisure pursuits. Within the Shire’s urban areas there are also highly developed and intensely used beach and foreshore areas offering a full range of high standard facilities and conveniences. With regard to Landscape, while there are no character statements for coastal land deriving from the 2006 Coastal Landscape Assessment, the Port Fairy Design Guidelines apply via DDO1 in this urban environment.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 111
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL15/010 – 4 Hughes Avenue, Port Fairy (cont’d)
Development in coastal areas must occur in a sensitive manner that does not impact upon the environmental significance and sensitivity of the coast. LPPF identifies hazard of development on the coast disturbing acid sulphate soils and being affected by rising sea levels associated with climate change. To ensure development avoids disturbing acid sulphate soils and where disturbance is unavoidable development should comply with the requirements of the EPA’s Industrial Waste Management Policy (Waste acid sulphate soils). In addition development should be appropriately setback from the coastline to avoid impacts associated with climate change and sea level rise effects.
Clause 21.07 Economic development Encourages development in settlements and in appropriate locations near natural, cultural or historic features and requires that coastal and river developments that optimise tourism potential do so in a manner which recognises the sensitive nature of these assets.
Clause 21.08 Infrastructure Encourages facilities and services that satisfy the range of community needs for children, youth and the aged and a range of recreational, cultural and entertainment facilities that serve the needs of all age groups in the community.
Local Areas – 21.09-3 Port Fairy Identifies urban character as a major issue and requires new buildings and works to respect Port Fairy’s built form and the coastal location of the area. Furthermore, the unique coastal location of Port Fairy should be utilised to develop tourist-related activities and infrastructure sensitive to the character and scale of the town. With regard to Environment, the MSS requires that the coastline and coastal dunes around Port Fairy should be protected from inappropriate development. With regard to Infrastructure, the MSS supports the establishment or retention of community services necessary to support the needs of the community.
Clause 22.02-1 Coastal Areas Recognises the dynamic, complex and interconnected nature of biological and physical processes in the coastal zone and highlights the susceptibility of the coast to the effects of natural events including sea-level rise, whilst also noting the coast is a major economic asset. It identifies the community’s desire for space and resources on the coast for a variety of recreation opportunities and the economic and social values of tourism and recreation in the coastal area in general. In terms of built form it recommends that buildings and structures should not exceed 8.0m above natural ground level and specifies a range of materials, requiring development to be visually complimentary to the landscape setting.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 112
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL15/010 – 4 Hughes Avenue, Port Fairy (cont’d)
The Decision Guidelines of Clause 65 Because a permit can be granted does not imply that a permit should or will be granted. The responsible authority must decide whether the proposal will produce acceptable outcomes in terms of the decision guidelines of this clause.
Summary of Key Issues The key issues to be considered for this proposal are: Whether the proposed extension will negatively impact on the coastal environment. Whether the proposed extension will be susceptible to environmental impacts of sea level rise and erosion. Whether the built form, siting and materials of the proposed extension is appropriate considering the residential context of the site to the south and west, and the coastal context of its location, having regard to the LPPF and Design and Development Overlay and Port Fairy Design Guidelines. Whether the proposed extension will impact on view sharing opportunities and amenity of neighbouring residences, having regard to the LPPF and Clause 65. Whether the waiving of car parking will have a detrimental impact on the immediate area. The role of community benefit and balance between community benefit of the facility and extent of site coverage and reduction in car parking.
ASSESSMENT / DISCUSSION State Planning Policy Framework and Local Planning Policy Framework Sea level rise The SPPF currently requires consideration of a sea level rise of 0.8 metres by 2100. According to the more contemporary ‘Future Coasts – Port Fairy Coastal Hazard Assessment’ (dated April 2013) a sea level rise of 0.4 metres by 2050 and 1.2 metres by 2100 is anticipated, meaning that the development may be at risk of being at or below sea level by 2100. While the proposed ground floor is currently above the protected 2050 sea level (at 0.4 metres above existing sea level) it would be below the projected 2100 sea level (at 1.2 metres above the existing sea level). In its present state, the existing building is already susceptible to sea level rise. The proposed extension is located on the western side of the building, the furthest side of the building from the coast. It is noted that the ground floor at that location is proposed to be used for storage and, as demonstrated by the window placing, floorplan and connection with the existing storage area, has not been designed to accommodate patrons. In this context, while the building may be subject to inundation at ground floor, given its use, there will not be threat to life. That said, it is recommended that a condition be placed on the permit to require all electrical points to be set above the 1.2 metres. In addition, a further condition should be applied to treat the interior and exterior with waterproofing.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 113
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL15/010 – 4 Hughes Avenue, Port Fairy (cont’d)
It is noted that the first floor, accessed directly off Hughes Avenue, is proposed to accommodate people for seminars and education purposes and this proportion of the building will not be inundated.
Acid sulphate soil Council’s Environment Officer advised although the presence of Coastal Acid Sulphate Soils is a possibility, given there is minimal visual evidence to be found in Port Fairy it is unlikely to be pertinent. However, as recommended in the LPPF, a condition should be included in the planning permit that the development comply with the requirements of the EPA’s Industrial Waste Management Policy (Waste Acid Sulphate Soils).
Impact on Dunes The proposed extension is located on a previously excavated dune and further extensive excavation is not likely. The foundation is a mix of sand, rock, silt and some clay. The application states that the soil condition has been tested as Class A or Stable in accordance with AS2970.1.
Coastal Erosion Risk In the long term, the site may be susceptible to erosion and, as advised by Council’s Environment Department, stability of the site will rely on the improvement and ongoing maintenance of the condition of the existing rock wall. This situation exists already for the premises, whether or not the extension proceeds. The maintenance and upgrade of the rock wall is essential to preserve existing community infrastructure. While the Environment Department recommend a financial contribution from the applicant, this is outside the framework of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and is required to be negotiated through a different process.
Native vegetation No native vegetation is proposed to be removed from the site. Council’s Environment Department have identified that a noxious weed in the form of New Zealand Mirror Bush is located on site and in this context it is appropriate that it be removed. In addition, given the sensitive location of the site, requirements for environmentally sensitive building practices should be required as conditions on the permit, as recommended by in the Environment referral.
Community uses/tourist infrastructure The premises forms an important community and tourist asset in an established urban area, infrastructure supported by the LPPF.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 114
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL15/010 – 4 Hughes Avenue, Port Fairy (cont’d)
Public Park and Recreation Zone The proposed extension of the Port Fairy Surf Club meets the purpose of the zone by providing public recreation and community facilities.
Design and Development Overlay The proposal has been assessed against the following Design Requirements, Performance Standards and “Acceptable Solutions to meet Performance Standards” as set out in clause 43.02 and the Port Fairy Design Guidelines.
Design Requirement Response Facade Height Building height should not dominate the Meets requirement. Generally, the beachfront or be detrimental to the integrity Requirements apply in a residential context. of the dunes. A permit should not be granted The existing building, as a purpose-built Surf to construct a building or construct or carry Life Saving Club complex is not residential in out works, which exceed a Façade Height of its existing form or height and already 3.5 metres. The Façade Height is the exceeds the façade height required under vertical distance between the natural ground DDO1. That said, the height of the addition level and the point where the façade joins the is considerably less than the existing roof or upper storey decking. Where the building and appears single storey at natural application is for the extension of an existing ground level and recessive in the context of building, the calculation of height will include the original building. the footprint of the existing building and the proposed building. Excavation of sand dunes should be avoided to achieve the Facade Height. Building bulk and mass Buildings should be articulated so that the Meets requirement. The proposed overall bulk and mass of the building does extension is on the west side of the existing not dominate the beach front. In addition, building and is not visible from the beach. buildings should not result in an The addition, with a skillion roof, is lower unacceptable intensification of development than apex of the remainder of the building on the skyline when viewed from the beach and adds articulation to the overall form of of Port Fairy Bay. the building. In addition, it will have minimal impact on the Port Fairy skyline. Setbacks Buildings should be setback from front, rear Meets requirement. The proposed and side boundaries to avoid dominating the extension is on the west side of the existing beachfront. In addition, buildings should be building and does not impact on the setback setback front, rear and side boundaries to from the beach. In this sense the proposal avoid being perceived as a wall of buildings complies with the performance standard. along the beachfront.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 115
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL15/010 – 4 Hughes Avenue, Port Fairy (cont’d)
Design Requirement Response Site coverage The combined site coverage of buildings and Does not meet requirement. The existing impermeable surfaces should not building (at 40% site coverage) is in excess overwhelm the natural qualities of the beach of the performance standard. The overall environment. The performance standard is site coverage, post-addition, would be 60%, a maximum site coverage of 30% for double the planning scheme requirement. buildings or 50% for buildings (including all The portion of the site proposed to be used impermeable surfaces). for the extension is currently unusable due to the original excavation of the dune and slope. While site coverage is higher than the performance standard, it is considered that the Life Saving Club essentially forms part of the beach infrastructure and makes good use of a difficult space. Given the Net community benefit for additional storage and educational opportunities, to support public safety, additional site coverage is justified. Massing has also been minimised by utilising the already excavated rear of the building site. Roof pitch and alignment The roof pitch and roof alignment of Meets requirement. The extension is buildings should be consistent with the designed with a skillion roof to the rear of the predominant roof character of the area and existing building with a pitch of 2 degrees. in this context the guidelines recommend a This is considered a typical response for a minimum roof pitch of 15 degrees. Variations rear addition (in a residential context). It is to this will be considered if the design is able considered that the design is successfully to better meet the view sharing and visual resolved to minimise the height of the amenity objectives. addition and minimise massing and bulk in the context of residential properties to the south and west. As the extension is considerably lower than the existing building it will have minimal impact on the views from the residence to the west.
Car parking, garages and outbuildings Garages, outbuildings and areas allocated Does not meet requirement. No additional for the parking of vehicles should be sited to car parking is provided on site and in this minimise visibility from the street and be context, the proposal does not comply. designed to be consistent with the character of the area. The guidelines state that all parking, including visitor parking to be provided on site.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 116
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL15/010 – 4 Hughes Avenue, Port Fairy (cont’d)
Design Requirement Response Building materials and colours Materials and colours should minimise visual Meets requirement. The proposed impact of buildings and reflect the seaside materials, limestone concrete blocks and character of the area. Colourbond ‘Deep Ocean’, is consistent with the Surf Life Saving Club building and reflects the seaside character of the site and environs. Frontage, landscaping and fencing Buildings should provide an attractive and Meets requirement. The eastern frontage of active edge to the beach and provide the building remains unchanged. However, passive Surveillance to Beach Street and the given the site is located on the corner, it also beach. Front fencing and landscaping has frontage to Hughes Avenue which needs should reflect the seaside character of the to be considered as it effectively operates as area and enable passive surveillance to the primary entrance into the facility as well Beach Street and the beach. as rear access. A proposed screening fence, extending approximately 5.5 metres along the northern boundary to screen existing bins and cool rooms will improve the appearance of this site which currently presents as untidy. The extension is located on a portion of land which is currently unused. Its setback of approximately 15 metres is recessive from Hughes Avenue and accessed via ramps. Entrance from this area will improve surveillance in this location, including onto Hughes Avenue.
PARTICULAR PROVISIONS Car Parking - Clause 52.06 The Planning Scheme does not nominate a parking rate for the use of a Surf Life Saving Club nor its closest definition of ‘Restricted Recreation Facility’ or ‘Minor Sports and Recreation Facility’. In this context, a parking rate has been submitted by the applicant as an Education Centre, considering the addition will be used for training purposes (generating 24 spaces) at 0.4 spaces per person. Equally, the rate could have been considered under Place of Assembly, (generating 18 car spaces), at a parking rate of 0.3 spaces per person. The application seeks to waive all car parking generated by the extension. Given the siting of the existing building and ground levels there is currently no capacity on site for any additional parking. Existing car parking on and around the site includes 32 angled on-street parks at 45 degree angle along Beach Street. In addition, 4 indented car parks, including one disabled park, are located on Hughes Avenue, immediately in front of the Kiosk area, originally provided for the 1999 development of the Surf Life Saving Club building.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 117
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL15/010 – 4 Hughes Avenue, Port Fairy (cont’d)
The immediate area is prone to significant car parking issues and congestion during the summer months, primarily associated with beach goers who are attracted to East Beach for the beach and in particular the proximity of the area identified by the ‘swim safety flags’ patrolled by the Surf Life Saving Club, as well as the Life Saving training during the summer months. It is the combination of these uses that generates significant car parking issues within the peak period. Given the dimensions of the site and location of the existing building, there is already no capacity for additional parking on site. The proposed addition makes the best use of the site for community benefit in regard to this strategic location. There is a significant public benefit regarding the location of the Surf Life Saving Club. Training already occurs on the beach over the summer months and generates car parking issues during this time. The additional training room will extend the existing training for matters which may be better presented in an indoor environment. There is ample on-street parking outside peak periods to accommodate car parking associated with the use of the training room. Given the public benefit of the training facility, it is considered that the car parking should be waived.
Bicycle Parking – Clause 52.24 For a Minor Sports and Recreation Facility, the required bicycle parking rate is 1 per 4 employees and 1 to 200 square metres of net floor area. The proposal does not propose any additional bicycle parks. Given the additional floor area is 288 square metres, it is recommended that a minimum of 15 bicycle spaces with racks be provided to balance the waiver of car parking.
CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS
Views Objection not supported Officer Comment Objections were received regarding obstruction of views to the north (from the property immediately to the south) and obstruction of views from the property from the southern end of the property to the west of the site. The first principle for considering views is guided by the Planning Scheme which considers that views form an important part of the amenity of a property and development should provide opportunities for a reasonable sharing of views of significant landscape features, including views of the ocean and coastal shoreline. The test here is the reasonable sharing of views in the context of the siting and overall height of the proposed building extension.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 118
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL15/010 – 4 Hughes Avenue, Port Fairy (cont’d)
With regard to the property immediately to south (on Moyne Court), this property fronts onto East Beach with views directly onto the coast. The proposed extension will not have any impact on these primary views and views will remain entirely unobstructed. With regard to northerly views, the existing Surf Life Saving Club building is located adjacent to this dwelling. The raised deck of the dwelling, located on the western side of the building presently has a northerly view through the rear of the Surf Lifesaving Club property to Hughes Avenue, with views focussed toward the west and north. The northerly oblique view is expected to be obscured. That said, it is considered that the orientation of the dwelling achieves premium coastline views and given the setback of the extension, (with a natural ground level some 6 metres from the southern boundary and a height of 3.8 metres) sunlight amenity and views to the west will be retained. With regard to the property to the west (on Hughes Avenue), views to the beach are currently obscured by the existing surf club building. The addition and siting of the building extension with its lower built form and skillion roof will not have any impact on views. Retention of the existing 6 metre setback from the southern boundary and 15 metres from the northern boundary will still allow for view sharing from balconies and windows through the Surf Life Saving Club property. In both cases, it is considered that the view sharing tests required in the Planning Scheme are met. Landscaping Objection Supported Officer Comment One submitter requested landscaping to be improved on the site. It is recommended a condition be included on the permit to require landscape plan to be submitted and landscaping works completed prior to the use of the extension.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 119
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL15/010 – 4 Hughes Avenue, Port Fairy (cont’d)
CONCLUSION
The proposed addition to the Life Saving Club building makes good use of space on the site. It is sited in a recessive manner, utilising the existing excavated land, as well as applying lower roof form and materials that match the existing building. Although the addition is within land susceptible to sea level rise, the part of addition used to accommodate patrons is above the projected 2100 1.2 metre sea level rise and conditions are recommended to future proof the lower floor in the long term. With regard to car parking, it is recognised that the activities on this site assist with the safety of locals and tourists using East Beach and that this particular location generates significant parking demand due to the beach and in particular proximity of the patrolled beach (driven by the location of the Surf Life Saving Club). It is considered that, in the peak periods it is unlikely that the training room will add to the parking demand as training already occurs on the beach. In the other times, off-peak, there is ample on-street parking along Beach Street to accommodate vehicles, as there currently is for the restaurant. Given the significant public benefit of this infrastructure in this location, it is considered justified to waive car parking
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 120
PHYSICAL SERVICES
12. Walkers Lane Former Quarry Presented by Trevor Greenberger Report author Trevor Greenberger Attachment Nil
OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION
That Council endorse the proposed tree planting in response to a petition received in November 2015.
SYNOPSIS
This report relates to a petition received by Council on 19 November 2015 which is signed by 63 citizens. The petition requests Council to address weed issues and beautify the perimeter of the former quarry in Walkers Lane, Koroit. In accordance with Council’s Local Law (meeting procedures), the petition was tabled at the Council meeting on 27 January, 2016.
BACKGROUND
The petition indicated that the quarry was previously buffered by trees that were removed to allow for the installation of a new fence. High scrub and weeds had grown creating an eyesore along a popular scenic drive area. The petition requested that the weeds and scrub be cleared and that native vegetation be planted around the perimeter.
STRATEGIC LINK
The Council Plan 2014-2017 has the following strategies: ‘To ensure that Council services and programs are responsive to the changing needs and expectations of the community.’
‘Support the development of local area partnerships to ensure the active participation of residents in the future of their communities’.
In particular, it also has broad links with the following strategy: 2.3 Develop and implement improvements to town entrances, recreation facilities and open space amenities.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 121
Physical Services Walkers Lane Former Quarry (cont’d)
DISCUSSION
Council Officers have been working on this issue since the fence was installed during 2015. Local residents have provided advice regarding appropriate species but have also voiced concerns regarding the use of weed killer in the area and potential health risks. After various correspondence it was agreed to spray the Western Boundary of the quarry and to plant native vegetation around the perimeter of the fenceline during this year’s Autumn period. Most of the weeded area has now died off. It is intended that the planting works take place after Easter this year.
CONSULTATION
Subject to Council agreement with the proposed actions, the correspondent that arranged the petition will be advised in writing of the intended action.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The planting is allowed for in Councils 2015-16 budget as a carryover from the fencing works.
RISK
There is no perceived risk regarding the planting as all planting will occur on the outside of the fence.
CONCLUSION
The intended actions should address the petitioners concerns and improve the visual appearance of the former quarry and new fenced area.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 122
PHYSICAL SERVICES
13. Koroit Croquet Club Presented by Trevor Greenberger Report author Kim Freeman Attachment(s) Nil
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION That Council agrees to the Koroit Croquet Club request to vary the purpose of $1000.00 approved and allocated in the 2015/16 Community Assistance Fund for the removal of asbestos, to the purchase of a refrigerator and stove for the Koroit Croquet Club clubrooms.
SYNOPSIS
This report responds to an application that has been received from the Koroit Croquet Club seeking Council’s approval for the Club to vary the purpose of $1000.00 funding applied for and approved in 2015/16 Community Assistance Fund.
BACKGROUND
Council approved an allocation of $1000.00 from the 2015/16 Community Assistance Fund to the Koroit Croquet Club for the removal of asbestos associated with renovations to the Club’s clubrooms which had a total cost of $2000.00. The Club advises that they will not be able to proceed with the planned project as funded as the Club does not have sufficient funds to cover the quotes received to undertake the renovations and removal of asbestos. The Koroit Croquet Club therefor seeks Councils approval to redirect the Community Assistance Fund allocation of $1000.00 to purchase a new refrigerator and stove for the clubrooms.
STRATEGIC LINK
The Community Assistance Fund report aligns with Council’s 2013-17 Council Strategy Plan 2.7 “Encourage and assist communities to adopt a ‘self-help’ approach to local advancement.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 123
Physical Services Koroit Croquet Club (cont’d)
DISCUSSION
Council in the past has previously received and given favourable considerations on a case by case basis, to similar requests from Community Assistance Fund applicants.
CONSULTATION
Council decides on whether to approve the reallocation of $1,000 previously allocated in the 2015/16 Community Assistances Fund.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None as Community Assistance Funding has previously been approved to the Koroit Croquet Club.
RISK
No risk
CONCLUSION
This request is considered a much needed alternative project now by the Koroit Croquet Club.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 124
PHYSICAL SERVICES
14. Mortlake Racecourse Reserve Committee of Management Presented by Trevor Greenberger Report author Kim Freeman Attachment(s) Nil
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
That Council grant approval to the Mortlake Racecourse Reserve Committee of Management to vary the purpose (retrospectively) of part of their 2013/14 Community Assistance Fund grant totalling $2146.00 for the purpose of demolition and removal of the photo finish tower at the Mortlake Racecourse.
SYNOPSIS
A request for 4th and final progress payment for $2,146.00 has been received by Council from the Mortlake Racecourse Reserve Committee of Management Works already undertaken to demolish and remove the photo finish tower at the Mortlake Racecourse. These works not included in their original 2013/14 Community Assistance Fund application.
BACKGROUND
The Mortlake Racecourse Reserve Committee of Management applied to Council’s Community Assistance Fund in September 2013 for $10,000.00 to undertake: 1. Replace horse entry gate and horse placing stalls 2. Removal and replace boundary fence 3. Kitchen refurbishment which was approved by Council. Three progress payments have been made to date (November 2015) totaling $6555.35 for the replacement of (1) horse entry gate, horse placing stalls removal and (2) replacement of the boundary fence. Kitchen refurbishment did not proceed due to asbestos floor tiles found in the kitchen. Specialist Works to demolish and remove the photo finish tower at a cost of $2,146.00 were undertaken with Mortlake Racecourse Reserve Committee of Management now seeking Council to approve retrospectively.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 125
Physical Services Mortlake Racecourse Reserve Committee of Management (cont’d)
STRATEGIC LINK
The Community Assistance Fund report aligns with Council’s 2013-17 Council Strategy Plan 2.7: “Encourage and assist communities to adopt a ‘self-help’ approach to local advancement.
DISCUSSION
Council in the past has previously received and given favourable considerations on a case by case basis, to similar requests from Community Assistance Fund applicants albeit on this occasion the request is retrospective. Demolition and disposal and subsequent replacement of the photo finish tower was a facility safety requirement as directed by Racing Victoria. Mortlake Racecourse Reserve Committee of Management considered these works a priority.
CONSULTATION
Council decides on whether to approve the reallocation, albeit retrospectively, of $2,146.00 previously allocated from a $10,000.00 total in the 2013/14 Community Assistances Fund.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
None as Community Assistance Funding has previously been approved to the Mortlake Racecourse Reserve Committee of Management.
RISK
No risk
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that Council approve the variation and payment of $2,146.00 to the Mortlake Racecourse Reserve Committee of Management
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 126
PHYSICAL SERVICES
15. Port Fairy Folk Festival Commemorative Gates Proposal Presented by Trevor Greenberger Report author Jacquie Anderton Attachment(s) 1. Design image 2. Site plan 3. Design proposal
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
1. That Council support the development of commemorative gates and archway at Southcombe Park, proposed by the Port Fairy Folk Festival Committee.
2. That Council will notify adjoining landowners of the proposed design.
SYNOPSIS
This report is to present the public art project proposed by Port Fairy Folk Festival Committee and to get in principle approval for the project to progress to the next stage of developing an engineering design and consultation with community. A second report seeking final approval to proceed will be submitted to Council featuring the design with officer feedback, comments from community and a maintenance regime.
BACKGROUND
The Port Fairy Folk Festival Committee (PFFFC) received a 2015-2016 Community Assistance Fund grant of $20,000 from Council to: “Design, plan and install commemorative gates at the Campbell Street entrance to Southcombe Park. These gates will recognise the Festival and its significant role in the community as well as the community’s ownership and involvement in the Festival.” PFFF Committee have contracted the services of Ratartat to design and construct the proposed gates. The proposal is to deliver a series of up to 5 smaller pedestrian gates, placed at the edge of Southcombe Park and centrally to Sackville Street, flanked by stone walls, which will be joined to a picket fence. A large arch is proposed to sit on a paved area in the road reserve. This will be the main entrance for the Folk Festival.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 127
Physical Services Port Fairy Folk Festival Commemorative Gates Proposal (cont’d)
The project is proposed to be delivered in two stages.
Stage 1 The smaller pedestrian gates with stone wall and picket fencing.
Stage 2 The arch and pavement located on the road reserve.
STRATEGIC LINK
This report is supported by Strategy 2.2 from the 2014 – 2017 Council Plan “Develop and implement improvements for our townships including town entrances, recreation facilities and open space amenities based on strategic direction.”
DISCUSSION
Stage 1 – smaller pedestrian gates Four or five pedestrian gates placed on the boundary of Southcombe Park, centrally to Sackville Street. The main supports for the gates will be shaped stones from Bamstone. Flanking the gates will be a section of constructed stone wall with timber inserts. A low picket fence on either side of the constructed stone walls will flank the gates. These two wings would be approximately 5 metres. The pedestrian gates will be made from stainless steel and fitted with shaped stone as the main supports. Integration of the picket fencing with existing fencing will require consideration to blend the infrastructure. Extending the picket fencing from the Stadium to Rutledge cannot be accommodated within the current budget. Recycled plastic will be considered as a potential material to construct the picket fencing. This will minimise maintenance requirements. The pedestrian gates will allow for wheel chair access Emergency and heavy vehicle entry into Southcombe Park could be compromised by the extension of the proposed picket fencing. This would need to consider vehicle access, ideally in its current location. Following Council’s in principle support to proceed, an engineering design will be prepared to consider all aspects of installation, including safety and tolerance of the trees and roots. The design and specifications will be assessed by Council engineers and presented back to Council for further information along with feedback from the community consultation phase.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 128
Physical Services Port Fairy Folk Festival Commemorative Gates Proposal (cont’d)
Stage 2 – A large arch to sit on the road reserve A large arch will sit forward of the pedestrian gates out towards Campbell Street. The arch will frame the gates at the Festival Arena entrance when looking down Sackville Street. The arch will have 1 or 2 stone supports and the top will be solid and custom made of steel. It will have small brackets to allow a decorative and colourful banner to be added at Festival time. The area from the Gates to the Arch will be surfaced with an asphalt apron and will become the main entrance to the Festival Arena with the addition of a suitable and secure roof and side covering. Following Council’s in principle support to proceed, an engineering design will be prepared to consider all aspects of installation, including safety and tolerance of the trees and roots. The design and specifications will be assessed by Council engineers and presented back to Council for further information along with feedback from the community consultation phase. Council’s Asset Manager will assess the requirement for a permit to use the road reserve Following Council’s final approval for the project to proceed, an application to Heritage Victoria will be made by the Port Fairy Folk Festival relating to the design on the surrounding Norfolk Pine trees.
CONSULTATION
The concept has been presented to the Southcombe Park Management Committee. Questions were raised regarding access and maintenance responsibilities, which have been addressed above. Following Council’s in principle support to proceed, Campbell Street residents will receive a copy of the proposed plan with the opportunity to forward comments. All feedback will be presented back to Council, with the engineering design and officer comments before the project commences. Council will then decide to formally move the project to proceed.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Council has contributed $20,000 from the 2015-2016 Community Assistance Fund. The balance of the project expense will be met by the Port Fairy Folk Festival.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 129
Physical Services Port Fairy Folk Festival Commemorative Gates Proposal (cont’d)
Income Moyne Shire Community Assistance Fund 20,000 Port Fairy Folk Festival Committee 20,000 Port Fairy Folk Festival in-kind 2,000 TOTAL $42,000
Expense Travel 1,000 Materials 10,000 Artists Fees 4,000 Project Design & Construction 20,000 Integrated Fencing & site repair 5,000 Administration 500 Supervision 1,500 TOTAL $42,000
The Port Fairy Folk Festival Committee have indicated they would be responsible for the ongoing maintenance requirements, however would not be responsible for an extension of the picket fence beyond the 5 metre proposal. Following Council’s in principle support for the project to proceed, a maintenance schedule would be included in the package of information to be resubmitted to Council for final approval before proceeding with the project.
RISK
Elements of the project including design, construction, ongoing maintenance, and impact on community and environmental surrounds may pose a risk to Council. These risks can be mitigated by following a thorough approval process, consultation and installation process.
CONCLUSION
The Port Fairy Folk Festival Committee made application to the 2015-2016 Community Assistance Fund to install a series of gates and entrance arch to commemorate the 40th celebration of the Port Fairy Folk Festival. The gates and arch will be a permanent structure handed over to Council and should reflect the Port Fairy character and community feel for the Port Fairy Folk Festival.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 130
COUNCILLOR ITEMS
16 (a) Mayoral Report This report provides information to Council in regard to the Mayor's meeting schedule 16 January 2016 to 12 February 2016. Attachments None.
2016 Location Function
19 January Winslow Planning Site Visit, PL14/122, Dunnes Road Winslow 19 January Grassmere Planning Site Visit, PL15/076 Grassmere Road 19 January Woolsthorpe Planning Site Visit, PL15/165 Koroit-Woolsthorpe Road, Woolsthorpe 20 January Warrnambool Great South Coast (GSC) Ice Challenge Steering Committee 21 January Warrnambool GSC Improve our Connections Pillar 22 January Warrnambool Meeting with Roma Britnell - Roads 25 January Port Fairy Australia Day Ambassador Dinner 26 January Panmure Australia Day celebrations 27 January Mortlake Council Meeting 2 February Port Fairy Planning Site Visit - 83 Bank Street, Port Fairy, PL15/172 2 February Port Fairy Councillor Workshop 4 February Warrnambool GSC - Position for Economic Growth Pillar Group 5 February Colac GSC Board Meeting 9 February Grassmere Hall Councillor Workshop 9 February Grassmere Hall Community Groups’ Budget presentations 11 February Minhamite Minhamite Working Group
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 131
Councillor Items (cont’d)
16 (b) Councillors' Report This report provides information to Council in regard to the Councillors' meeting schedules, 16 January 2016 to 12 February 2016. Attachments None.
2016 Location Function
16 January Panmure Panmure Action Group 19 January Winslow Planning Site Visit, PL14/122, Dunnes Road Winslow 19 January Grassmere Planning Site Visit, PL15/076 Grassmere Road 19 January Woolsthorpe Planning Site Visit, PL15/165 Koroit-Woolsthorpe Road, Woolsthorpe 18 January Port Fairy Southcombe Park Committee 25 January Port Fairy Australia Day Ambassador Dinner 26 January Panmure Australia Day celebrations 26 January Hawkesdale Australia Day celebrations 26 January Mortlake Australia Day Muster Night 27 January Mortlake Council Meeting 29 January Melbourne Timber Towns - 2016 TIRES State Meeting 2 February Port Fairy Planning Site Visit - 83 Bank Street, Port Fairy, PL15/172 2 February Port Fairy Councillor Workshop 3 February Nullawarre Halladale Black Watch and Speculant Project Community Engagement Committee(CEC) meeting 3 February Nullawarre Nullawarre Township Committee 8 February Mortlake Mortlake Community Development Committee 9 February Grassmere Hall Councillor Workshop 9 February Grassmere Hall Community Groups’ Budget presentations 10 February Mortlake Mortlake South Wind Farm CEC meeting
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 132
Councillor Items (cont’d)
17. COUNCILLOR NOTICE OF MOTION
None detailed at time of printing.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 133
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 134
Councillor Items (cont'd)
18. Personal Explanations
None detailed at time of printing.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 135
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 136
Councillor Items (cont'd)
19. Urgent Business
None detailed at time of printing.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 137
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 138
20. CEO Activities Report
Please see attached document.
Ordinary Council Meeting 23 February 2016 Page 139