DOCSLIB.ORG

Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2010

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2010 i PROPOSED ELECTRICITY SAFETY (ELECTRIC LINE CLEARANCE) REGULATIONS 2010 Regulatory Impact Statement (FINAL 15/02/10) This Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) has been prepared in accordance with the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 to facilitate public consultation on the proposed Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2010. A copy of the proposed regulations is provided as an attachment to this RIS. Public comments and submissions are invited on the proposed regulations. All submissions will be treated as public documents. Written comments and submissions should be forwarded to: Mr Andrew Padanyi Legal Officer Energy Safe Victoria PO Box 262 Collins Street West VIC 8007 email: [email protected] and must be received no later than 5pm on Tuesday 25 May 2010. ii Frontispiece © State of Victoria, Energy Safe Victoria 2010 This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1986. This regulatory impact statement was prepared for Energy Safe Victoria by Tim Harding & Associates in association with Rivers Economic Consulting. Disclaimer: This publication may be of assistance to you, but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for an error, loss or other consequence that may arise from you relying on any information in this publication. iii Summary Introduction In Victoria, contact between overhead electric lines and trees can have dire consequences, including bushfires, electrocutions and power loss. Such events can result in deaths, injuries and economic loss. The risks of such events can be reduced to as low as reasonably practicable by maintaining appropriate clearance spaces between overhead electric lines and trees. Part 8 of the Electricity Safety Act 1998 specifically requires responsible persons to keep the whole or any part of a tree clear of an electric line. ‘Responsible persons’ include electricity distribution companies; occupiers of land, public land managers and VicRoads where there are electric lines; and owners or operators of electric lines. A breakup of the category and number of responsible persons is illustrated in Table 1 below: Table 1: Category and number of responsible persons in 2009/10 Category of responsible person Number of Responsible persons Transmission Businesses 2 SP Powernet Pty Ltd Basslink Distribution Businesses 6 Jemena NE SPI Electricity Pty Ltd Citipower Powercor + Powercor (Docklands) United Energy Distribution (UED) Country Energy Other responsible persons under Sec.84 of the Act 104 70 councils Melbourne Water Vic Roads Yarra Trams MainCo Parks Victoria Melbourne airport Bendigo Trams Tramway Museum Society of Victoria Ballarat tramway Museum Falls Creek Alpine Resort Management Board Mt Buller Mt Stirling Alpine Resort Management Board Perseverance Corporation Limited 22 Wind farms Total 112 To achieve this, section 89 of the Act requires that there shall at all times be regulations in place prescribing a code of practice for electric line clearance. That is to say, there cannot be a situation where regulations cannot exist. The Act also specifies that such regulations have a life of not more than five years. The existing Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2005 (‘the existing regulations’) will therefore automatically expire on 30 June 2010. The proposed regulations are required to be open iv for public comment for a period of ninety days in accordance with section 89 of the Electricity Safety Act 1998. This Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) assesses the proposed Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2010 (‘the proposed regulations’), which are intended to replace the existing regulations on or before their expiry date, with some modifications. A summary of the differences between the proposed regulations and the existing regulations is given in Part 5.2 and Appendix 1 to this RIS. The modifications to the existing regulations contain improvements recommended by the regulator established by the Act, Energy Safe Victoria (ESV) in consultation with the Electric Line Clearance Consultative Committee (ELCCC) established by section 87 of the Act and other key stakeholders. These improvements draw on the operational experience of the existing regulations since 2005. The main changes are in the following six areas: 1. Under the proposed regulations, only major electric companies would need to submit their management plans to ESV for approval; whereas under the existing regulations, all responsible persons (except for land occupiers) need to submit their management plans to ESV for approval. 2. The definition of environmentally or culturally significant trees is more specific under the proposed regulations, and the new clause 2(3) of the Code restricts the cutting of these trees to the minimum extent necessary. Greater protection is to be given to: areas of native trees, trees of ecological, historical or aesthetic significance or trees of cultural or environmental significance; vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered faunal species under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. As a result of these changes, the advice of a qualified arborist or horticulturalist will no longer be required before cutting or removal of these trees under the proposed regulations. 3. Responsible persons would need to notify and consult occupiers or owners of private land or affected persons (as the case requires) before pruning or clearing vegetation under the proposed regulations. The existing regulations require firms to either obtain permission or to give at least 14 days written notice to occupiers or owners of private land or affected persons before cutting or removal of vegetation. As part of the permission seeking process, it is assumed that there are, at times, some negotiations between responsible persons and occupiers/owners of private land/affected persons about a variety of issues (including: the nature of the cutting or removal; when it will occur; special trees; access to property etc). Negotiation is, of course, a natural consequence of many situations where permission is required by one party from another. ESV has no empirical data in relation to the number, duration or frequency of these negotiations. It is possible that negotiations occur each year with some land owners or occupiers. An example of a need for negotiation might be that a landowner does not want to allow access to their property; however, the responsible person can comply with v the regulations only by accessing the land to allow physical access to the trees and to do so in a safe manner. These negotiations can be an important aspect of obtaining permission as land owners of even small parcels of land can hold up major works or cause re-visits. This is particularly the case where the land is in remote areas or fire prone areas. Finally notification and consultation under the proposed regulations can be by written notice or newspaper advertisement; whereas under the existing regulations, consultation by newspaper advertisement is permitted only after taking reasonable steps and being unable to give written notice. 4. Under the proposed regulations, minimum clearance spaces surrounding aerial bundled cable or insulated cable would also apply to small tree branches; whereas under the existing regulations these minimum clearance spaces do not apply under specified conditions. 5. Under the proposed regulations, minimum clearance spaces surrounding powerlines in hazardous bushfire risk areas would apply to tree branches above a powerline of 22,000 volts; whereas under the existing regulations these minimum clearance spaces do not apply under specified conditions. 6. The penalty for a breach of proposed subregulation 9(4) is also increased under the proposed regulations from 10 penalty units (i.e $1,168.20 in 2009/10) to 20 penalty units (i.e. $2,336.40 in 2009/10), bringing it into line with other penalties imposed by the proposed regulations. This subregulation relates to the requirement on major electric companies to ensure that a management plan is prepared and submitted to ESV by the specified time, which is now 31 March in each year. Under section 157(3) of the Act, 20 penalty units is the maximum penalty that can be imposed for a breach of the regulations. Management plan requirements help to safeguard public safety and the reliability of power supplies, and it is appropriate that the penalties reflect their importance to the greatest available extent. The other offence provisions ensure that all duties set out in the proposed regulations are enforceable, which is not the case with some duties in the existing regulations. The problems The problems underlying this regulatory proposal are discussed in some detail in the body of the RIS, but generally arise in relation to the following specific sources of risk arising from contact between electric lines and trees or other vegetation: 1. Extreme risks to public safety and property from bushfires; 2. Severe risks of loss of power supplies; 3. Safety risks to individuals from electrocution; 4. Environmental risks from overcutting or excessive removal of vegetation; and 5. Risks of inadequate notification and consultation. Each of the first three risks can result in deaths and injuries, if not adequately managed. Fire risks and power loss can also result in economic loss. The relationships
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Report of the Community Care Review September 2000 Author: Jan Carter
    REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY CARE REVIEW September 2000 Jan Carter Deakin Human Services Australia Deakin University Report of the Community Care Review September 2000 Author: Jan Carter © Department of Human Services, September 2000 This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted by the Copyright Act MCMLXVIII, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission from The Department of Human Services, 555 Collins Street, Melbourne, Victoria. IBSN 0 731160 92 4 Report of the Community Care Review Summary ii Contents Summary viii Chapter 1The context 1 Overview 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Terms of reference 2 1.3 Review approaches 3 1.4 The key questions 4 1.5 Youth and Family Services Redevelopment, 1997–99 4 1.6 Themes 5 1.7 This Report 18 Chapter 2 The past: The YAFS Redevelopment and the reaction 21 Overview 21 2.1 Introduction 22 2.2 The environment for the Redevelopment 24 2.3 The Redevelopment 26 2.4 Problems and weaknesses of the Redevelopment 29 2.5 The positive aspects of the Redevelopment 36 2.6 Summary of information from consultations 40 2.7 Models of public administration 41 Report of the Community Care Review Summary iii 2.8 Summary and recommendation 47 Chapter 3 The future: principles and priorities for reform 48 Overview 48 3.1 Principles for community care services: the consultations 49 3.2 Principles for guiding reform 53 3.3 Opportunities and priorities 56 3.4 Implications 61 3.5 Building blocks for future network capability 62 3.6 Summary and recommendations 71 Chapter 4 The future: building resilient
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Human Services, Victoria
    DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, VICTORIA Development of a Resource Allocation Model for the Post Acute Care Program FINAL REPORT Healthcare Management Advisors Pty Ltd ACN 081 895 507 1st Floor, 65 Henley Beach Road, Mile End, SA, 5031 PO Box 10086 Gouger Street, Adelaide SA 5000 Phone (08) 8150 5555 Fax (08) 8150 5599 15th September 2000 Table of Contents Section Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................ 8 THE POST ACUTE CARE PROGRAM ..................................................................................................................... 11 2.1 PROGRAM OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................................................... 11 2.2 TYPES OF PAC SERVICES PROVIDED ........................................................................................................ 13 2.3 STAFFING ............................................................................................................................................................ 15 2.4 FUNDING ............................................................................................................................................................. 15 PAC PROGRAM ISSUES IMPACTING ON RESOURCE ALLOCATION MODEL
    [Show full text]
  • Electronic Gaming Machines Strategy 2015-2020
    Electronic Gaming Machines Strategy 2015-2020 Version: 1.1 Date approved: 22 December 2015 Reviewed: 15 January 2019 Responsible Department: Planning Related policies: Nil 1 Purpose ................................................................................................................. 3 2 Definitions ............................................................................................................. 3 3 Acronyms .............................................................................................................. 5 4 Scope .................................................................................................................... 5 5 Executive Summary ............................................................................................. 5 6 Gambling and EGMs in the City of Casey ........................................................... 6 7 City of Casey Position on Electronic Gaming Machines ................................... 7 7.1 Advocacy & Partnerships ....................................................................................... 7 7.2 Local Economy ....................................................................................................... 8 7.3 Consultation & Information Provision ...................................................................... 9 7.4 Community Wellbeing ............................................................................................ 9 7.5 Planning Assessment ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • G49-7/12 Internet
    Victoria Government Gazette No. G 49 Thursday 7 December 2000 GENERAL GENERAL AND PERIODICAL GAZETTE Advertisers should note: Copy to: Gazette Officer • Late copy received at The Craftsman Press Pty. Ltd. after The Craftsman Press Pty. Ltd. deadlines will be placed in the following issue of VGG, 125 Highbury Road, irrespective of any date/s mentioned in the copy (unless Burwood Vic 3125 otherwise advised). Telephone: (03) 9926 1233 • Proofs will be supplied only when requested or at the Facsimile: (03) 9926 1292 direction of the Gazette Officer. DX: 32510 Burwood • No additions or amendments to material for publications Email: [email protected] will be accepted by telephone. Advertising Rates and Payment • Orders in Council may be lodged prior to receiving assent Private Notices with the Governor’s or Clerk’s signature. They will only be Payment must be received in advance with published once approved and signed. advertisement details. • Government and Outer Budget Sector Agencies please 30 cents per word - Full page $180.00. note: See style requirements on back page. Additional costs must be included in prepayment if a copy of the gazette is required. Copy Prices - Page SPECIAL GAZETTES $1.50 - Gazette $3.20 Certified copy of Gazette $3.50. (all Copy to: Gazette Officer prices include Postage). Cheques should be The Craftsman Press Pty. Ltd. made payable to The Craftsman Press Pty. Ltd. 125 Highbury Road, Burwood Vic 3125 Government and Outer Budget Sector Agencies Notices Telephone: (03) 9926 1233 Not required to pre-pay. Facsimile: (03) 9926 1292 Advertisements may be faxed or sent via email with a Email: [email protected] cover sheet, marked to the attention of the Gazette Officer.
    [Show full text]
  • Food Safety in Focus Food Act Report 2010 Food Safety in Focus Food Act Report 2010 This Report Has Been Developed As Required Under the Food Act 1984 (S
    Food safety in focus Food Act report 2010 Food safety in focus Food Act report 2010 This report has been developed as required under the Food Act 1984 (s. 7(C)). If you would like to receive this publication in an accessible format please phone 1300 364 352 using the National Relay Service 13 36 77 if required, or email: [email protected] This document is available as a PDF on the internet at: www.health.vic.gov.au/foodsafety © Copyright, State of Victoria, Department of Health 2012 This publication is copyright, no part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. Authorised and published by the Victorian Government, 50 Lonsdale St, Melbourne. Except where otherwise indicated, the images in this publication show models and illustrative settings only, and do not necessarily depict actual services, facilities or recipients of services. March 2012 (1201039) Print managed by Finsbury Green. Printed on sustainable paper. ISSN 2200-1220 (Print) ISSN 2200-1239 (Online) Food safety in focus Food Act report 2010 Contents From the Minister for Health 1 From the Municipal Association of Victoria 2 Highlights for 2010 3 About this report 6 Food safety reform in Victoria 7 Food regulation: a shared responsibility 15 Keeping food-borne illness in check 19 Safer food, better business: Victoria’s food industry 23 Annual review 2010 27 Supporting food safety statewide 43 Workforce: the capacity to change 49 In your municipality 55 The national picture 93 Looking forward 97 Appendices 99
    [Show full text]
  • Metung Urban Design Framework
    METUNG URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK COASTAL TOWNS DESIGN FRAMEWORK VOLUME 3 MARCH 2007 Copyright © Meinhardt Infrastructure & Environment Pty Ltd 2007 Disclaimer Information in this document is current as of March 2007. While all professional care has been undertaken in preparing the document, Meinhardt accepts no liability for loss or damages incurred as a result of reliance placed upon its content. The mention of any company, product or process in this report does not constitute or imply endorsement by Meinhardt. CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................1 2. PROJECT SCOPE AND APPROACH ..............................................2 3. SETTLEMENT STUDY AREA ..........................................................5 3.1 REGIONAL INFLUENCES ................................................................5 3.2 SETTLEMENT DESCRIPTION .........................................................6 4. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT ................................12 4.1 STATE / REGIONAL PLANNING POLICY ........................................12 4.2 EAST GIPPSLAND PLANNING SCHEME ........................................15 4.3 DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY ............................................................18 5. COMMUNITY VIEWS ........................................................................19 5.1 CONSULTATION PROGRAM ............................................................19 5.2 KEY MATTERS FROM COMMUNITY FEEDBACK ..........................20 6. URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK PRINCIPLES
    [Show full text]
  • Sites of (Biological) Significance Review
    MANNINGHAM BIOSITES MANNINGHAM CITY COUNCIL SITES OF (BIOLOGICAL) SIGNIFICANCE REVIEW Report by Paul Foreman Economic and Environmental Planning Unit, Manningham City Council With chapters on Bryophytes by David Meagher of Zymurgy Consultants and Invertebrates by Alan Yen and John Wainer of the Department of Primary Industries November 2004 Front Cover: Fringed Helmet Orchid (Corysanthes fimbriata). “an uncommon species of sparadic distribution in Victoria” (Backhouse and Jeans 1995). Listed as rare on the Victorian Rare or Threatened species list. Recorded from one Manningham biosite. Image supplied by Justin Welander Table of Contents PREFACE .....................................................................................................................1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..........................................................................................................2 ABBREVIATIONS .....................................................................................................................3 SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................4 1 BACKGROUND ...............................................................................................................6 1.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Study aim......................................................................................................................... 6 1.3
    [Show full text]
  • Apollo Bay Community Capacity Project
    AAPOLLOPOLLO BBAYAY CCOMMUNITYOMMUNITY CCAPACITYAPACITY PPROJECTROJECT ‘Community capacity building: measuring social capital to improve health in Apollo Bay’ FINAL REPORT DECEMBER 2001 Deborah Jennings and Peter McNair Victorian Public Health Training Scheme Charles Gibson and Leanne Madden Performance and Quality Improvement Department of Human Services, Barwon-South Western Region Under the direction of the Apollo Bay Community Consultative Committee AAPOLLOPOLLO BBAYAY CCOMMUNITYOMMUNITY CCAPACITYAPACITY PPROJECTROJECT ‘Community capacity building: measuring social capital to improve health in Apollo Bay’ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FINAL REPORT—DECEMBER 2001 Deborah Jennings and Peter McNair Victorian Public Health Training Scheme Charles Gibson and Leanne Madden Performance and Quality Improvement Department of Human Services, Barwon-South Western Region Under the direction of the Apollo Bay Community Consultative Committee Executive Summary Introduction The Apollo Bay Community Capacity Project (ABCCP) resulted from the keen interest of the Barwon-South West Region of the Department of Human Services (DHS) to explore the measurement of social capital and apply the community capacity building model to improve health outcomes in small rural communities. Strengthening community capacity is considered a method of empowering communities to respond to the compounding effects of infrastructure decline, rapid change and increasing social difficulties. Measuring Social Capital and Health The study has drawn on the range of issues being considered by government and academics with regard to community capacity building as a means to improve health outcomes. Increasingly, there is a strong role for government to support regional initiatives for growth and economic viability. Through access to educational opportunities, skills development, technological capacity, diversification of industry and promotion of rural areas as worthy investment choices, rural areas are able to readjust and be opportunist in the face of change.
    [Show full text]
  • Ÿþm Icrosoft W
    COLAC OTWAY PLANNING SCHEME 22 LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES 18/06/2009 C55 22.01 HERITAGE PLACES AND AREAS 18/06/2009 C55 This policy applies to all places and areas affected by a Heritage Overlay. 22.01-1 Policy Basis 18/06/2009 C55 Throughout Colac Otway are buildings, streetscapes, sites and precincts that represent a significant asset and resource for the Western District of Victoria. Protecting cultural heritage assets is important in maintaining the Shire’s character and sense of place. The Municipal Strategic Statement includes an objective to enhance and conserve the Shire’s cultural heritage resources while facilitating adaptation and development which does not detract from their significance. Recognition and protection of heritage places and areas is a crucial component of planning in Colac Otway. The development of good conservation practices will ensure the retention and viable re-use of Colac Otway’s significant and contributory heritage places and areas. This policy relates to the heritage strategies and objectives found in the State Planning Policy Framework and the Municipal Strategic Statement. 22.01-2 Objectives 18/06/2009 C55 . To encourage the retention of locally significant and contributory heritage places within Heritage Overlay areas. To ensure that new land uses and developments and external alterations of existing buildings are sympathetic with the appearance and character of heritage places and areas and are consistent with the Statement of Significance and Physical Description of the relevant heritage place or area as listed in the ‘Colac Otway Heritage Study (2003)’. To support the demolition of buildings that are ‘non-contributory’ in a heritage precinct as identified in the ‘Colac Otway Heritage Study (2003)’.
    [Show full text]
  • Colac-Otway 2010 Eee Adolescent Community Profiles I
    Adolescent Community Profile Shire of Colac-Otway 2010 eee Adolescent Community Profiles i Adolescent Community Profile Shire of Colac-Otway 2010 This Adolescent community profile was prepared by the Office for Children and Portfolio Coordination, in the Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. The series of Adolescent community profiles draw on data on outcomes for children compilied through the Victorian Child and Adolescent Monitoring System (VCAMS). The profiles are intended to provide local level information on the health, wellbeing, learning, safety and development of adolescents. They are published to: • Equip communties with the information required to identify the needs of adolescents and their families within their local government area. • Assist local government areas to identify key areas of vulnerability for adolescents in their local area and use this information to assist with early intervention strategies. • Support local government and regional planning of youth services; and • Assist community service agencies working with vulnerable families and young people. The Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, the Department of Human Services, the Department of Health , Victoria Police and the Australian Bureau of Statistics provided data for this document. Adolescent Community Profiles ii Published by the Victorian Government Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. June 2011 (revised from May 2011 release) © Copyright State of Victoria, Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, 2011 This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. Principal author and analyst: Hiba Molaeb Assisted by: Christopher Reid and Ileana Teleki Authorised by the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, 2 Treasury Place, East Melbourne, Victoria, 3002.
    [Show full text]
  • Maroondah at a Glance
    Annual Report 2019/20 Council Plan 2017-2021 Maroondah at a glance Maroondah is home to... 46,324 households 31 118,558 9700 neighbourhood businesses centres people We provide... 129 public 3 playgrounds 26 aquatic centres facility 3 playgrounds skate parks 3 arts & cultural centres 2 2 2 golf courses indoor sports stadiums libraries 557 parks & reserves 51 sporting ovals 10 MAROONDAH CITY COUNCIL - ANNUAL REPORT 2019/20 We maintain... 785kms of stormwater 478.4kms drainage pipes of local roads 38kms 632kms of shared trails of footpaths 77,914 street trees MAROONDAH CITY COUNCIL - ANNUAL REPORT 2019/20 11 Annual Report 2019/20 Our city The City of Maroondah covers a land area of 61.4 square kilometres in Melbourne’s outer east, 22 kilometres from the Central Business District. The area is a substantially developed peri-urban residential municipality, with an estimated population of 118,558 residents and 46,324 households with an average of 2.56 people per VIC household. It includes the suburbs of Bayswater North, Croydon, Croydon Hills, Croydon North, Croydon Calder Hwy Hume Hwy South, Heathmont, Kilsyth South, Ringwood, Ringwood East, Ringwood North and Warranwood. Maroondah Hwy The city also includes small sections of Kilsyth, Western Hwy Park Orchards, Vermont and Wonga Park. Eastern Fwy With little remaining land available for greenfield CBD residential development, future population growth EastLink will be mainly stimulated by housing consolidation Princes Fwy and medium density development. Princes Hwy Maroondah has the strategic advantage of being located at the north-eastern junction of the Eastern Freeway - EastLink corridor. There are two Nepean Hwy train lines and a large number of bus routes linking Sth Gippsland Hwy the City with other regions.
    [Show full text]
  • Mallacoota Urban Design Framework
    MALLACOOTA URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK COASTAL TOWNS DESIGN FRAMEWORK VOLUME 3 MARCH 2007 Copyright © Meinhardt Infrastructure & Environment Pty Ltd 2007 Disclaimer Information in this document is current as of March 2007. While all professional care has been undertaken in preparing the document, Meinhardt accepts no liability for loss or damages incurred as a result of reliance placed upon its content. The mention of any company, product or process in this report does not constitute or imply endorsement by Meinhardt. CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................1 2. PROJECT SCOPE AND APPROACH ..............................................2 3. SETTLEMENT STUDY AREA ..........................................................5 3.1 REGIONAL INFLUENCES ................................................................5 3.2 SETTLEMENT DESCRIPTION .........................................................6 4. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT ................................12 4.1 STATE / REGIONAL PLANNING POLICY ........................................12 4.2 EAST GIPPSLAND PLANNING SCHEME ........................................15 4.3 DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY ............................................................18 5. COMMUNITY VIEWS ........................................................................19 5.1 CONSULTATION PROGRAM ............................................................19 5.2 KEY MATTERS FROM COMMUNITY FEEDBACK ..........................21 6. URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK PRINCIPLES
    [Show full text]