ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, 13 September 2016 to be held at Mortlake Council Offices 1 Jamieson Avenue, Mortlake 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
MANAGEMENT REPORTS Governance 1. Assemblies of Councillors ...... 5
Community and Corporate Support 2. Performance Report ….………….....………………………………….…..…………………….. 9 3. Policy Manual Review – Delegation Policy …………..………………………………..... 11
Sustainable Development 4. Planning Permit PL16/008 – 30 College Street, Port Fairy - Two lot subdivision and buildings and works to construct a carport ……………………………………………….…….. 15 Planning Permit PL07/057.02 and Planning Permit PL13/061.01 – Mailors Flat 5. Relocatable Units …………………………………………………………………………………... 31 6. Amendment C61 – Mortlake Heritage ………………………………………………………….... 41 7. Cumbungi Control at Tea Tree Lake Mortlake ………………………………………………….. 47 8. Road Occupation Policy …………………………………………………………………………… 53 9. 2016 Bushfire Mapping and Policy Update – Department of Environment Land Water and Planning ………………………………………………………………………………... 57 10. United Dairyfarmers of Victoria’s campaign for power infrastructure upgrades – Request for Council Support ……………………………………………………………………… 63
Physical Services 11. Primmers Road – Petition ……………………….……..…………………………………………. 65 12. Koroit Youth Space Design ……………………………………………………………………….. 67 13. Regional Cultural Partnership Program 2016 – 20 …………………………………………….. 69
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Audit & Risk Management Committee – 14. Annual Financial Report and Performance Statement 2015-2016…………….……………... 73 Audit & Risk Management Committee – 15. 3 Year Internal Audit Plan ………………………..……………………………………………… 75 Conservation and Environment Committee - 16. Council-Community Carbon Offset Program …………………………………………………… 77
COUNCILLOR ITEMS 17. Mayoral & Councillors' Reports ………….…………………………………….…………………. 83 18. Councillor Notices of Motion − Budget Variation Mortlake and Macarthur Swimming Pools – Cr Goodall ………..…….. 85 19. Personal Explanations ……..……………………………….………………………………..……. 87 20. Urgent Business ………….………………………………………………………………………… 89
CHIEF EXECUTIVE REPORT 21. Activities Report ………………………………………………………………………….. 91
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 – 13 September 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 Tuesday, 23 August 2016
RECOMMENDATION
That the Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 23 August 2016 be confirmed.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 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:
• None at time of printing
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 3
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 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 13 August 2016 to 2 September 2016.
15 August 2016 - Macarthur Wind Farm Community Engagement Committee (CEC) meeting
Matters considered - Status of Wind Farm information signage for Macarthur and Hawkesdale townships. - AGL Macarthur Wind Farm Community Fund. - Status of Round 2 noise monitoring report assessment. - Status of the assessment of environmental reports submitted by AGL. - Proposed maintenance shutdown. - Outcome of advertising for CEC community representative nomination. Councillors present Cr Doukas, Cr Ryan Staff present Ms Askew-Thornton Conflict of Interest None declared.
18 August 2016 – Mortlake Streetscape Committee Meeting
Matters considered 1. Apologies 5. Project timelines 2. Declaration of Interest 6. Ongoing consultation 3. Correspondence 7. Fundraising 4. Project Progress 8. General Business Councillors present Cr Goodall, Cr Parker Staff present Mr Greenberger, Mr Jagaskanda Conflict of Interest None declared.
23 August 2016 – Port Fairy Planning permit site visit
Matters considered PL16/008 College Street, Port Fairy Councillors present Cr Doukas, Cr Goodall, Cr Leutton, Cr Parker, Cr Ryan, Cr Wolfe Staff present Mr Moles, Mr Bergman, Ms Power Conflict of Interest None declared.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 5
Governance Assemblies of Councillors (cont'd)
SYNOPSIS
• This report details Assemblies of Councillors that have taken place since the matter was last reported to Council in August 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 meetings of Councillors and Council staff that are not planned or scheduled 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.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 6
Governance Assemblies of Councillors (cont'd)
• 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 August 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 – 13 September 2016 Page 7
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 8
COMMUNITY AND CORPORATE SUPPORT
2. Financial Performance Report Presented by Kevin Leddin Report author Craig Ralston Attachment Monthly Financial Performance Report – August 2016
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
That Council receive the August 2016 Financial Performance Report
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 9
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 10
COMMUNITY AND CORPORATE SUPPORT
3. Policy Manual Review – Delegation Policy Presented by Kevin Leddin Report author Susie Kewley Attachment Gov-H-3 – Delegation Policy
OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION
That Council revoke the policy for Delegation (Gov-H-3).
SYNOPSIS
• Council Policies reviewed on a regular basis are in line with Council’s Policy Review Framework. • This report proposes the revocation of the Delegation Policy as it is deemed superfluous due to Instruments of Delegations being a legislative requirement under the Local Government Act 1989.
BACKGROUND
• Delegations are provided for in Section 98 of the Local Government Act and allow a council to delegate powers, duties and functions to members of council staff and this ensures the practical and effective method of allowing day to day operations of council to be undertaken. • As required the ‘Delegations’ are kept in a Delegations Register and include: Instrument of Delegation, Council to Chief Executive Officer (S5) – authorised by a resolution of Council on 27 August 2013. Instrument of Delegation, Council to other members of Council staff (S6) – authorised by a resolution of Council on 24 May 2016. Instrument of Delegation, Chief Executive Officer to members of Council staff (S7) – dated 17 August 2016 and is made by the Chief Executive Officer under authority of an instrument of delegation authorised by resolution of Council made on 27 August 2013. Instrument of Delegation to Special Committees (C4) – authorised by resolution of Council on 22 March 2016. Instrument of Delegation to the Municipal Building Surveyor (S12).
STRATEGIC LINK
• Local Government Act 1989, section 98(6) “A council must review within the period of 12 months after a general election all delegations which are in force and have been made by the Council …”
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 11
Community and Corporate Support Policy Manual Review – Delegation Policy (cont'd)
DISCUSSION
• The Council can make decisions in only one of two ways: By resolution; or Through others acting on its behalf. • Where the latter is to occur, the authority to act needs to be formalised through written “Instruments of Delegation”. • The Local Government Act 1989 (the Act), as well as other legislation makes express provision for the appointment of delegates to act on behalf of the Council. • The Council subscribes to a Delegations and Authorisations Service by Maddocks Lawyers. The Delegations and Authorisations Service provides a template for the delegations. • In reviewing this policy and recommending its revocation, the key principle taken into consideration was there should be no reproduction/duplication of legislation or relevant standard. • There is no benefit in having a policy stating we have delegations when it is a requirement under the Act. • The existing policy is more statement rather than policy. The ‘policy’ does not guide the delegations but rather simply states they exist. • Delegations are in no way reliant upon policy, rather acts, regulations and legislation. • Council is required to keep a Register of Delegations. It would seem therefore that a policy on delegation would not be required as part of the policy manual.
CONSULTATION
• Subscription to a Delegations and Authorisations Service. • Consultation with the Director Community and Corporate Support.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
• No relevant issues identified.
RISK
• Without delegations, the decision-making processes would be subject to extreme delays and impose an untenable burden on the Council reporting and meeting system. • Council has processes in place to ensure delegations are regularly updated and does not rely on the Delegations Policy.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 12
Community and Corporate Support Policy Manual Review – Delegation Policy (cont'd)
CONCLUSION
• Delegations assist with good governance and enable a range of responsibilities to be carried out in a timely manner and for decisions to be made at the local level. • Council’s process of delegations is comprehensive, involving assistance from Maddocks Lawyers. • The Local Government Act governs the provision of delegations which renders this policy as irrelevant. • It is therefore appropriate for Council to revoke Gov-H-3 Delegation.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 13
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 14
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
4. Planning Permit PL16/008 – 30 College Street, Port Fairy – Two lot subdivision and buildings and works to construct a carport Presented by Oliver Moles Report author Amanda Power Attachments Application Plans
OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION
That Council having caused notice of Planning Application No. PL16/008 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 issue a Notice of Refusal to Grant a Permit under the provisions of the Moyne Planning Scheme in respect of the land known and described as Lot 2 PS12142, 30 College Street, Port Fairy, for the 2 lot subdivision and buildings and works to construct a carport in accordance with the endorsed plans, with the application dated 17/11/2015 and as amended 10/02/2016, for the following grounds: Grounds for Refusal: 1. The proposed subdivision does not comply with the standard and objective of Clause 56.04-2 Standard C8, as the subdivision does not provide for the appropriate siting and construction of a dwelling, solar access, private open space, vehicle access and parking, and easements. 2. The proposed subdivision does not provide an appropriate response to the decision guidelines of Clause 65 with regards to: a) the suitability of the site for the subdivision b) the proposed 2.94m wide accessway does not provide easy and efficient access to the subdivision, and c) the orderly planning of the area. 3. The proposed subdivision does not provide a reasonable standard of amenity for the existing dwelling or Lot 2. 4. The proposed subdivision has failed to demonstrate that an indicative dwelling on Lot 2 could satisfactorily address the constraints created by the proposed layout and covenant on title.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 15
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL16/008 – 30 College Street, Port Fairy (cont'd)
SYNOPSIS • The planning permit application is for a two lot subdivision and for buildings and works to construct a carport on the subject land, at 30 College Street, Port Fairy. • The proposal is a ‘battle-axe’ style subdivision, with the existing house proposed to be located on Lot 1 (319sq.m.). Lot 2 would be vacant and have an area of 336sq.m. accessible by a 2.94m wide access to the north of the existing dwelling. • The subdivision fails to provide for the protection of the amenity of the existing dwelling, and does not provide for safe, easy and efficient vehicle movement through the subdivision. • The application has not demonstrated that Lot 2 would be able to be readily developed in a manner which complies with the Planning Scheme in a satisfactory manner. • The site constraints result in the site being considered unsuitable for the subdivision as proposed, and the application is therefore recommended for refusal.
BACKGROUND Application Details:
Application is for: 2 Lot subdivision and buildings and works to construct a carport Applicant’s Name: Margaret Joan Haeusler 14/01/2016 Date Received: Amendment 14/04/2016 (S50 of Planning & Environment Act 1987) Application Number: PL16/008 Planner: Amanda Power Land/Address: 30 College Street PORT FAIRY VIC 3284 Zoning: General Residential Zone Schedule 1 (GRZ1) Overlays: Design and Development Overlay Schedule 21 (DDO21) 32.08-2 – Subdivision (GRZ) Under what clause(s) 43.02-2 – Buildings and works (DDO) is a permit required?: 43.02-3 – Subdivision (DDO) Current use and Single storey brick dwelling development: Cultural Heritage Exempt under Regulation 9 of Management Plan Yes No Aboriginal Heritage Required? Regulations 2007
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 16
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL16/008 – 30 College Street, Port Fairy (cont'd)
The planning permit application is for a two lot subdivision and for buildings and works to construct a carport on the subject land at 30 College Street, Port Fairy (Lot 2 PS121420). The proposed lot layout is described as follows: Lot 1 – will have an area of 319m² and contains the existing single storey dwelling. The lot will maintain primary frontage to College Street of 14.97m, with vehicle access via the existing crossover which is to be widened. Lot 2 – will have an area of 336m² and form the rear ‘battle-axe’ lot with a narrow frontage of 2.94m to College Street. The lot will be vacant. Vehicle access will be via the existing crossover to be widened, however there is an existing power pole that restricts the dimensions and alignment of access to this lot. A building envelope measuring 15m x 10m (150m²) has been shown on the submitted plans. The building envelope plan and plan of subdivision also show a proposed 2.0m wide sewer easement, which is to extend along the rear 15m of the northern boundary of the lot and along the eastern boundary of the rear battle-axe part of the lot. The application includes the construction of a carport on Lot 1, to provide for off street parking for the existing dwelling. The applicant has not submitted any details or plans of the carport, and has requested these be conditional if a permit is granted. The site is affected by a Restrictive Covenant (H012311) which requires that any dwelling constructed on the land must have an area of no less than 102m2.
Subject Site and Locality An inspection of the site and the surrounding area has been undertaken. The site has a total area of approximately 655m² and is located on the western side of College Street within an established residential area. The subject site is rectangular in shape and is a similar sized allotment to the adjacent allotments along the western side of College Street. The subject site currently contains: An existing single storey brick dwelling that is setback 6.2m from the property frontage to College Street, 3m from the southern boundary, and approximately 6.2m from the northern property boundary. An existing shed is located to the rear of the dwelling. An existing 2.0m wide sewerage easement is located along the rear (western) boundary.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 17
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL16/008 – 30 College Street, Port Fairy (cont'd)
The main locality characteristics are: The locality is an established residential area, located approximately 500m west of the central commercial area of Port Fairy. The majority of surrounding lots contain single dwellings on medium sized residential lots ranging between 600m² and 1200m², with a predominant lot size of approximately 800m². The majority of dwellings within the locality are single storey. The subdivision pattern within the locality generally reflects that of a grid layout, where the majority of lots exist with primary frontage to the adjoining street. The Baden Powell Drive subdivision further west of the site has similar size lots. The road reserve of College Street is wide and includes extensive open grassed verge. A battle-axe subdivision was recently approved and completed at 17 College Street, located near the subject site (PL13/104). The subdivision was considered appropriate given the site, and it is noted that a wider access to the site was able to be provided to the rear lot (3.54m width).
Aerial Photograph of Site and Surrounds
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 18
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL16/008 – 30 College Street, Port Fairy (cont'd)
Approximate Subdivision Layout
Site History There is no relevant planning history for 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 five (5) objections to date. The key issues that were raised in the objections are: Additional traffic, and safety impacts Additional noise Future development would impact on adjoining dwellings in terms of overshadowing, overlooking Driveway is too small and does not comply with Clause 56 as it is less than 3m wide Land is too small to be subdivided Inadequate space for parking Impacts on stormwater drainage in the locality Local infrastructure and geography is not suited to subdivision and is better suited to more traditional allotment size and layout.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 19
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL16/008 – 30 College Street, Port Fairy (cont'd)
In accordance with standard Council procedure, the applicant was provided a copy of the objections and requested to provide a response to Council. Initially, the applicant did not provide a formal response to the objections, and instead advised Council that they had consulted with some of the objectors directly. The applicant’s planning consultant has now submitted a formal response to the objections prior to the site meeting held on 23 August 2016. This has now been provided to the objectors. The response requests that if a permit was to be granted, that conditions should be included relating to the construction of a retaining wall on the boundary between 30 and 32 College Street, and a Section 173 Agreement be required to limit a future dwelling to single storey. The Section 173 Agreement would not be recommended as a permit condition given the height of future dwellings would be subject to a merit based assessment under the Planning Scheme, where a two storey dwelling may be considered appropriate for the site. The applicant has submitted to Council copies of emails and letters provided to some of the objectors. None of the objectors are considered to have withdrawn their objections to date, given that the agreement relating to the construction of the retaining wall was submitted to Council by the applicant, and not the objector.
Consultation Consultation was undertaken and included: A request for further information dated 10 February 2016, which required additional information and raised a number of concerns relating to the design and layout of the subdivision. An amended application was received on 14 April 2016, which included an amended proposal to include the carport and written response from the planning consultant on behalf of the applicant/owner. A councillor site inspection was held on 23 August 2016, where Councillors, a representative for the applicant, and one objector were in attendance. The applicant’s representative distributed a site plan and floor plan showing a possible future dwelling on the new Lot with an apparent floor area of 102.75 sq m.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 20
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL16/008 – 30 College Street, Port Fairy (cont'd)
Referrals External Referrals/Notices Required by the Planning Scheme:
Referrals/Notice Advice/Response/Conditions Section 52 notices Wannon Water – No objections subject to conditions.
Internal Referrals Advice/Response/Conditions Assets Recommend refusal for the following reasons: 1. Access driveway width of 2.94m is insufficient and does not satisfy clause 52.06-8. Clause 56.02 of the Planning Scheme states that accessways must be at least 3m wide, and the minimum trafficable area (excluding batters and areas for fencing) should meet this 3m wide requirement. 2. Location of the existing power pole also further decreases the effective access width. 3. Vehicle manoeuvre paths are not acceptable due to conflict with the proposed building envelope. 4. Proposed car space widths for Lot 2 will not satisfy clause 52.06- 8 in regard to the proximity of the title boundaries and proposed building envelope.
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
The zoning of the land and any relevant overlay provisions The land is located within the General Residential Zone Schedule 1 and is subject to the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 21. A planning permit is required for the proposed subdivision and for buildings and works to construct a carport pursuant to the overlay.
Clause 32.08 General Residential Zone Purpose To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies. To encourage development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area. To implement neighbourhood character policy and adopted neighbourhood character guidelines. To provide a diversity of housing types and moderate housing growth in locations offering good access to services and transport. A permit is required to subdivide land under Clause 32.08-2. A permit to subdivide land must meet all of the objectives specified in the table to Clause 32.08-2, and should meet all of the standards in the applicable Clauses.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 21
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL16/008 – 30 College Street, Port Fairy (cont'd)
Decision Guidelines at Clause 32.08-10 include (as relevant): The purpose of this zone. The pattern of subdivision and its effect on the spacing of buildings. For subdivision of land for residential development, the objectives and standards of Clause 56.
Clause 43.02 Design and Development Overlay Planning permission is required for the construction of the carport and to subdivide land pursuant to Clause 43.02-2 and 43.02-3 of the Design and Development Overlay. The overlay identifies the land as being located within Schedule 21 – Character Area 14 of the Port Fairy Design Guidelines, which provides particular design objectives and requirements for subdivision. The DDO and Character Area do not provide any specific design requirements relating to the location or design of car parking areas. Purpose • To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies. • To identify areas which are affected by specific requirements relating to the design and built form of new development. Schedule 21 to the DDO – Peripheral Areas, Port Fairy Design Guidelines Character Area 14 Design Objectives • To ensure development respects the historic scale and pattern of residential and commercial areas of Port Fairy. • To respect the historic scale and pattern of residential and commercial development of Port Fairy. • To ensure new development around the character areas provides an appropriate setting for those areas. • To encourage development which does not have a detrimental effect on the high scenic and environmental values of the area. • To protect existing native coastal vegetation and to encourage additional appropriate planting.
Subdivision Requirements • The frontage width of lots abutting the street should be consistent with the typical widths of lot frontages in the street. • Subdivision should avoid the creation of new crossovers.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 22
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL16/008 – 30 College Street, Port Fairy (cont'd)
The State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) State policy seeks to develop networks of high-quality settlements by building on the strengths and capabilities of each region across Victoria in order to respond sustainably to population growth and changing environments (Clauses 11.02-1, 11.05-5). Planning should seek to create safe, functional and good quality urban environments with a sense of place and cultural identity, whilst achieving good architectural and urban design outcomes. Further, subdivision design should achieve, attractive, liveable, walkable, cyclable, and diverse neighbourhoods, and provide a range of lot sizes to suit a variety of dwelling and household types to meet the needs and aspirations of different groups of people. (Clauses 15.01- 1, 15.01-2, 15.01-3, 15.01-5). Planning should seek to provide for housing diversity and provide a range of housing types to meet diverse needs, as well as redevelopment opportunities within established urban area to reduce the pressure for fringe development (Clauses 16.01-1, 16.01-2 and 16.01-4). The provision of satisfactory physical infrastructure must be ensured through planning, particularly for water supply, sewerage and drainage services, along with stormwater disposal, which effectively meets State and community needs and protect the environment. (Clauses 19.03-2 and 19.03-3).
The Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) - including the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and local planning policies The MSS recognises that Port Fairy contains a range of natural and built elements, which contribute to a unique Neighbourhood Character and which is being threatened by intensive forms of new development. The MSS seeks to achieve a quality of residential development which conforms with accepted principles of sustainability and efficiency, and protect the Neighbourhood Character of Port Fairy (Clause 21.05). The Port Fairy Design Guidelines assist with integrating new development with existing neighbourhood character. In addition, the MSS seeks to provide for a diverse range of housing opportunities that do not detrimentally impact on the residential amenity of an area (21.05). Local Policy at Clause 21.09-3 – Port Fairy of the MSS seeks development which is consistent with the Port Fairy Framework Plan, where it is noted that the subject site is located outside the historic residential area of Port Fairy. The following strategies of Clause 21.09-3 are relevant to the proposal: Smaller lot subdivision and higher density types of residential development compatible with the character and appearance of the area be encouraged. Infill residential development should be encouraged to strengthen the population base within walking distance of the commercial area.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 23
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL16/008 – 30 College Street, Port Fairy (cont'd)
Relevant Particular Provisions
Clause 56 (Residential Subdivision) Clause 56 applies to all applications for subdivision in the General Residential Zone. Relevant Clauses as required to be considered by 32.08-2 include: Clauses 56.03-5, 56.04-2, 56.04-3, 56.04-5, 56.06-8 to 56.09-2.
Clause 65.01 and 65.02 - Approval of an application to subdivide land Before deciding on an application to subdivide land, the responsible authority must also consider, as appropriate: The orderly planning of the area. The suitability of the land for subdivision. The existing use and possible future development of the land and nearby land. The availability of subdivided land in the locality, and the need for the creation of further lots. The subdivision pattern having regard to the physical characteristics of the land including existing vegetation. The density of the proposed development. The area and dimensions of each lot in the subdivision. The movement of pedestrians and vehicles throughout the subdivision and the ease of access to all lots.
Reference Documents Port Fairy Design Guidelines 2001
Summary of Key Issues • Whether the proposal responds appropriately to the relevant provisions of the State and Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies. • Whether the proposal responds appropriately to the purpose and decision guidelines of the Residential 1 Zone, including the standards and objectives of Clause 56 (Residential Subdivision) and the Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 21). • Whether the proposal will result in the proper and orderly planning of the area, having regard to the decision guidelines set out under Clause 65.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 24
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL16/008 – 30 College Street, Port Fairy (cont'd)
ASSESSMENT / DISCUSSION
State and Local Policy The objectives and strategies in the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) address the need for subdivisions to achieve attractive, liveable, walkable, cyclable, diverse and sustainable neighbourhoods. These are broad matters that have limited relevance to subdivisions of the scale proposed for this application, where the policies give support to the subdivision of land within existing residential areas, provided a good design outcome is achieved, housing options are made available and physical infrastructure services can be provided to support development. This is expanded upon by the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPFF), which specifically encourages smaller lot subdivision and infill development which strengthens the population base in appropriately sited areas. A key component of the State and Local Planning Policies is also the consideration of neighbourhood character, and ensuring subdivision and development is compatible with the local urban character. Having regard to these policies, the subdivision of the subject site provides a positive response to the urban consolidation and neighbourhood character policy objectives of the Planning Scheme. The creation of an additional lot within the context of the immediate locality would not compromise the neighbourhood character of this area, and would be compatible with the adjoining residential land uses.
General Residential Zone
Clause 56 – Residential Subdivision Attached to this report is a table providing an assessment against the relevant provisions of Clause 56 and the subdivision standards. The proposed subdivision does not comply with Standard C8 Lot area and building envelopes objective as addressed below:
Standard C8 - Lot area and building envelopes objective The objective seeks to provide lots with areas and dimensions that enable the appropriate siting and construction of a dwelling, solar access, private open space, vehicle access and parking, water management, easements and the retention of significant vegetation and site features. The standard requires a 10m by 15m building envelope, which the applicant has shown on the submitted plans, in addition to showing proposed easements, parking and areas of private and secluded open space.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 25
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL16/008 – 30 College Street, Port Fairy (cont'd)
Despite the building envelope being shown, the objective of C8 is not considered to be met for the following reasons: The 10m by 15m building envelope is compromised by the area required for manoeuvring of vehicles into and out of the site. The developable area of the building envelope would be further reduced as the garage would need to be wider than is shown on the submitted plans (minimum 3.5m wide). The submitted plans and planning report shows that the areas of private open space would not meet Standard A17 of Rescode. Access to Proposed Lot 2 via the 2.94m wide battle axe driveway is not considered an adequate width to provide for easy and efficient vehicle access. Although Proposed Lot 2 has an area of 336 sq.m., a significant portion of the site is not developable as it is located within an easement, part of the driveway, or part of the internal manoeuvring area. The developable area of the site is therefore reduced to less than 140 square metres. In addition, the amenity of the existing dwelling will be compromised due to the proposed subdivision layout. The subdivision will effectively remove the substantial area of open space at the rear of the site available for the occupant’s use. If the subdivision were to be supported, the areas of open space for the existing dwelling will be limited to an area of approximately 15sq.m. to the north of the dwelling (west of the carport) and an area of 40 sq.m. to the south of the dwelling existing dwelling. The usability of these spaces is unlikely to result in good amenity outcomes, given the northern area will be located next to the vehicle access for Lot 2, and the southern area will have poor solar access for most of the year.
Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 21) The design objectives for this Character Area seek to ensure that subdivision development respects the scale and pattern of residential development and provides for appropriate development opportunities. The general layout of the subdivision would not significantly alter the character of the locality, and would avoid the creation of a new crossover, which would be generally compliant with the DDO. The proposed siting of the carport adjoining the proposed lot boundary would be generally consistent with the existing siting of garages and parking areas in the locality.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 26
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL16/008 – 30 College Street, Port Fairy (cont'd)
Clause 65 Decision Guidelines In response to the relevant decision guidelines of Clause 65.01 and 65.02, the following comments are provided:
The suitability of the land for subdivision The site has a total area of 655 sq.m, and dimensions and an orientation which would appear to potentially be conducive to a two lot subdivision. However, the subject site is considered unsuitable for the subdivision due to the site constraints for the following reasons: The driveway and access to Lot 2 via the 2.94m wide access is not wide enough to provide easy and efficient access to the Lot. The location of the existing power pole in the road reserve will also restrict manoeuvring into and out of the site. The subdivision layout does not provide for adequate areas of private open space for the existing dwelling or proposed Lot 2. The information submitted shows that a future dwelling on Lot 2 would be not meet the minimum standards of the Planning Scheme, and the existing dwelling would also not meet these standards (Private Open Space and Solar Access to Private Open Space). The amenity of the occupants of these dwellings would therefore be significantly compromised. The developable area of Lot 2 is significantly constrained by easements and the required areas for car parking and manoeuvring within the Lot. The land is also affected by restrictive covenant which requires dwellings to have a minimum area of 102 sq.m. The covenant would severely constrain future design options for Lot 2. Based on the above, it is considered that the site is not suitable for the subdivision. The existing use and possible future development of the land and nearby land. The future use of nearby land will continue to remain for residential purposes. Based on the current subdivision layout, the vacant lot would not be able to be appropriately developed for a dwelling. The availability of subdivided land in the locality, and the need for the creation of further lots. There are no local planning policies or strategies which identify the locality as requiring further lots to be created. The density of the proposed development. The density of the proposed subdivision would be higher than the adjoining lots, but not inconsistent with the character of the area.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 27
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL16/008 – 30 College Street, Port Fairy (cont'd)
The area and dimensions of each lot in the subdivision. Lot 1 is shown with an area of 319 sq.m., and Lot 2 is shown with an area of 336sq.m., and it is noted that there is no minimum lot size specified under the Planning Scheme for the land. The lot sizes proposed are considered inadequate to allow appropriate development of Lot 2, or the necessary amenity to be provided to the occupants of the existing dwelling on Lot 1 due to the site constraints. The area of the lots proposed is therefore not considered appropriate to support the subdivision.
The movement of pedestrians and vehicles throughout the subdivision and the ease of access to all lots. Council’s Assets Department has recommended the permit be refused, as the vehicle accessway at 2.94m is not a sufficient width to provide for safe and efficient access for Lot 2. In this regard, the Planning Scheme does not specifically set a minimum a width for access driveways to rear lots in battle-axe subdivisions. However, the Design Standards for Car Parking set out in Clause 52.06-8 can be used as a guide, where is it noted that accessways must be at least 3m wide. Although the accessway proposed is only 0.6m narrower than the standard, the accessway will not provide for easy and efficient access. Part of the 2.94m wide access will be occupied by fencing, retaining walls, and batters to accommodate the driveway, and the trafficable width will therefore be less than the 2.94m. Council’s Engineers have advised that the absolute minimum trafficable width of the accessway must be 3m, excluding areas for fencing, retaining walls and the like. In addition to the above, the location of the power pole within the road reserve, and the second car space shown for Lot 1 will increase the difficulty of manoeuvring into the site. Based on the above, the proposal does not provide for safe, easy and efficient vehicle movement through the subdivision, and should be refused. The orderly planning of the area. Based on the inadequate access way width, the constraints on Lot 2, and the impact on the amenity of the existing dwelling, the proposal is not considered to result in orderly planning.
Covenant Covenant H012311 applies to the land, and requires that a dwelling built on the land must have an area no less than 102 sq.m. This covenant will continue to apply to both lots if the permit for subdivision is granted, and a future dwelling would need to meet the covenant. The covenant will severely constrain future design options for the development of proposed Lot 2.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 28
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL16/008 – 30 College Street, Port Fairy (cont'd)
Objections Additional traffic, and safety impacts on children as a result of additional cars Not supported The subdivision would result in additional traffic on College Street, but the street is of a sufficient design standard to cope with this additional traffic. The additional vehicle movements would not significantly increase any existing safety concerns. Additional noise Not supported Additional noise generated by the future development on Lot 2 would be of a domestic nature that can be reasonably expected in a residential area. Future development would impact on adjoining dwellings in terms of overshadowing, overlooking (specific to 47 Baden Powell Drive) Not supported The standards relating to overlooking and overshadowing would be considered at the time of a development on the vacant lot, and would be assessed under the Building Regulations. Driveway is too small and does not comply with Clause 56 as it is less than 3m wide Supported As discussed earlier in this report, the accessway is not considered to be a sufficient width to provide safe, easy and efficient access to Lot 2. Land is too small to be subdivided Partially supported There is no minimum lot size for the land, and an assessment must therefore be undertaken having regard to the Zone, Overlay and Particular Provisions (Clause 56 and 65). This assessment has found the site to be unsuitable for the subdivision. Inadequate space for parking Partially supported The subdivision layout, and siting of the existing dwelling limits the availability of parking and manoeuvring for the subdivision. The number of bedrooms a future dwelling on Lot 2 would have is not known, so the number of car parking spaces for that lot is not yet determined.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 29
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL16/008 – 30 College Street, Port Fairy (cont'd)
Impacts on stormwater drainage in the locality Not supported. Council’s Engineers have advised that if a permit was to be issued, the highest level of stormwater design would be required, which would provide for onsite detention to cater for a 1 in 100 year ARI rainfall event separately for each lot for the whole site area, and that this would be able to be designed and constructed for the site. Local infrastructure and geography is not suited to subdivision and is better suited to more traditional allotment size and layout. Partially supported. The land is not considered to suitable for the subdivision, but not based on geography or infrastructure issues in this instance.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
• Council representation at any VCAT hearing may result in costs for Council.
RISK
• If a refusal is issued, the applicant may appeal that decision to VCAT. • The Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure may revoke Council’s power as the Responsible Authority under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 if a decision is made which is a significant departure from the Moyne Planning Scheme
CONCLUSION
• The SPPF and LPPF (including the MSS) only provide broad policy direction in regards to this type of subdivision, where it is acknowledged that the proposal would meet the general intent of these policies in regards to variety of lot sizes, and urban consolidation in existing residential areas. • However, the detailed design of the subdivision fails to provide for the protection of the amenity of the existing dwelling, and does not provide for safe, easy and efficient vehicle movement through the subdivision. • Unless the existing dwelling is demolished or modified, there does not appear to be sufficient space between the existing dwelling and the northern title boundary to locate parking for the existing dwelling, and an access with a width that provides suitable access to Lot 2. • The application has not demonstrated that Proposed Lot 2 would be able to be readily developed in a manner which complies with the Planning Scheme in a satisfactory manner. • The site constraints result in the site being considered unsuitable for the subdivision as proposed, and the application is therefore recommended for refusal.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 30
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
5. Planning Permit Amendment Application PL07/057.02 Planning Permit Amendment Application PL13/061.01 (Mailors Flat relocatable units) Presented by Oliver Moles Report author Aaron Moyne Attachments 1. Council Report – 26 April 2016 (including plans) 2. Council Minutes – 26 April 2016 3. Planning Amendment Application PL13/061.01 (including plans) 4. Planning Amendment Application PL07/057.02 (including plans) 5. Planning Permit PL13/061
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION Issue 1 – Planning Permit Amendment Application PL13/061.01 (Amendment to the Storage Shed Permit) Refusal That Council having caused notice of Planning Application No. PL13/061.01 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 issue a Notice of Decision to Refuse to Grant a Permit under the provisions of the Moyne Planning Scheme in respect of the land known and described as Warrnambool-Caramut Road (Lot 1 TP 600866B), for the Buildings and Works Associated with the Storage and Display of Relocatable Units (relocatable unit storage shed) – amended 30m x 30m shed from part open and part enclosed to fully enclosed with alteration to number and location of doors, with the application dated 12 August 2016, for the following grounds: 1. The amended building is excessive in its scale and size and goes beyond the extent of existing use rights preserved for the land by PL07/057 for Relocatable Unit Storage and Display. 2. The amended building will not form an ancillary component of the existing land use for Relocatable Unit Storage and Display and will enable a further expansion of the use to occur. 3. The amended building will result in the further entrenchment of a land use which is not encouraged by the Low Density Residential Zone.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 31
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL07/057.02 and Planning Permit PL13/061.01 (cont’d)
4. The amended building will unreasonably impact the amenity of the area through visual bulk, scale and size. 5. Insufficient planning justification has been provided to demonstrate the appropriateness of the proposed amendment to the building and site layout plan. 6. The amended building will not result in the proper and orderly planning of the area.
Issue 2 – Planning Permit Amendment Application PL07/057.02 (Amendment to the Use Permit) Refusal That Council having caused notice of Planning Application No. PL07/057.02 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 issue a Notice of Decision to Refuse to Grant a Permit under the provisions of the Moyne Planning Scheme in respect of the land known and described as Warrnambool-Caramut Road (Lot 1 TP 600866B), for the Use of Land for Storage and Display of Relocatable Units (amendment to site layout plan and variations of Condition 1), with the application dated 31 August 2016, for the following grounds:
1. The amended land use is inconsistent with, and goes beyond, the extent of existing use rights preserved for the land by PL07/057 for Relocatable Unit Storage and Display. 2. The amended land use will result in a further entrenchment and expansion of a land use which is discouraged by the Low Density Residential Zone. 3. The amended land use is based upon a design and layout that Council does not support regarding a full enclosure of the storage shed for PL13/061. 4. The amended land use will not result in proper and orderly planning of the area.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 32
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL07/057.02 and Planning Permit PL13/061.01 (cont’d)
SYNOPSIS
• This report presents Council with an assessment of two related planning permit amendment applications associated with the existing land use for Relocatable Unit Storage and Display within Mailors Flat (Lot 1 TP 600866B Parish of Meerai) – operating as Rentsch’s Relocatable Cabins. • Council previously decided on these planning matters at its 26 April 2016 Ordinary Meeting (see attached), which amongst other things, gave approval for the construction of a 900m² (partly enclosed and open-sided) storage shed associated with the existing Relocatable Unit land use. • PL07/057 (land use permit) was also amended at this time for changes to the site layout plan and consistency between planning approvals. • The landowner is now seeking approval by Council of further changes to both of these planning permits, which can be summarised as follows: Total enclosure of the 900m² storage shed. A change in the orientation of the building with sliding doors for truck access now facing east. Rearrangement of the site layout plan to alter the direction of truck movements to the storage shed and change siting of the outdoor relocatable units. • Having regard to the earlier decisions made by Council at the 26 April 2016 Meeting and the limited extent of existing use rights preserved for the land by PL07/057, Council is offered with recommendations to refuse both permit amendment applications.
BACKGROUND
• PL07/057 was approved on 3 November 2009 and enables the overarching approval for the Use of Land for Storage and Display of Relocatable Units (subject to conditions). • In summary, the existing use rights which apply to the land include: Maximum storage and display eight (8) relocatable units. Deliveries only occurring between 8am-4pm between Monday-Saturday. No other goods (other than relocatable units) to be stored and made available for sale. No parking or storage to occur within the property frontage of Warrnambool- Caramut Road. No repair, painting, re-cladding or alteration to the units is to occur.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 33
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL07/057.02 and Planning Permit PL13/061.01 (cont’d)
• The 26 April 2016 Council Report (as attached) provides a detailed overview of the planning matters relating to the land and outlines the nature and design of the storage shed proposed via PL13/061. • Following a long and extensive planning assessment process, Council, at its 26 April 2016 Ordinary Meeting, gave the following further planning approvals for the land: PL07/057.01 – amendment to the land use permit for an altered site layout plan and changes to permit conditions. PL13/061 – approval of a planning permit for ‘buildings and works’ for construction of a 900m² storage shed (540m² enclosed and 360m² open- sided). • On 19 July 2016 Council received plans from Gary Cooper Drafting, on behalf of the landowner, for endorsement under PL13/061 and seeking approval of further changes to the storage shed, including its total enclosure and re-orientation of the access doors. • Council subsequently responded to advise that the nature of the changes sought could not be considered under the existing planning permit, and therefore required an amendment application to be made for PL13/061. • As a result of changes proposed to the storage shed, information was provided that the landowner was also seeking to alter the site layout plan for the land use, affecting conditions of the permit PL07/057.01 relating to truck turning movements, siting of relocatable units and existing landscaping provided on-site. • Accordingly, Council requested that an amendment application also be submitted for this planning permit, to ensure consistency between both planning permit which apply to the land.
STRATEGIC LINK
• Planning and Environment Act 1987 • Moyne Planning Scheme
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 34
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL07/057.02 and Planning Permit PL13/061.01 (cont’d)
DISCUSSION
• This report is separated into two parts and provides an overview and assessment of both amendment applications. • Key issues in this assessment to fully enclose the storage shed and change the site layout plan primarily relate to the extent of the existing use rights following rezoning of the land (Amendment C42), operation of the current land use and the overall size and scale of the shed in conjunction with this use. • Should Council refuse to grant a permit for these amendment applications, the landowner will still retain a valid planning permit for their use and development and can go ahead with construction of a storage shed (only at a lesser size). • Although an amendment to PL13/061 for the storage shed cannot technically be approved until PL07/057.01 (the land use permit) has been amended, as the changes to enclose the storage shed is the primary basis for these amendment applications, this matter has been addressed in the first instance.
Issue 1 – Planning Permit Amendment Application PL13/061.01 (Amendment to the Storage Shed Permit)
What is approved? • A 30m x 30m (900m²) storage shed – divided into: A 30m x 18m (540m²) enclosed area for the storage of a maximum four (4) relocatable units. An ancillary 30 x 12m (360m²) open-sided section for truck access / storage and relocatable unit loading / unloading. • External doors for access provided on the northern and southern elevations. • Trucks movements and access to the storage shed to occur in an anti-clockwise manner, entering from the north and exiting from the south of the shed.
What changes are proposed? • A 30m x 30m (900m²) fully enclosed storage shed. • Re-orientation of the building with external access doors being provided along the eastern elevation. • Deletion of the open-sided truck loading and storage section. • Trucks loading/unloading the relocatable units would enter from the east elevation of the storage shed.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 35
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL07/057.02 and Planning Permit PL13/061.01 (cont’d)
Key Planning Issues • The key planning issues relating to amendment application PL13/061.01 are as follows: Whether a total enclosure of the storage shed is an acceptable outcome having regard to the size of the building and the existing use rights of for the land? Whether a 900m² fully enclosed building is ancillary to the existing land use? Whether the re-orientation of the shed is acceptable? Whether the amendments will result in a proper and orderly planning outcome?
Planning Assessment • The subject land is benefitted with existing use rights by PL07/057 for Relocatable Unit Storage and Display, however, this is controlled by the conditions of that permit which, amongst other things, allow no more than eight (8) units on-site. • Council must be aware that, following the previous land rezoning to Low Density Residential, it should not support a further entrenchment of expansion of the use. • In undertaking the original assessment of planning permit application PL13/061, Council expressed to the applicant that it had strong concerns with the size, bulk and scale of the proposed storage shed at 900m². Reasons behind these concerns involved the greatly excessive size of the shed compared to the scale of the existing use rights and that there was a risk the use could be further intensified on the land. • Accordingly, the applicant responded to these concerns and amended the design of shed to incorporate a part enclosed / part open design, reducing the overall enclosed floor area of the building, and providing a direct nexus between the use of the shed and the limited rights of the existing land use. Importantly, the shed would still provide for a functional building to support the ongoing operation of the existing use for the storage of units, machinery and vehicles. • The landowner now proposes to change the design of the storage shed to comprise of a 30m x 30m (900m²) fully enclosed building. Changes are also proposed to the orientation of the shed which subsequently has implications on the site layout plan, truck access and turning movements and conditions of the use permit.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 36
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL07/057.02 and Planning Permit PL13/061.01 (cont’d)
• The justification provided by the applicant for these changes to the shed includes reasons of safety, weather protection, security and a reduction in the building cost. However, no relevant planning reasons have been provided for this change. • The applicant has failed to reasonably demonstrate that a total enclosure and reorientation of the shed is acceptable, particularly accounting for the limited extent existing use rights for the land. • The applicant has also failed to demonstrate that truck and heavy vehicle movements to the shed can occur in a forward movement, safe and functional manner, and appear from the site layout plan to be largely hampered in moving within the site. • As a result of reorientation of the building and changes to truck movements and access, a large section of existing landscaping will be removed on-site which has the potential to increase the visual bulk and scale of the building within the area, and which currently screens the relocatable units within the site. • It is considered that a total enclosure of the shed will result in a change that has the potential to largely intensify the extent and scope of the use on-site and places an unacceptable risk on Council in managing the existing use activities on the land. • Council’s previous approval for the storage shed (partly enclosed and open sided) by PL13/061 was considered to be an acceptable compromise in relation to the size of the shed and extent existing use rights which apply to the land. • The proposed changes now sought by the applicant, particularly to fully enclose the 30m x 30m (900m²) storage shed, are deemed to be excessive and greater than the scope of existing use rights which apply to the land for the storage and display of a total of eight (8) relocatable units. • Council is recommended to refuse a permit amendment to PL13/061.
Issue 2 – Planning Permit Amendment Application PL07/057.02 (Amendment to the Use Permit)
What is approved? • Whilst plans are yet to be endorsed following approval of planning permit amendment PL07/057.01, approval exists for the following: Storage of four (4) relocatable units within the storage shed and four (4) units externally displayed on-site in rows of 2 x 2 along the lot frontage. Truck movements to occur in an anti-clockwise manner within the site and passing through the storage shed.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 37
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL07/057.02 and Planning Permit PL13/061.01 (cont’d)
What changes are proposed? • Alteration to the truck movements and turning areas within the site to enter the storage shed along its eastern façade. • Trucks are no longer proposed to move anti-clockwise through the site to drive through the storage shed and will enter through the eastern side of the building. • The four (4) external relocatable units are proposed to be re-sited to allow for the altered shed design and truck turning area and clustered in the northern section of the site area.
Key Planning Issues • The key planning issues relating to amendment application PL07/057.02 are as follows: Whether the proposed changes to the site layout plan are acceptable in the context of the permit and land use? Whether the changes to the site layout plan are required subject to Council’s assessment of PL13/061.01? Whether the amendments will result in a proper and orderly planning outcome?
Planning Assessment • PL07/057 currently provides the overall approval for the land use to occur on- site. The basis for this amendment application has been made to facilitate building and design changes to the storage shed proposed by the landowner. • Accordingly, should Council determine that the proposed changes to the storage shed are unreasonable, it is necessary that this amendment application also be refused for consistency between these two permits. • The proposed changes made by this amendment application seek to support an amendment to PL13/061, which are considered to be excessive in conjunction with the scale and extent of existing use rights for the land. Based on current zoning controls which apply to the land, Council should not be supporting the entrenchment or expansion of this land use, rather it should be controlling the scale of the use to protect the amenity and character of the area. • If the landowner wishes to expand this use and increase its commercial output, there are other options which must be considered including a relocation of the use to land which supports commercial/industrial uses of this nature or by seeking to initiate a process to rezone the land. • As the total enclosure of the storage shed cannot be supported, Council is recommended to refuse a permit amendment to PL07/057.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 38
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL07/057.02 and Planning Permit PL13/061.01 (cont’d)
CONSULTATION
• Ongoing discussions have occurred between Council and the applicant regarding the processing and statutory requirements to be addressed for these amendment applications. • A meeting was undertaken on-site between Council officers, the applicant and landowner on 24 August 2016 to complete an inspection of the subject site and obtain a clearer understanding of the amendments being proposed.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
• Should Council decide to refuse to grant a planning permit for both amendment applications, the applicant has appeal rights with VCAT, which would incur further financial and resource implications for Council.
RISK
• Council may be subject to a VCAT appeal should it decide to refuse a permit for both amendment applications. • Following an inspection of the land on 24 August 2016, and aside from the other land use compliance issues for the land, it has been identified that the landowner continues to store more than eight (8) relocatable units on-site and within areas that have not been previously approved. • If Council approve the proposed land use changes, including total enclosure of the shed, there is an increased risk that the land use will become entrenched and further expanded on-site, creating an enforcement issue for Council.
CONCLUSION
• The land use for Relocatable Unit Storage and Display operates on the subject land with limited existing use rights preserved by PL07/057, being the storage and display of eight (8) relocatable units. • Council has raised previously with the landowner / applicant that a 900m² storage shed on the land is excessive in size and goes beyond the existing use rights which apply to the land. • Council subsequently decided through PL13/061 for approval of a compromised outcome for a storage shed to be constructed on the land, but on the basis that it would incorporate a partly enclosed and open-sided design. The enclosed section storing the relocatable units, whilst the open-sided section would be used for truck and machinery storage, loading and unloading.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 39
Sustainable Development Planning Permit PL07/057.02 and Planning Permit PL13/061.01 (cont’d)
• The landowner has now sought Council’s approval to fully enclose the storage shed and make subsequent changes to the design, orientation and site layout of the land use. • Having regard to the ongoing concerns about the excessive size of the shed being raised by Council and the limited nature of existing use rights for the storage and display of eight (8) relocatable units, it is considered that approval of a fully enclosed 900m² storage shed is not an acceptable outcome having regard to the existing scale of existing use rights which apply to the land and will be contrary to the proper and orderly planning of the area. • Recommendations to refuse to grant a permit are offered for both amendment applications.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 40
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
6. Amendment C61 – Mortlake Heritage Presented by Oliver Moles Report author Damien Drew Attachments Panel Report – Moyne Planning Scheme Amendment C61, Mortlake Heritage Study
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
That Council: 1. Consider the Panel Report on Amendment C61 pursuant to Section 27 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. 2. Adopt Amendment C61 with minor changes as recommended by the Panel pursuant to Section 29 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. 3. Adopt the final versions of the reference document Mortlake Heritage Citations 2016 and the incorporated document - Mortlake Heritage Precincts Incorporated Document January 2016. 4. Submit the adopted Amendment C61, together with the prescribed information, to the Minister for Planning requesting approval pursuant to Section 31 (1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
SYNOPSIS
• It is recommended that Council adopt Amendment C61, which seeks to implement the Mortlake component of the Review of Moyne Shire Heritage Study Stage 2 (2006-2013). • One submission was received in response to the exhibition of the Amendment, requesting the rectification of a zoning error at 26 Shaw Street, Mortlake. • A Panel hearing in relation to the Amendment was conducted on 25 July 2016. • The Panel recommended that Amendment C61 be adopted as exhibited subject to minor changes, and providing notification to Native Title Services Victoria, which was inadvertently overlooked during the exhibition of the Amendment. • To accord with Ministerial Direction 15 - The Planning Scheme Amendment Process, Council has 40 business days from the date it receives the Panel’s report to make a decision on an amendment. Council is therefore encouraged to adopt the Amendment to meet this timeframe. • A copy of the Panel Report is attached. The full amendment documents will be attached to the report when it is presented at the Ordinary Meeting of Council.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 41
Sustainable Development Amendment C61 – Mortlake Heritage (cont'd)
BACKGROUND
• Amendment C61 seeks to implement the Mortlake component of the Review of Moyne Shire Heritage Study Stage 2 (2006-2013) by: applying the Heritage Overlay to: − 14 individual places − one new precinct – Dunlop Street − one precinct extension - Shaw Street removing the Heritage Overlay from four properties (Nos. 41, 43, 45, 49 Shaw Street) and part of one property (No. 51 Shaw Street), which form part of the existing Mortlake Heritage Precinct (HO12). introducing the Mortlake Heritage Citations 2016 as a reference document in Clause 21.11. amending Clause 22.01-4 (Mortlake Courthouse Heritage Precinct) to reflect the two heritage precincts in Mortlake. introducing the Mortlake Heritage Precincts Incorporated Document January 2016 as an incorporated document in the Schedule to Clause 81.01 of Council’s Planning Scheme to exempt minor buildings and works from the need for a permit under the HO provisions. • The Incorporated Document will reduce the number of planning approvals (permit applications) required for the undertaking of buildings and works within the Mortlake Heritage Precincts. For example, planning permit exemptions will be provided for minor buildings and works, which are not visible from a street or a public park, such as, the construction of decks no greater than 800mm in height, and domestic swimming pools or spas. Nonetheless, it is noted that the majority of the buildings in the proposed Dunlop Street Precinct are within the Commercial 1 Zone. The provisions of this Zone currently require planning approval (permits) to be obtained for buildings and works. • The Amendment was placed on public exhibition between 11 April and 16 May 2016, and one submission was received. The submission requested the rezoning of No. 26 Shaw Street, Mortlake from Public Use Zone 6 (Local Government) to the Commercial 1 Zone, a matter which was beyond the scope of the Amendment. • At its meeting of 28 June 2016, Council resolved to refer the submission to a Panel. A Panel hearing was held on 25 July 2016, to hear the submission in response to the Amendment. • Overall, the Panel considered that the rezoning requested by the submitter would require re-exhibition of the Amendment, such a change to the Amendment would not provide any net community benefit, and it is a longstanding issue, which could be considered in a corrections amendment. Therefore, the submitter’s request was not supported by the Panel. • Council has committed to rectifying the zoning issue, via a forthcoming ‘corrections’ amendment.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 42
Sustainable Development Amendment C61 – Mortlake Heritage (cont'd)
STRATEGIC LINK • Planning and Environment Act 1987. • Moyne Planning Scheme.
DISCUSSION
Panel Report - Key Findings • Overall, the Panel concluded that the Amendment is supported by, and implements, the relevant sections of the State and Local Planning Policy Framework, and it is well founded and strategically justified. • The Panel agreed with Council and considered there would not be a net community benefit in delaying the Amendment to address a zoning anomaly for one property, which would result in the delayed implementation of heritage protection for other properties. • The Panel noted that the recent approval of Amendment C55 - Port Fairy Heritage Review had created the need to make some administrative changes to the Amendment. In addition, it supported a revised assessment of the significance of No. 84 Dunlop Street.
Panel Report - Recommendations • The Panel recommended that Moyne Planning Scheme Amendment C61 be adopted as exhibited subject to the following:
Heritage The Moyne Shire contains an outstanding collection of heritage places, which are recognised as a significant asset to the municipality. Port Fairy has had local heritage planning controls and policy applied to the area for several decades. This was the result of Port Fairy being the subject of one of the earliest heritage studies undertaken in Victoria in 1976. Mortlake township has two heritage precincts, one which has been in place for many years, and has recently been extended. Many identified heritage precincts in townships outside of Port Fairy and Mortlake, and individually significant heritage places across the municipality are not yet protected and remain vulnerable to inappropriate development.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 43
Sustainable Development Amendment C61 – Mortlake Heritage (cont'd)
a) correct the description of 80-84 Dunlop Street, Mortlake to 80 Dunlop Street, Mortlake. b) identify 84 Dunlop Street, Mortlake as a non-contributory place in the map that relates to the Dunlop Street Heritage Precinct, Mortlake.
Response to Panel Recommendations • Council proposed the changes to the Amendment included in the Panel recommendations 2 and 3, at the Hearing. Approval of Amendment C55 created the need to update Clause 21.05 of the Municipal Strategic Statement as part of Amendment C61. In addition, the changes to the reference document arose from consultation with the owners of No. 84 Dunlop Street during the exhibition period. • Native Title Services Victoria have been provided with notification of the Amendment. • An overall corrections amendment for the Moyne Planning Scheme is under preparation and will include the requested zoning change to No. 26 Shaw Street.
CONSULTATION
• All affected landowners and residents were given notice of the Amendment and provided with a citation report outlining the heritage significance of their precinct or individual property. • On 19 April 2016, Council’s Strategic Planner and Heritage Consultant conducted meetings with three landowners in Mortlake to explain how the Amendment would affect their properties. • Council received approximately six enquiries from affected landowners and businesses and those queries were discussed via telephone without the need for a meeting. • Only one submission was received, which did not raise any objection to the application of the Heritage Overlay, however, it sought the rezoning of a parcel of freehold land from the Public Use Zone to the Commercial 1 Zone. • Resolving this issue is beyond the scope of the Amendment. Negotiations, including offering to have the rezoning included in a ‘corrections’ amendment, which is about to be prepared, did not see the submission withdrawn. • Council and the submitter presented submissions to the Panel convened by the Minister for Planning. • The Panel Report has been released to the public.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 44
Sustainable Development Amendment C61 – Mortlake Heritage (cont'd)
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
• The small increase in properties included in the Heritage Overlay may slightly increase the number of planning permit applications for buildings and works lodged with Council. However, it is anticipated that this increase will be absorbed by the existing resources of Council’s Planning Department. • In addition, the use of the Incorporated Document - Mortlake Heritage Precincts Incorporated Document January 2016 will provide further planning permit exemptions for minor works and development, and reduce the approvals burden on property owners and Council.
RISK
• Council is in a sound position to adopt the Amendment at this time and undertake the further notification recommended by the Panel, prior to submitting the Amendment for Ministerial approval. • If the Amendment is not adopted, it would result in buildings and places of heritage significance in Mortlake not being protected for an extended period of time and remaining vulnerable to inappropriate development, ultimately eroding the heritage significance and character of the town. • It is advised that Council should not defer making a decision on this Amendment, as Clause 6(b) of Ministerial Direction 15 stipulates that a planning authority must make a decision on an amendment within 40 business days of receiving the Panel report.
CONCLUSION
• The Panel determined that the Amendment is supported by, and implements, the relevant sections of the State and Local Planning Policy Framework, and that it is well founded and strategically justified. • Council has committed to rectifying the zoning issue at 26 Shaw Street, Mortlake, via a ‘corrections’ amendment. • It is recommended that Council adopt Amendment C61 with minor changes as outlined in the Attachments to this report. • Finally, it is recommended that Council submit the Amendment, as adopted, to the Minister for Planning for approval.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 45
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 46
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
7. Cumbungi Control at Tea Tree Lake Mortlake Presented by Oliver Moles Report author Richard Hodgens Attachment(s) Nil
OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION That Council undertake Cumbungi control works at Tea Tree Lake Mortlake, immediately from the existing works budget and further funding for the following year be considered as part of the 2017/18 budget process.
SYNOPSIS • Tea Tree Lake has an abundance of Cumbungi (Typha domingensis). This report details the recent history of its control at this location, highlights the options and probable costs for future control and outlines a potential five year works program.
BACKGROUND • Moyne Shire Council is the committee of management for the crown land reserve known as Tea Tree Lake in Mortlake. • As a bicentennial project in 1988, the then Shire of Mortlake redesigned and formalised the ‘swampy’ area into what is now regarded as the ‘lake’ through a mix of excavation, dredging and increased water flows via stormwater. • Council adopted its Tea Tree Lake Masterplan in 2002. • Action 4 within the Plan recommends mechanical control of Cumbungi (Typha domingensis) within the lake with the first priority area being 100m of control along its Western side. This Action was implemented within five years and saw the overall depth of the lake near the Montgomery Pavilion - Fishing Platform area substantially increased. • Following requests from the public for further control works Council allocated $10,000 in its capital works budget in 2011/12 specifically for Cumbungi control works to occur. • Prior to this project being implemented, a number of Councillors and senior officers were approached by an earthworks firm who offered to perform $10,000 worth of Cumbungi works at Tea Tree Lake free of charge to Council thereby allowing the budget allocation to be spent on other items within the reserve. This offer was accepted and all funds were subsequently re-allocated to Council’s Physical Services Directorate for the procurement of park furniture.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 47
Sustainable Development Cumbungi Control at Tea Tree Lake Mortlake (cont’d)
• Attempts to coordinate these works less than a day’s work have been resulted in minimal Cumbungi being removed. • The earthworks firm did highlight that the area on the south-eastern side of the lake contains a hardened layer of geologic material (i.e. stone or stone-like product) on the bottom of the lake. In this area of the lake the water is quite shallow with generally less than 30cm water depth. • In late 2015 Council received written communication from a concerned ratepayer requesting Cumbungi control within the lake. Council’s Environmental Unit has subsequently worked with this individual to investigate practical, local and cost- effective options for control. However, to date few gains have been achieved. • Selected Councillors were e-mailed by the Mortlake Lions Club in late July 2016 highlighting the issue of Cumbungi growth within the lake and this has led to the creation of this report.
STRATEGIC LINK
• The Council Plan 2013-2017 has several pertinent strategies, namely:
Strategy 2.2 − Develop and implement improvements for our townships including to town entrances, recreation facilities and open space amenities based on strategic direction; Strategy 3.2 − Encourage greater pride and care in the appearance of urban, coastal and rural areas Strategy 3.4 − Support and implement improvements to the environment and natural attractions; Strategy 3.5 − Develop policies and controls for the protection of places of cultural, heritage, environmental and indigenous value; Strategy 3.7 − Support and implement sustainable practices in all of council’s areas of activity; Strategy 4.3 − Ensure that council services and programs are responsive to the changing needs and expectations of the community.
• The Tea Tree Lake Masterplan 2002 lists mechanical removal of Cumbungi (and subsequent re-planting with alternative native species) as Action (project) #4.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 48
Sustainable Development Cumbungi Control at Tea Tree Lake Mortlake (cont’d)
DISCUSSION
• As is stated on page 17 of the Tea Tree Lake Masterplan 2002 Cumbungi (Typha domingensis) “…is a vigorous, highly competitive plant…that is an early colonising plant…with small windblown seeds needing full sun and shallow water or moist sediments to germinate and establish successfully. Once established it spreads…via an extensive rhizome (underground stem) system…and can grow in the permanent water zone to a depth of about 0.6-0.8m. Cumbungi is a tall plant (up to 2.5m) and once established will out compete most other aquatic macrophytes (plants)”. • Cumbungi performs an important environmental role in the nutrient cycle of a wetland and provides habitat for an array of species including birds, fish and invertebrates. Any widespread/bulk removal may result in an immediate loss of species within the Tea Tree Lake precinct. • Cumbungi is a native plant to Victoria and, given the majority of the lake has received no Cumbungi maintenance since it was constructed 1988, its removal is now likely to require a planning permit for native vegetation removal. • There are various methods of control for Cumbungi, namely: Mechanical Removal – use of an excavator to dig/scrape out all vegetation. This is highly unlikely to remove all rhizomes so the Cumbungi will re- establish within a decade unless follow up treatments are implemented. It is also impossible for Council to remove all Cumbungi via this method as deep water prohibits machinery access to some parts of the lake; Repeated Cutting – use of a bladed machine to cut all vegetation at the surface of the water. This does not in any way kill the Cumbungi, it merely trims it similar to a lawnmower cutting a grass lawn on land meaning it requires regular follow up treatments. There are also sections of the lake where the water is too shallow for such a machine to be used and it is challenging to launch such machinery into the lake as there is no boat ramp; Herbicide Application – use of chemicals to restrict new growth. This can be cost effective but the best results are obtained by first removing the bulk of the dead biomass above the surface of the water. A proposed trial involving the Mortlake CFA burning a small area of this dead biomass has not been able to obtain approval from CFA management in order to proceed. There are also sections of the lake where the Cumbungi is largely inaccessible for herbicide to be satisfactorily applied; Increasing Water Depth – use of an excavator to make the lake deeper thereby creating less favourable conditions for Cumbungi (and potentially also for other biota). In some locations where bedrock may be not far below the water’s surface this may prove to be either expensive or impossible – in such instances these areas could be candidates for infilling. Additional works may well be required such as raising levee bank heights, installing rock batters, adding extra flows, etc; and
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 49
Sustainable Development Cumbungi Control at Tea Tree Lake Mortlake (cont’d)
Revegetation with Alternative Plants – installing alternative native plants to replace Cumbungi over time. This is important as it will help to provide a diverse array of habitats thereby attracting different animals to the lake area. However, it is very challenging as the Cumbungi will outcompete virtually everything and implementation of any of the other control methods are almost certain to kill these plants as well. • As with most pest plant issues, ideally a combination of several options is the most effective way to control the problem. • Providing funding is made available, a five year Cumbungi Control program could be implemented. A realistic overview of such a program would be something like:
Year 1 − Mechanical removal Cumbungi from the East, South and West sides of the perimeter of the lake. Year 2 − Deepening of selected areas/Infilling of notably shallow areas with bedrock base plus herbicide application on regrowth. Year 3 − Raising levee bank heights particularly at the Western end of the lake plus adding in a water access point/ramp plus herbicide application on regrowth. Year 4 − Adding extra water sources plus herbicide application on regrowth plus revegetation. Year 5 − Cutting and revegetation (both annual events from this point onwards).
• The timeframe could be condensed (aside from herbicide application) if a greater amount of funds are made available at any one time.
CONSULTATION
• There was significant public consultation prior to the adoption of the Tea Tree Lake Masterplan in late 2002. • Council has received several pieces of correspondence from Mortlake residents and community groups over the last decade seeking Cumbungi control works at Tea Tree Lake. • No specific consultation has occurred on this item in recent years with the Mortlake community, though it is likely it will be seen more as maintenance of the lake than any new construction.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 50
Sustainable Development Cumbungi Control at Tea Tree Lake Mortlake (cont’d)
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
• Any Cumbungi control program will require Council to allocate funds specifically for this purpose. • Cost estimates for each option previously outlined are as follows:
Mechanical Removal − removal of biomass off-site $15,000 (one off cost). Repeated Cutting − trimming of biomass on-site $8,000 (annual once accessible). Herbicide − sprays twice per year $2,200 (annual once biomass Application removed). Increased Water − difficult to accurately calculate due to no clear scope of Depth works, the potential for bedrock and sourcing of additional water; $30,000 is a realistic starting point (one- off cost). Revegetation with − depends on extent of area and density of planting $3,300 Alternative Plants is a likely estimate (annual once spraying ceases). Total Cost − of proposed 5 year program - $66,200 (2016 figures) Ongoing Cost − after proposed 5 year program is implemented $11,300 (2016 figures)
RISK
• There is an extremely high risk that animal habitat (particularly for birds, fish, invertebrates) within the lake will be significantly reduced if any substantial control works are performed. • There is an extremely high risk that, should any control works be performed, the Cumbungi will rapidly return unless a long-term integrated approach is taken by Council. • There is a high risk that Council may be perceived in a negative way by anyone opposed to the removal or destruction of any animal habitat. • There is a moderate risk that Council may be perceived in a negative way by anyone wishing to see Cumbungi control works if no substantial works are performed.
CONCLUSION
• Cumbungi control at Tea Tree Lake poses a significant challenge. It requires a significant amount of one-off and ongoing resources to be invested across a range of methods over a prolonged period to be successful.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 51
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 52
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
8. Road Occupation Policy Presented by Oliver Moles Report author Robert Gibson Attachments 1. Draft Road Occupation Policy SD-15 2. Unused Road Licences Policy PS-3 3. Management of Unused Government Road Reserves Operational Procedure
Confidential 4. Confidential Legal Advice from Harwood Andrews Attachment
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION That Council adopt Council Policy SD-15 titled Road Occupation Policy.
SYNOPSIS
• This report has been prepared to provide Council an opportunity to consider the adoption of a policy to guide officers when responding to requests or complaints associated with the occupation of road reserves.
BACKGROUND
• Over recent months, Council officers have received complaints about neighbours fencing sections of road reserves and restricting free movement by the public along the road reserves. Typically, these situations apply to rural lanes that are not formed into roads but may have wheel tracks as a result of occasional use. • Four cases were provided at a recent Council Workshop, as examples of the road occupations that have generated calls to Council. • For clarification, this report and the associated draft policy do not apply to roadside grazing permits issued under General Local Law No.1 – 2015 whereby landholders may obtain a permit to graze an area of roadside between their property boundary and the road formation. This report applies to Government road reserves where a landholder blocks or proposes to block the entire width of the road reserve and typically occurs where the road is not formed or made. • In the past there has been the odd situation whereby a roadside grazing permit has been issued authorising occupation of the entire width of the road reserve. The draft policy will not provide for this practice to continue.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 53
Sustainable Development
Road Occupation Policy (cont’d)
DISCUSSION
• In response to the influx of disputes associated with unauthorised occupation of road reserves, Council sought legal advice from Harwood Andrews Lawyers. In providing their advice which is provided at Attachment 5, Harwood Andrews referred to the Land Act 1958 and the Supreme Court of Victoria and the 2012 matter of Johnson v Moyne Shire Council & ors in which Justice Dixon provided: “While the identification of roads that are not required for public traffic is a task for municipal councils, licensing the use of such roads is a matter for the Minister”. • Section 130AB of the Land Act 1958 provides for the Minister or person delegated by the Minister to grant a licence over unused roads. Section 121 of the Act provides for a lease. • In order for a road or section of road to be declared ‘unused’ Council must give notice to the Secretary of the Department of Environment Land Water and Planning under section 400 of the Land Act 1958 stating it considers the road or section of road to be not required for public traffic and an unused road. This process is administered using Council Unused Road Licences Policy PS-3 (Attachment 2) and the associated Management of Unused Government Road Reserves Operational Procedure (Attachment 3). • Upon receipt of this notice, the Minister or delegate may grant a licence over the applicable section of road. • Recently the Department of Environment Land Water and Planning have re- directed applicants back to Council to obtain a permit to graze a road reserve rather than commence the process of declaring the road to be unused and issuing a licence or lease if appropriate. • The draft Road Occupation Policy provided at Attachment 1 reflects this process. • The draft policy also provides guidance to officers on the approach to be taken when responding to cases of unauthorised road occupations. • General Local Law No.1 – 2015 provides for officers to take action in circumstances whereby a person blocks public access to a Government Road. • The policy supports officers to: 1. Inform unauthorised occupiers of road reserves that their occupation is unlawful, 2. Give notice that all obstructions are to be removed until a licence or lease is obtained, and 3. Inform the occupier of the process for making application for a licence or lease from the Department of Environment Land Water and Planning. • The policy also supports officers to take action to remove the obstruction should the occupier not comply with the notice in a reasonable timeframe.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 54
Sustainable Development
Road Occupation Policy (cont’d)
CONSULTATION
• Council’s lawyers have been consulted in the preparation of this report. • Manager Assets.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
• The policy has been developed to protect Council from legal action associated with providing approval for road occupation or not responding adequately to complaints of unauthorised road occupations.
RISK
• There is a risk unauthorised occupiers of road reserves will not respond favourably to being directed to open the road to the public until a licence or lease is obtained. This is particularly relevant for those who have occupied the road reserve unlawfully for many years without issue. • There is also a risk the Department of Environment Land Water and Planning will re-direct applicants back to Council as has occurred in the past. Having a clear policy will help to reduce the frustration applicants may experience if referred back and forwards between Council and the Department of Environment Land Water & Planning.
CONCLUSION
• While unlawful road occupations can occur for many years without issue, the occupation can become a concern for several reasons including new neighbours, change in land use or farming practices and neighbourly disputes. • Regardless of the period of time a road has been unlawfully occupied or the reasoning behind a complaint, the underlying principles to be applied are based on: 1. First and foremost, the land has been set aside as a road and this purpose supersedes other uses such as grazing, 2. If a road is to be occupied, it should be lawful, and therefore a licence or lease should be obtained prior to the occupation commencing or continuing, and 3. The Department of Environment Land Water and Planning are responsible for issuing licences or leases for agricultural uses of unused roads. • The attached draft Road Occupation Policy SD-15 reflects these principles and provides guidance to officers in responding to road occupation inquiries and transparent information for occupiers and complainants.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 55
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 56
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
9. 2016 Bushfire Mapping and Policy Update – Department of Environment Land Water and Planning Presented by Oliver Moles Report author Michelle Grainger Attachments 1. Information Sheets, 2. Maps of, Macarthur, Peterborough, Orford and Laang
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
That Council: 1. Advise the Department of Environment Land Water and Planning that it generally considers the mapping for Moyne Shire is accurate. 2. Apply for funding under the Local Government Bushfire Planning Initiatives for schedules to set a Bushfire Attack Level for the Bushfire Management Overlay being introduced at Peterborough and to consider if there is merit in a schedule to the Bushfire Management Overlay for cleared land adjoining timber plantations. 3. Support the MAV in encouraging the Minister for Planning to re-establish the Bushfire Management Overlay Standing Advisory Committee to hear submissions in relation to the 2016 Bushfire Mapping and Policy Update.
SYNOPSIS
• Council has been informed by Department of Environment Land Water and Planning (DELWP) that it has prepared updated Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO) Mapping for Victoria. • The mapping has been updated on the basis of the key recommendations from the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission. • The mapping is based on the Planning Advisory Note 46: Bushfire Management Overlay Mapping Methodology and Criteria. • Targeted consultation is occurring with Council Officers and the Department has advised a formal recommendation of Council is not required. • From Moyne’s perspective there are 191 new properties to be covered by the BMO, 407 properties removed from the BMO and 257 properties which are currently covered and will continue to be covered by the BMO.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 57
Sustainable Development 2016 Bushfire Mapping and Policy Update (cont’d)
BACKGROUND
• The State Government has been considering the use and application of the Bushfire Management Overlay since the findings were handed down by the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission. • DELWP has provided Council with updated mapping and is seeking officer feedback by mid-September, 2016. • The mapping is based on Planning Advisory Note 46 – Bushfire Management Overlay Mapping Methodology and Criteria which has mapped extreme bushfire risk. • In addition to the mapping Council has been provided with a draft of the updated State Planning Policy Framework Policy for bushfire, an information sheet for planners, details of funding opportunities for local government Bushfire Planning Initiatives and been invited to a mapping verification workshop in Warrnambool on the 6 September, 2016 to discuss any issues Council may have with the mapping. • The information accompanying the mapping states: “After targeted consultation with local government, updated Bushfire Management Overlay maps together with an updated State Planning Policy Framework will be introduced into all planning schemes”. • The areas for extreme bushfire hazard were identified in 2013 and have been updated with key criteria from the Advisory Note being: Areas of vegetation (except grasslands) 4 hectares or more in size, with a 150 metre buffer area applied. The buffer is to protect dwellings against embers which are the cause of most house losses from bushfire. Areas where the surrounding landscape presents a significant bushfire hazard that warrants consideration of new development. • It has been envisaged that the updated provisions to the planning scheme may be implemented by a Ministerial amendment which do not usually involve land holder or community consultation as part of the process.
STRATEGIC LINK
• Moyne Planning Scheme • Moyne Municipal Fire Management Plan
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 58
Sustainable Development 2016 Bushfire Mapping and Policy Update (cont’d)
DISCUSSION
Mapping • The mapping has been reviewed. • Overall statistics show that 191 new properties to be covered by the BMO, 407 properties removed from the BMO and 257 properties which are currently covered and will continue to be covered by the BMO. • The mapping has been refined to reduce the area of the BMO around significant plantations and areas of remnant vegetation to incorporate only the 150 metre buffer, whereas as it exists it covers a lot larger area. This would contribute largely to the removal of many of the 407 properties. • It introduces the BMO to coastal crown land and adjoining land within 150 metres where there is significant vegetation. • It removes the BMO from the Orford township. • It applies the BMO to part of the Peterborough township, in particular Merrett Street is wholly covered as are some properties on the Great Ocean Road and at the entrance to Antares Estate due to the coastal vegetation on the coast and significant vegetation to the north of Merrett Street. • Significant areas of the BMO currently exist in the western portions of the Shire surrounding plantations and Mt Eccles. • In the south east of the Shire there is also a patchwork of the BMO south of Panmure and near Laang covering significant stands of remnant vegetation. This area has been refined to only cover the stands where at the moment there are large areas covered by the BMO. • Plantations to the east of Macarthur will be added to the BMO including land adjoining the plantations where the 150 metres buffer will be applied. • Maps for these specific areas have been provided for information.
Bushfire Management Overlay and Native Vegetation Removal provisions of the Moyne Planning Scheme. • The BMO operates independently to the native vegetation provisions at Clause 52.17 of the Moyne Planning Scheme. • Clause 52.48 Bushfire Protection: Exemptions has within it exemptions for native vegetation removal particularly relating to the defendable space around a dwelling: If the land is in the BMO, is required by a condition of permit issued since 31 July 2014 and does not exceed the table to Clause 52.47-4 which refers to the vegetation type and slope no permit is required to remove native vegetation. Or for a dwelling constructed before 10 September, 2009 where the native vegetation is within 10 metres of dwelling removal of vegetation within 30 metres and 50 metres of a building used for accommodation where the BMO applies, however this exemption does not apply to trees.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 59
Sustainable Development 2016 Bushfire Mapping and Policy Update (cont’d)
With regard to fencelines there is an exemption for removal of native vegetation along a fenceline which allows the removal of a combined maximum width of 4 metres of an existing fence on a boundary between properties in different ownership that was constructed before 10 September, 2009. • A planning permit is likely to be required if an applicant wants to remove vegetation as part of addressing bushfire risk if it exceeds the defendable space or trees are to be removed in the defendable space at a distance greater than 10 metres from the dwelling and within the 50 metre defendable space. • An exemption exists for the need for a planning permit to remove native vegetation for fire protection in specific circumstances being: For fire fighting measures, periodic fuel reduction burning or the making of a fuel break or fire fighting access track up to 6 metres wide. The native vegetation is a tree overhanging the roof of a building used for Accommodation. This exemption only allows the removal, destruction or lopping of that part of the tree which is overhanging the building and which is necessary for fire protection. In accordance with a fire prevention notice under: − Section 65 of the Forests Act 1958. − Section 41 of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958. − Section 8 of the Local Government Act 1989. To keep the whole or any part of any native vegetation clear of an electric line in accordance with a code of practice prepare under Part of the Electricity Safety Act 1998. • The complexity of the planning scheme provisions requires careful assessment by applicants and Council and will require the submission of a report by a planning or bushfire specialist. • Due to the areas where the BMO applies Council only receives approximately 10 applications per annum that are triggered by this control.
Consultation • Council Officers have reviewed the mapping. • The State Government was seeking to largely engage at Officer level only on this mapping and amendment process. • Some municipalities have elected to brief Council and in some cases formally resolve a position on this amendment. • In supplementary information provided to Council the DWELP have advised: “DELWP is the agency responsible for completing bushfire hazard mapping across Victoria and is undertaking targeted consultation with local government to achieve accurate and comprehensive mapping of extreme bushfire hazard.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 60
Sustainable Development 2016 Bushfire Mapping and Policy Update (cont’d)
The mapping is a technical exercise applying the criteria in the Planning Advisory Note 46: Bushfire Management Overlay Mapping Methodology and Criteria. Accordingly, the department does not require a formal council resolution providing comment on the updated Bushfire Management Overlay mapping and comment can be provided by Council Officers”. “Nevertheless it is acknowledged that some municipalities may wish to have Council consider the mapping formally either by committee or full Council. Councils are free to consider and report the mapping to suit their individual circumstances. Where public notice of the agenda item is part of the council resolution process, council officers will need to consider the management of public enquiries from their community.” • The MAV have engaged in this issue and advised that member feedback is that Councils seem comfortable in providing general advice but technical validity of the maps should be referred to the verification workshops being held across the State. MAV agree that there is merit in re-establishing the Bushfire Management Overlay Standing Advisory Committee to provide a formal avenue for landowners should they wish to challenge the validity of the Overlay on their property. The MAV have raised this issue with the Department. • The information package provides a Local Government Assistance Program that provides funding to review and implement the overlay. • It may be of benefit to Council to apply for funding to implement a schedule to the overlay where land adjoins a plantation as this vegetation is managed differently to native vegetation and it is the adjoining cleared land impacted by the 150 metre buffer distance. It may be that a local policy and schedule could assist to fast track permit applications in such instances. • A BMO schedule setting a minimum Bushfire Attack Level for residential properties in Peterborough would be of benefit and reduce the need for individual developments to get their own BAL assessment carried out by a consultant.
CONSULTATION
• As discussed Council has been advised and provided with mapping. • Timelines for response are short and as Council is not the Planning Authority preparing the amendment no formal community consultation broadly or with affected landowners has occurred.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 61
Sustainable Development 2016 Bushfire Mapping and Policy Update (cont’d)
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
• There should be no greater burden posed on Council to implement the BMO. • Only in Peterborough is it likely to cause a further permit trigger. Most development due to existing Design and Development, Significant Landscape and Environmental Significance Overlays. A BAL assessment for this neighbourhood could lessen this burden.
RISK
• The aim is to reduce risk by introducing the BMO to extreme bushfire risk and require an assessment of new development against the BMO.
CONCLUSION
• Overall it is considered that the mapping undertaken to review the BMO has generally been well applied to areas of the Shire. • The lack of community or landholder engagement is of concern and Council should support the MAV in its endeavours to have the Bushfire Management Overlay Standing Advisory Committee reconvened to hear submissions from the community. • Council should apply for funding to tailor BMO schedules for land in Peterborough where a consistent Bushfire Attack Level could be set and for land adjoining timber plantations.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 62
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
10. United Dairyfarmers of Victoria’s campaign for power infrastructure upgrades – Request for Council Support Presented by Oliver Moles Report author Vicki Askew-Thornton Attachments Letter from UDV Wannon Branch requesting that Council supports its campaign for power infrastructure upgrades
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
That Council writes to the United Dairyfarmers of Victoria’s Wannon Branch, supporting their campaign to the State Government for power infrastructure upgrades from Single Wire Earth Return (SWER) supply to three phase supply.
SYNOPSIS • The United Dairyfarmers of Victoria (UDV) have initiated a campaign to request that the government urgently implement an infrastructure upgrade program to enable access by Victorian dairy farmers to three phase power.
BACKGROUND • Council has received a letter from the Wannon Branch of the UDV requesting that Council formally consider supporting their campaign. • Earlier this year the UDV and VFF conferences unanimously adopted resolutions calling for the state government to prioritise and fund these power supply upgrades.
STRATEGIC LINK • Moyne Shire Council Plan 2013-2017, Key Result Area 3, Sustainable Development: To facilitate sustainable economic growth through: − Recognising and supporting the rich agricultural assets of the Shire. − Promoting balanced business opportunities and advantage. • Great South Coast Regional Strategic Plan: Improve the region’s critical infrastructure systems including transport, telecommunications, power and water.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 63
Sustainable Development United Dairyfarmers of Victoria’s campaign for power infrastructure upgrades – request for Council support (cont'd)
DISCUSSION • The UDV explains in detail (refer to attachment), the difficulties caused to dairy farmers by not having easy and affordable access to three phase power. • Inadequate and unreliable electricity supply for dairy farms is a long-standing issue that has been consistently raised by dairy industry groups and dairy farmers. • Upgrading the power supply infrastructure to three phase capacity will have benefits to the broader agricultural, manufacturing and industrial sectors across Moyne Shire.
CONSULTATION • Craig Dettling, President – UDV Wannon Branch. • Bruce Knowles, Vice President - UDV Wannon Branch. • Chris O’Keefe, Secretary/Treasurer - UDV Wannon Branch.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS • Nil.
RISK • Nil.
CONCLUSION • In order to advocate on behalf of its dairy farmers and the regional dairy industry, Council should write a letter of support to the United Dairyfarmers of Victoria’s Wannon Branch, supporting their campaign for the state government to urgently implement an infrastructure upgrade program to enable access by Victorian dairy farmers to three phase power.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 64
PHYSICAL SERVICES
11. Primmers Road - Petition Presented by Trevor Greenberger Report author Trevor Greenberger Attachment Petition received 22 August 2016
OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION
That Council: 1. In accordance with Council’s Local Law (meeting procedures) receive the Petition. 2. Receive a further report at a future meeting of Council regarding any proposed actions.
SYNOPSIS • This report relates to the petition received by Council on 22 August, 2016 which is signed by 26 citizens. • The petition requests Council seal and widen Primmers Road, Mailors Flat. • In accordance with Council’s Local Law (meeting procedures), the petition is to be received by Council.
BACKGROUND • The letter accompanying the petition outlines a number of concerns with the current condition of the road including: Dust and corrugations during the summer months Mud and pot holes during the winter months The current 100km/h speed limit Safety for road users • The proposal outlined in the petition requests that Primmers Road be sealed, widened to a two-way carriageway and be signed in accordance with a reduced speed limit.
STRATEGIC LINK • The Council Plan 2013-2017 has the following strategies: Continuously improve the condition of our road network (roads, bridges, streets and footpaths).
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 65
Physical Services Primmers Road - Petition (cont'd)
DISCUSSION • Council’s Local Law (Meeting Procedures) does not allow a motion to be made regarding the petition until the following ordinary meeting of Council unless Council determines that it is a matter of urgent business.
CONSULTATION • Presentation of petition.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS • No financial implications will result from Council receiving the petition but the matter may be referred to a future budget process.
RISK • There is no perceived risk for Council in receiving the petition.
CONCLUSION • Moyne Shire has recently received a petition from 26 citizens requesting improvements on Primmers Road, Mailors Flat. • In accordance with Council’s Local Law (meeting procedures) the petition is to be received by Council.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 66
PHYSICAL SERVICES
12. Koroit Youth Space Design Presented by Trevor Greenberger Report author Jacquie Anderton Attachment Koroit Youth Space design
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION
That Council acknowledge the Koroit Youth Space design prior to being released for community viewing.
SYNOPSIS • This report presents the final design for the Koroit Youth Space to be located at property number 532448 Bourke Avenue Koroit, prior to releasing the design for public viewing.
BACKGROUND • Following the creation of a Concept Plan and the undertaking of a community consultation process completed in 2015, PlaYce Pty. Ltd. were contracted to prepare a detailed construction design for the Koroit Youth Space in May 2016. The contract includes refining the original concept, consultation and the development of a detailed design. • Following comment from the Project Control group and input from Koroit skating youth, the final design is presented to Council for their review.
CONSULTATION • A Project Control Group has been established to help guide the project and ensure the final design considers all users of the reserve and the Youth Space. Representatives include: Koroit Working Group, township committee Koroit Skate Group Moyne Youth Council Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning Sport and Recreation Victoria Moyne Shire
STRATEGIC LINK • The report aligns with Council’s 2013 - 2017 Council Plan Strategy 2.6: “Support an active and healthy community that is engaged in a broad range of artistic, cultural and recreational activities.”
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 67
Physical Services Koroit Youth Space Design (cont’d)
DISCUSSION • The attached design reflects feedback from the original consultation undertaken in 2015 and subsequent feedback from the Project Control Group and Koroit skaters. • The design considers the most efficient use of concrete to offer a larger usable space for a broad range of skate abilities. The design allows for maximum traffic flow of users and offers a good range of elements to cater for a varied level of ability. It was agreed by the Project Control Group that the paving circuit allow for good flow, whilst the arrangement of elements allowed for multiple areas of independent use. • The design considers future maintenance requirements, particularly for the central grass area and the concrete verges. • An art component that compliments the design of the youth space is to be developed as a separate project. Consultation with the Project Control Group is occurring simultaneous with the design process. • Tender documents for construction will be presented to Council for endorsement by November or December.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS • The project budget is $170,000 with commitments from SRV grant $80,000 MSC $60,000 MSYC uber bus sale $14,000 Community $16,000 $170,000
• Council has allowed for this amount in the 2016-17 Council budget
RISK • The representation on the Project Control Group is reflective of the broader Koroit community and specific users for the proposed facility. Their input, followed with opportunity for Council and community review will help to mitigate potential risk.
CONCLUSION • The Koroit Youth Space design development is progressing according to the nominated timeframes, considering input from all relevant stakeholders and community, in preparation for construction early in 2017.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 68
PHYSICAL SERVICES
13. Regional Cultural Partnership Program 2016-20 Presented by Trevor Greenberger Report author Jacquie Anderton Attachment Regional Cultural Partnership Agreement
OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION That Council endorse the Regional Art Victoria Partnership Agreement for the Regional Cultural Partnership Program 2016-20
SYNOPSIS • This report presents a new agreement for endorsement between Moyne Shire Council and Regional Arts Victoria for the Regional Cultural Partnership Program 2016-20.
BACKGROUND • Moyne Shire has been a member of the Regional Cultural Partnership with Regional Arts Victoria, Warrnambool City Council and the Shires of Glenelg, Corangamite and Southern Grampians. As a part of the previous agreement, Moyne Shire has hosted the Creative Arts Facilitator at the Shire offices. • The purpose of the Regional Cultural Partnership Program and Creative Arts Facilitator position is to increase community access to arts and cultural support mechanisms including potential opportunities for funding and training development networks and strengthening communities through arts and cultural activity. • The partnership has developed and continues to provide, ongoing support for regional projects such as South West Arts Atlas. This is an interactive website for artists, community organisations and cultural groups to share what’s going on and profile their region. South West Arts Atlas is a useful tool for the whole community, businesses and organisations wishing to work with artists and events.
CONSULTATION • The Agreement has been negotiated in consultation between Moyne Shire officers and Regional Arts Victoria.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 69
Physical Services Regional Cultural Partnership Program 2016-20 (cont’d)
STRATEGIC LINK • Strategic links that support this report include: Moyne Shire Council Plan 2013 – 2017. 2.6 Support an active and healthy community that is engaged in a broad range of artistic, cultural and recreational activities.
DISCUSSION • The period of the Agreement commences 1 July 2016 and will conclude 30 June 2020.The arrangements of the old agreement have been in place in the interim period whilst Regional Arts Victoria and the five partner councils finalised the revised agreement presented with this report. • This agreement will see Regional Arts Victoria, Corangamite Shire Council, Glenelg Shire Council, Moyne Shire Council, Southern Grampians Shire Council and Warrnambool City Council develop a partnership framework that determines strategic objectives for a defined period, the outcomes of which will be delivered by the Creative Arts Facilitator. • The Creative Arts Facilitator is employed and managed by Regional Arts Victoria and is hosted by Moyne Shire, providing in-kind office and administration support. • The Regional Arts Facilitator works closely with the Recreation and Community Development team, providing advice, direction, ideas and assistance with project development. In 2015 a number of projects were delivered throughout Moyne with the assistance of the Regional Arts Facilitator. These include: WORKSHOPS – Strengthening Communities #1: Building Town: Koroit Partnerships Attendees: 20 (Nov 2014) Presenters: 4 Learnings: sponsorship, partnerships, networking #2: Grant Writing Town: Port Fairy (Feb 2015) Attendees: 26 Presenters: 4 Learnings: tips for successful grant writing, information about various grants, exercise in writing for grants #3: Grant Writing Town: Mortlake (Feb 2015) Attendees: 7 Presenters: 4 Learnings: tips for successful grant writing, information about various grants, exercise in writing for grants #4: Social Media Uses Town: Port Fairy (April 2015) Attendees: 21 Presenter: 1 Learnings: social media platforms and their uses, tips for better use of social media, general information about how to use social media
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 70
Physical Services Regional Cultural Partnership Program 2016-20 (cont’d)
WORKSHOPS – Strengthening Communities #5: Symposium – Town: Port Fairy developing your arts Attendees: 55 career Presented by Regional Arts Victoria and hosted by Moyne (Nov 2015) Presenters: 7 Learnings: developing your career as an artist, how to work within partnerships, how to network, how to build successful proposals for projects etc #6: Small Town Town: Mortlake Transformations visions Attendees: ? workshop Presenters: 2 (Dec 2015) Learnings: facilitated workshop to develop the town vision and strategies for approaching the STT application process – skills and knowledge development for small communities PITCH PROJECT 2015 - Orford
One town Outcomes: One artist 5 projects, three permanent Many meetings Community worked with an artist to tell their unique stories three workshops Community participation One event - over 50 Community enlivened and engaged by the arts attendances Community stories told 5 projects achieved in Visitors from outside for the first time to Orford the outcomes (for the Anecdotal evidence of community rebuilding connections (past event) tensions mended)
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS • The financial contribution to the Regional Cultural Partnership from Moyne is detailed in the table below:
Invoice Date Period Payable Amount 1-Jul-16 July2016-Jun2017 31-Jul-16 $10,927 + gst 1-Jul-17 July2017-Dec2017 31-Jul-17 $5,628 + gst 1-Jan-18 Jan2018-June2018 31-Jan-18 $5,628 + gst 1-Jul-18 July2018-Dec2018 31-Jul-18 $5,797 + gst 1-Jan-19 Jan2019-June2019 31-Jan-19 $5,797 + gst 1-Jul-19 July2019-Dec2019 31-Jul-19 $5,971 + gst 1-Jan-20 Jan2020-June2020 31-Jan-20 $5,971 + gst TOTAL 4 year period $45,719 + gst
This contribution is included in Council’s 2016/17 budget.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 71
Physical Services Regional Cultural Partnership Program 2016-20 (cont’d)
RISK • Art and culture is important to the Moyne Shire community. The Regional Cultural partnership helps to deliver cultural projects throughout the Shire and meet community needs.
CONCLUSION • The Regional Cultural Partnership Program works to deliver a variety of cultural activities across the region and within Moyne Shire. With the assistance of the Arts Facilitator, Moyne Shire can assist local artists and work with communities to deliver art projects that stimulate the quality of life in Moyne.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 72
COMMITTEES
14. Audit & Risk Management Committee – Annual Financial Report and Performance Statement 2015-2016
Attachments 1. Annual Financial Report for the year ended 30 June 2016 2. Performance Statement for the year ended 30 June 2016
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
That Council approve in principle the Annual Financial Report for the year ended 30 June 2016 and the Performance Statement for the year ended 30 June 2016 and authorise Councillors Ryan and Leutton to certify the 2015-2016 Annual Financial Report; and Performance Statement in their final form.
Committee Supporting Notes
• The Audit & Risk Management Committee (ARMC) met on 24 August 2016 to consider and approve the Annual Financial Report and Performance Statement for the year ended 30 June 2016. • ARMC in pursuing its purpose, is empowered to: Review significant accounting and reporting issues; Review with management and the external auditors the results of the audit, including difficulties encountered; Review the annual financial report, and consider whether it is complete, consistent with information known to the Committee members, and reflects appropriate accounting principles; Review with management and the external auditors all matters required to be communicated to the Committee under Australian Auditing Standards. • After discussion with the external auditor and management the ARMC resolved that the 2015-2016 Annual Financial Report and Performance Statement be recommended to Council for adoption in principle, subject to the minor amendments as discussed at the meeting.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 73
Committees Audit & Risk Management Committee – Annual Financial Report and Performance Statement 2015-2016 (cont’d)
Officer's Comments • The Annual Financial Statements have been prepared in accordance with legislative requirements and accounting standards. • Under Section 131 of the Local Government Act 1989 the Council must pass resolutions giving approval in principle to the statements and authorise two councillors to certify the statements. • By giving in principle support for the statements the Council is not committing to the validity of the accounts but acknowledging that in principle the information presented has been reviewed by the Council. • If the statements are substantially changed after being approved in principle by the Council, the amended statements will be returned to the Council for re- acceptance. • Final draft statements have been forwarded to the Auditor General for final audit clearance after which time the statements can be signed by the authorised councillors.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 74
COMMITTEES
15. Audit & Risk Management Committee – Internal Audit Plan
Attachment 2016/17 – 2018/19 Three Year Internal Audit Plan
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION That Council approve the Internal Audit Plan for the Three Years Ending 30 June 2019.
Committee Supporting Notes • The Audit & Risk Management Committee met on 24 August 2016 to consider and approve the Internal Audit Plan for the Three Years Ending 30 June 2019. • Audit & Risk Management Committee Charter provides that the Committee is empowered to: Review and recommend the annual audit plan for approval by the Council and all major changes to the plan. Monitor that the internal auditor’s annual plan is linked with and covers the material business risks of Council.
Officer Comment • The Internal Audit Plan articulates a program of internal audit activity for the next three years, with particular focus on the 2016-2017 year. • The Internal Audit Plan provides a targeted approach and takes into consideration, Council’s Strategic Risk Register, past internal audit activity, discussions with management and focus on areas of greatest importance or concern. • The Internal Audit Plan includes three internal audits for 2016-2017 which include: Belfast Aquatics Centre; Budgeting and Forecasting; Capital Expenditure Planning and Delivery. • The Strategic Internal Audit Plan will be reviewed and updated yearly, on a three year rolling basis.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 75
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 76
COMMITTEES
16. Conservation and Environment Committee – Council-Community Carbon Offset Program 2016 Review Presented by Oliver Moles Report author Richard Hodgens Attachments 1. 2016 application form 2. Draft 2017 application form
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION That Council considers making the following changes to the 2017 Council- Community Carbon Offset Program:
a) Increase the maximum amount available to any one applicant from $1,000 to $1,500; b) Increase the price paid for site preparation from $0.20 to $0.70 to encourage the applicant to source their own mulch/compost; c) Allocate an additional $0.50 per tree for the applicant to source their own tree guards and stakes; d) Increase the price paid per cellstock plant from $0.80 to $1.00 and per tubestock plant from $1.20 to $2.00; e) Require the applicant to provide a photograph of the intended planting location with the initial application; and f) Include a copy of a list of local native plant nurseries with the application form.
SYNOPSIS
• This report provides Council with recommendations from its Conservation and Environment Advisory Committee following its annual review into the Council- Community Carbon Offset Program.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 77
Committees Council-Community Carbon Offset Program 2016 Review (cont’d)
BACKGROUND
• Council has run the Council-Community Carbon Offset Program (CCCOP) annually since 2010. • Council allocates $6,000 per year to the CCCOP to enable applicant groups / organisations to cover the purchase of a minimum 3227 trees necessary to offset Council’s fleet vehicle greenhouse gas emissions (calculation as of February 2015). • Each year Council’s Conservation and Environment Advisory Committee conducts a review of the success of the previous year’s CCCOP. The 2016 review was held at the August 2016 meeting of the Conservation and Environment Advisory Committee. • Council funded six projects for implementation in 2016/17 from the most recent round of applications.
STRATEGIC LINK
• Action 3.6.1 of Council’s Environmental Sustainability Strategy states that Council will “offset Council’s fleet vehicle emissions through annual community indigenous vegetation planting programs on Council or community managed land”. Similarly, • Action 5.1.1 states that Council will “Establish a community grants program to support protection and enhancement of biodiversity and habitat values on Council or community managed land”. • The Council Plan 2013-2017 has three pertinent strategies, namely: Strategy 3.2 – Encourage greater pride and care in the appearance of urban, coastal and rural areas; Strategy 3.4 – Support and implement improvements to the environment and natural attractions; and Strategy 3.7 – Support and implement sustainable practices in all of council’s areas of activity.
DISCUSSION
• The Conservation and Environment Advisory Committee based its review primarily around feedback provided from successful applicants via a final report form they are required to lodge once their project is completed. • The Committee was pleased that the overall average feedback rating from all successful applicants since the program’s initiation in 2010 is 9 out of 10 seemingly indicating that there is a high level of satisfaction with it.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 78
Committees Council-Community Carbon Offset Program 2016 Review (cont’d)
• The Committee discussed the following issues: Receipts and photographs, particularly shots taken before works commenced, are not always provided; There is an increasingly noticeable response from successful applicants that the application form is too onerous, especially in comparison to Council’s Community Assistance Fund program that offers far greater sums of financial support; The provision of mulch for trees is regularly suggested as a way to improve the program; The provision of guards and stakes – both in terms of number of each item that will be provided, the type/size and how to obtain them – could be clearer; The potential to extend the program to private land areas as ratepayers regularly contact Council seeking plants for revegetation; and The high proportion of understorey species being planted ahead of actual trees. • The Conservation and Environment Advisory Committee subsequently discussed the merit of making a number of potential changes. These included: Partial payment for invoices in advance with the remainder payable upon submission of the necessary completion documentation (e.g. an 80/20 split); The timing of the application and approval process; Requiring a photograph of the proposed planting site to be included from the outset with the application form; Increasing the maximum total amount available to any one applicant; Increasing the amount paid by Council per plant; Increasing the amount paid by Council for site preparation; Allowing an amount for the applicant to source their own stakes and guards; Including a list of local native plant nurseries; and The need to advertise/publicise the success stories that have undoubtedly come from the CCCOP. • Consensus was reached on the following points: To increase the maximum amount available to any one applicant by 50% (i.e. $500) in a bid to encourage larger projects that are more likely to plant overstorey (tree) species; To increase the amount paid per plant for site preparation ($0.70/plant) in order to encourage the applicant to source and use mulch/compost thereby increasing the likelihood of plants surviving in their early years; To allocate a small amount per tree ($0.50) for the applicant to source their own tree guards and stakes. This should clarify who is providing these items and will enable Council to account for this item directly rather than the funds coming from an alternate budget item;
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 79
Committees Council-Community Carbon Offset Program 2016 Review (cont’d)
To increase the amount paid per plant ($1 for cellstock and $2 for tubestock) in order to more accurately reflect the current retail price of bulk native plants purchased from a local nursery; To require applicants to submit a photograph of their proposed planting site with their initial application. This should reduce the number of instances where applicants fail to submit a ‘before’ photograph with their final report; To refrain from broadening the program to include non-community owned or managed (i.e. privately owned) land as there were doubts about Council’s ability to adequately ensure a successful applicant had delivered the project and that favourable aftercare would be administered; To generally refrain from making changes to the content/questions posed by the application form as it was not considered onerous; To provide a list of local nurseries that specialise in the provision of endemic native plants in order to help applicants source their plants at potentially lower cost or the availability of a greater variety of species; and To better promote success stories stemming directly from the program since its inception in local media prior to and during advertising for applications for each new round of funding.
CONSULTATION
• The recommendation comes after analysis and discussion by members (1 Councillor and 5 community representatives) of Council’s Conservation and Environment Advisory Committee at its August 2016 meeting. • The review was triggered by feedback provided by successful applicants in their completed final report forms.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
• The ongoing CCCOP budget allocation will remain unchanged at $6,000 per financial year. • There has been small amounts of unspent funds in the CCCOP budget each of the last two years. The proposed changes to the program should eliminate this issue and improve the expected plant survival rate.
RISK
• There is a low risk that the proposed changes will reduce the number of applications that Council can successfully fund in any given year. • There is a low risk that the proposed changes will see Council fail to fund the necessary minimum of 3227 trees required to offset its fleet vehicle emissions for a calendar year.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 80
Committees Council-Community Carbon Offset Program 2016 Review (cont’d)
CONCLUSION
• Council’s Conservation and Environment Advisory Committee has conducted a thorough annual review into the Council-Community Carbon Offset Program. It recommends several changes are made that should improve community uptake of the program, plant survival rates and administrative procedures. These can be implemented at minimal risk and no additional cost to Council.
OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION
• Fully supportive of the Committee’s recommendation. Consideration could be given to the idea of providing only partial payment up-front but as the amount of funds allocated is still relatively small and payment would then fall across multiple financial years this would probably be burdensome for both the applicant and Council to administer. Consideration could also be given towards extending the program to private landholders (currently only recreation groups / organisations), but this would come with increased risk as there would be fewer controls in place to ensure the plants get in and remain in the ground.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 81
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 82
COUNCILLOR ITEMS
17 (a) Mayoral Report This report provides information to Council in regard to the Mayor's meeting schedule 13 August 2016 to 2 September 2016. Attachments None.
2016 Location Function
15 August Macarthur Macarthur Wind Farm Community Engagement Committee (CEC) meeting 18 August Warrnambool Great South Coast (GSC) Position for Economic Growth Pillar meeting 18 August Warrnambool Vietnam Veterans Day – 50th Anniversary of Battle of Long Tan service 19 August Warrnambool Warrnambool College Presentation Ball 23 August Port Fairy Site visit, Planning permit issue, College Street 23 August Port Fairy Council Meeting 24 August Port Fairy Audit and Risk Committee meeting 24 August Macarthur Moyne Northwest - Building our Business Community 25 August Warrnambool Minister Luke Donnellan, Improve our Connections Pillar Group (GAC) 25 August Port of Port Fairy Meeting with Minister Luke Donnellan and James Purcell MLC 25 August Hawkesdale Hawkesdale & District Family Services Centre committee meeting 26 August Warrnambool GSC ICE Challenge Declaration Day 31 August Warrnambool Rotary – Father of the Day breakfast 1 September Camperdown SW Dairy ILG meeting
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 83
Councillor Items (cont’d)
17 (b) Councillors' Report This report provides information to Council in regard to the Councillors' meeting schedules, 13 August 2016 to 2 September 2016. Attachments None.
2016 Location Function
15 August Warrnambool Warrnambool Regional Airport Advisory Committee meeting 15 August Macarthur Macarthur Wind Farm Community Engagement Committee (CEC) meeting 16 August Port Fairy Southcombe Park Committee Meeting 17 August Woorndoo Woorndoo Community Working Group 18 August Mortlake Mortlake Streetscape Committee Meeting 21 August Port Fairy Port Fairy Surf life Saving Club AGM and election of office bearers 22 August Mortlake Mortlake Recreation Reserve Committee meeting 22 August Cudgee Cudgee Progress Association AGM 23 August Port Fairy Site visit, Planning permit issue, College Street 23 August Port Fairy Council Meeting 24 August Port Fairy Audit and Risk Committee meeting 24 August Portland Green Triangle Freight Action Plan Update 24 August Macarthur Moyne Northwest - Building our Business Community 25 August Hexham Hexham Community Association 28 August Warrnambool Ecumenical Church Service, Legacy week 29 August Framlingham Tree planting day 30 August to Melbourne Coast to Coast Conference 1 September 2 September Melbourne Timber Towns Victoria, meeting
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 84
Councillor Items (cont’d)
18. COUNCILLOR NOTICE OF MOTION – Cr Goodall Budget Variation – Mortlake and Macarthur Swimming Pools
That Council approves a variation to the 2016-17 Budget of $17,000 to cover the increase in the operating fees of the Mortlake and Macarthur swimming pools due to the requirement for an additional staff member will increase the 2016- 2017 operating fees by $17,000 resulting from a change to the YMCA policy position of two staff members at all times at YMCA managed facilities.
Further that Council continues to engage with the Mortlake and Macarthur communities regarding the operation of the swimming pools in preparing the contract and budget beyond the current financial year.
Supporting Notes
None detailed at time of printing.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 85
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 86
Councillor Items (cont'd)
19. Personal Explanations
None detailed at time of printing.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 87
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 88
Councillor Items (cont'd)
20. Urgent Business
None detailed at time of printing.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 89
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 90
21. CEO Activities Report
Please see attached document.
Ordinary Council Meeting – 13 September 2016 Page 91