AGENDA
Ordinary Meeting of Council
6 .00pm Wednesday 2 March 2016
*** Broadcast live on Phoenix FM 106.7 ***
VENUE: Reception Room, Bendigo Town Hall, Hargreaves Street, Bendigo
NEXT MEETING: Wednesday 23 March 2016 Bendigo Town Hall
Copies of the City of Greater Bendigo Council’s Agendas & Minutes can be obtained online at www.bendigo.vic.gov.au
PAGE 1
Council Vision
Greater Bendigo - Working together to be Australia's most liveable regional city.
Council Values
Council wants the community to continue to have reason to be proud of the city and will do this through:
Transparency - Information about Council decisions is readily available and easily understood; Efficiency and effectiveness - Council provides services based on evidence of need and demonstrates continuous improvement in the delivery of services; Inclusion and consultation - Council uses a range of engagement strategies to ensure community members can understand and take part in discussion that informs the development of new strategies and actions; Clear decisive and consistent planning - In a rapidly growing municipality, Council undertakes to plan effectively for our long-term future; Respect for community priorities and needs - Council will advocate for improved services for community members and will consider community impact and feedback the decisions it makes.
Themes
1. Planning for Growth 2. Presentation and Vibrancy 3. Productivity 4. Sustainability 5. Leadership and Good Governance
PAGE 2
ORDINARY MEETING
WEDNESDAY 2 MARCH 2016
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
ITEM PRECIS PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY 5
PRAYER 5
PRESENT 5
APOLOGIES 5
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS 5
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 5
RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS 6
CR WERAGODA'S REPORT 6
DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST 7
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 8
1. PETITIONS AND JOINT LETTERS 9
2. PLANNING FOR GROWTH 10
2.1 42 Milroy Street, Bendigo - Construct Second Dwelling on 10 a Lot, Subdivide Land Into 2 Lots, Construct Front Fence, Construction of Vehicle Crossover and Retrospective Construction of Carport and Partial Front Fence Demolition
2.2 66 Kirkwood Road, Eaglehawk - Construction of Second 25 Dwelling on a Lot (Two Storey) and Removal of Vegetation
2.3 575 Sedgwick Road, Sedgwick - Use and Development of 39 a Store (Machinery) and Use Land for Agriculture (Cropping)
2.4 1 Arlington Court, Maiden Gully - Subdivide Land into 2 51 Lots
2.5 Intensive Animal Industries Advisory Committee 58 Discussion Paper - Submission by the City of Greater Bendigo
2.6 Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy and Adoption of 69 Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215
PAGE 3
3. PRESENTATION AND VIBRANCY 93
3.1 Greater Bendigo Municipal Early Years Plan (2015-2018) 93
3.2 Proposed Changes in the Outdoor Dining System 102
4. PRODUCTIVITY 106
5. SUSTAINABILITY 107
5.1 Proposed Kerbside Organics Service for Urban Residents 107 of Bendigo and Marong
5.2 Potential Disposal of Lot 1 Raglan Place West, Axedale 128
6. LEADERSHIP AND GOOD GOVERNANCE 136
6.1 Council Plan 2015-2016: Second Quarter Report, 136 December 2015
6.2 Record of Assemblies 183
6.3 Contracts Awarded Under Delegation 190
6.4 Election Period Policy 192
6.5 Finance Report as at 31 December 2015 and Mid-Year 198 Budget Review 2015-2016
6.6 Proposed Citizens Jury as the First Step to the Council 206 Plan for the New Council
7. URGENT BUSINESS 210
8. NOTICES OF MOTION 211
8.1 NOTICE OF MOTION: Hopley Recycling 211
9. COUNCILLORS' REPORTS 213
10. MAYOR'S REPORT 213
11. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT 213
12. CONFIDENTIAL (SECTION 89) REPORTS 213
______DARREN FUZZARD ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PAGE 4 Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY
PRAYER
PRESENT
APOLOGIES
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
That Standing Orders be suspended to allow the conduct of Public Question Time.
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
Public Question Time Guidelines
Public Question Time – Purpose Council has provided the opportunity for members of the public to ask questions of broad interest to Council and the community. Matters relating to routine Council works should be taken up with Council’s Customer Service Officers through its Customer Request System.
No questions relating to planning matters on the Agenda will be accepted. By the time planning matters have reached the council agenda, they have been through an extensive process as required by the Planning and Environment Act. In addition and in most instances, mediation has been held between the parties involved. Throughout the process there are many opportunities for people to ask questions.
Public Question Time – Where, When And Who The public question time is held at every Ordinary Meeting of the Greater Bendigo City Council. Meetings of Council commence at 6.00pm in the Reception Room, Bendigo Town Hall, Hargreaves Street, Bendigo.
The public question time is held at the start of the meeting as close as practical to 6:00pm. A maximum of 30 minutes has been provided for registered and unregistered questions.
Residents are encouraged to lodge questions in advance so that a more complete response can be provided.
Questions will be put to the Council by the individual posing the question; the question will be answered by the Mayor or Chief Executive Officer, or where appropriate, Councillors or Council Officers.
PAGE 5 Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Acceptance of Questions Each person asking a question of Council is required to stand, state their name and address the Mayor. Public Question Time is not an opportunity for the making of statements or other comments. Council’s Meeting Procedure Local Law does not allow for other questions or comments during the remainder of the meeting.
1. An individual may only ask one question per meeting, a follow-up question may be permitted at the discretion of the Mayor.
2. In the event that the same or similar written question is raised by more than one person, an answer may be given as a combined response.
3. In the event that time does not permit all questions registered to be answered, questions will be answered in writing or referred to the next meeting if appropriate.
4. The Mayor and or CEO have the right to decline registration on basis of:
Legal proceedings; More appropriately addressed by other means; Vague or lacking in substance, irrelevant, frivolous, insulting offensive, improper, defamatory or demeaning; Answer likely to compromise his / her position; Confidential, commercial-in-confidence.
RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS
That Standing Orders be resumed.
CR WERAGODA'S REPORT
PAGE 6 Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Pursuant to Sections 77, 78 and 79 of the Local Government Act 1989 (as amended) direct and indirect conflict of interest must be declared prior to debate on specific items within the agenda; or in writing to the Chief Executive Officer before the meeting. Declaration of indirect interests must also include the classification of the interest (in circumstances where a Councillor has made a Declaration in writing, the classification of the interest must still be declared at the meeting), i.e.
(a) direct financial interest (b) indirect interest by close association (c) indirect interest that is an indirect financial interest (d) indirect interest because of conflicting duties (e) indirect interest because of receipt of an applicable gift (f) indirect interest as a consequence of becoming an interested party (g) indirect interest as a result of impact on residential amenity (h) conflicting personal interest
A Councillor who has declared a conflict of interest, must leave the meeting and remain outside the room while the matter is being considered, or any vote is taken.
Councillors are also encouraged to declare circumstances where there may be a perceived conflict of interest.
PAGE 7 Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Wednesday 10 February 2016.
The following items were considered at the Ordinary Council meeting held on Wednesday 10 February 2016 at 6:00pm.
Petition: Empire Road and Lancashire Road, Long Gully Lot A Lynch Lane and CA 6Z Taig Road, Axedale - 9 Lot Subdivision and Removal of Native Vegetation in Road Reserve Progress Report: Independent Review Implementation Record of Assemblies Appointment of An Acting Chief Executive Officer Confidential Section 89 Report - Contractual Matter
The unconfirmed minutes have also been posted on the City of Greater Bendigo website pending confirmation at this meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on Wednesday 10 February 2016 as circulated, be taken as read and confirmed, with the inclusion of the following mandatory condition associated with the Planning for Growth Report No. 2.1 (Lot A Lynch Lane and CA 6Z Taig Road, Axedale - 9 Lot Subdivision and Removal of Native Vegetation in Road Reserve) as outlined in page 30 of these Minutes:
9. COUNTRY FIRE AUTHORITY MANDATORY CONDITION (SUBDIVISION) Before the statement of compliance is issued under the Subdivision Act 1988 the owner must enter into an agreement with the responsible authority under Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The agreement must: (a) State that it has been prepared for the purpose of an exemption from a planning permit under Clause 44.06-1 of the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme; (b) Incorporate the plan prepared in accordance with Clause 52.47-2.4 of this planning scheme and approved under this permit; and (c) State that if a dwelling is constructed on the land without a planning permit that the bushfire mitigation measures set out in the plan incorporated into the agreement must be implemented and maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority on a continuing basis.
PAGE 8 Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
1. PETITIONS AND JOINT LETTERS
Nil.
PAGE 9 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
2. PLANNING FOR GROWTH
2.1 42 MILROY STREET, BENDIGO - CONSTRUCT SECOND DWELLING ON A LOT, SUBDIVIDE LAND INTO 2 LOTS, CONSTRUCT FRONT FENCE, CONSTRUCTION OF VEHICLE CROSSOVER AND RETROSPECTIVE CONSTRUCTION OF CARPORT AND PARTIAL FRONT FENCE DEMOLITION
Document Information
Author Lachlan Forsyth, Statutory Planner
Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning & Development Director
Summary/Purpose
Application details: Construct second dwelling on a lot, subdivide land into 2 lots, construct front fence, construction of vehicle crossover and retrospective construction of carport and partial front fence demolition Application No: DS/653/2015 Applicant: Penno Drafting & Design Land: 42 Milroy Street, BENDIGO Zoning: General Residential Zone Overlays: Heritage Overlay 841 No. of objections: Six (6) Consultation 19 November 2015 – attended by Councillors Cox and meeting: Williams.
A second on-site meeting was attended by the assessing officer, the applicant and the objectors. Amended plans were submitted and re-advertised following this meeting. No objections have been withdrawn following the submission of amended plans. Key considerations: Whether the proposal accords with Planning Scheme policy relating to medium density infill housing; Whether the proposal represents an appropriate outcome with reference to Neighbourhood Character Policy and ResCode. Whether the proposal is an acceptable heritage outcome.
PAGE 10 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Conclusion: Planning Scheme policy and the General Residential Zone supports construction of a second dwelling and subdivision of the land. The development is also consistent with the majority of ResCode standards.
However, the design response is non-compliant with neighbourhood character and heritage policy, and the Heritage Overlay. Whilst the site is suitable for development - subject to an appropriate design, on balance the proposed design response is not acceptable.
Policy Context
City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013 – 2017 (2015-2016 Update) Planning for Growth Housing options provide broader choice in order to meet current and future community expectations and needs. Productivity Council fosters business and industry growth. Sustainability The built and natural qualities that make Greater Bendigo an attractive and appealing place are valued and conserved.
Report
Subject Site and Surrounds
The subject site is a rectangular shaped parcel of land located on the north-eastern side of Milroy Street, approximately 60 metres north-west of Moran Street.
The lot has a frontage width of 24.21 metres, a depth of 29.20 metres and a total area of 705m². The topography of the land sees a gradual slope away from the street, with a change in level from front to rear of approximately 1.0m.
A single storey weatherboard dwelling is located on the site. City records indicate this building was constructed circa 1922. Vehicle access is provided by a concrete driveway along the north-western side of the lot, which links to a newly constructed carport.
The south-eastern part of the site has been fenced off form the existing dwelling. This section has also been cleared and the front fence has been removed. This part of the site now presents to the street as a small, independent vacant parcel of land, even though it is part of the parent title (refer to street photograph below).
The broader area is residential in nature, with most of the dwelling stock being detached, single storey, clad in weatherboard or brick and featuring pitched roof forms. Several original miners' cottages are found in the area, with few examples of double storey buildings evident.
PAGE 11 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
The clear built form anomaly in the area is the adjoining building to the south-east which features high, solid masonry walls built to the lot boundary and a flat roof.
Figure 1: Location map showing subject site. Objectors’ properties marked with a star. Note: Objection from 9 Bannerman Street outside of map area.
Figure 2: Aerial photograph of subject site.
PAGE 12 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Figure 3: Streetscape photograph. Note: The tree in the background is sited on neighbouring land.
Proposal
The applicant seeks approval to construct a second dwelling and a front fence, and to subdivide the land into two lots. Permission is also sought to retrospectively approve the partial removal of the front fence and for construction of the carport.
Dwelling
The proposed dwelling is a double storey building which features a single garage, living areas, laundry, bathroom and kitchen at lower level and three bedrooms with two bathrooms at the upper level.
The design includes a 15 degree hipped roof at upper level and an 18 degree gable fronted roof at ground level – with the gable sited over the garage and entry door.
Materials include weatherboard at upper level, brick at ground level and rendered brickwork on the façade at ground floor.
Subdivision
Lot 1 (containing existing dwelling) = 466m². Lot 2 (containing the new dwelling) = 239m².
Front fence
Construction of a 1.5m high capped timber picket fence is proposed for Lot 2.
Vehicle Crossover
Construction of a 3.0 metre wide concrete vehicle crossover and driveway.
PAGE 13 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Figure 4: Proposed site plan
Figure 5: Streetscape elevation. Note: Existing fence not shown in front of existing dwelling.
PAGE 14 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Figure 6: 3D diagrams of proposed dwelling.
Planning Controls - Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme
The following clauses are relevant in the consideration of this proposal:
State Planning Policy Framework Integrated decision making (cl. 10.04) Regional development (cl. 11.05) Urban environment (cl. 15.01) Sustainable development (cl. 15.02) Heritage (cl 15.03) Residential development (cl. 16.01) Movement networks (cl. 18.02) Development infrastructure (cl. 19.03)
Municipal Strategic Statement Municipal profile (cl. 21.01) Key issues and influences (cl. 21.02) Vision - strategic framework (cl. 21.03)
PAGE 15 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Strategic directions (cl. 21.04) Settlement (cl. 21.05) Housing (cl. 21.06) Environment - Heritage (cl. 21.08) Reference documents (cl. 21.10)
Local Planning Policies Heritage Policy 22.06 Central Bendigo Residential Character Precinct 5 (cl. 22.11)
Other Provisions General Residential Zone (cl 32.08) Heritage Overlay – Schedule 1 (cl. 43.01) Car Parking (cl. 52.06) ResCode – Two or more dwellings on a lot (cl. 55) Decision guidelines (cl 65) Referral and notice provisions (cl. 66)
Permit Triggers Clause 32.08-4 General Residential Zone: Construction of two or more dwellings on a lot. Clause 32.08-2 General Residential Zone: Subdivision. Clause 43.01-1 Heritage Overlay: o Subdivision. o Construction of a building. o Construct or carry out works. o Remove and construct a fence. o Construct a vehicle cross over.
Consultation/Communication
Referrals
The following internal departments have been consulted on the proposal:
Department Comments Heritage Advisor Concerns raised over the tall, narrow form of the building and the prominence of the garage door. Initial concerns have been partly addressed by recessing the upper level further away from the street. Proposal not supported in current form. Traffic & Design No objection subject to standard driveway/cross over construction conditions Drainage No objection subject to drainage infrastructure and plans conditions.
PAGE 16 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Public Notification
The application was advertised by displaying a notice board on the site and by posting letters to adjoining and nearby owners and occupiers. A statutory declaration was provided as evidence that the notice was given in accordance with the requirements of the Act.
As a result of advertising, six objections were received, with the grounds of objection being: (a) Dwelling design not in keeping with the character of the area (specifically the height, bulk, site coverage, narrow form, excavation of the site and front setback at ground and first floor level). (b) Dwelling design not appropriate for the heritage precinct. (c) Small lot size. (d) Lack of landscaping. (e) Overshadowing to neighbours. (f) Visual dominance of garage. (g) Concerns over tandem car parking bay length and driveway gradient.
The objections are discussed below.
Planning Assessment
Is the proposal consistent with the Planning Scheme policy regarding housing and infill development?
The following is a brief outline and discussion on the relevant Planning Scheme policies.
State Policies
Clause 11.05 (Regional development) seeks to promote the sustainable growth and development of regional Victoria.
Clause 15.01 (Urban environment) seeks to create urban environments that are safe, functional and provide good quality environs with a sense of place and cultural identity.
Clause 15.03 (Heritage Conservation) has the objective of ensuring the conservation of places of heritage significance. A key strategy is to encourage appropriate development that respects places with identified heritage values and creates a worthy legacy for future generations.
Clause 16.01 (Residential development) seeks to provide for housing diversity, affordability and to ensure the efficient provision of supporting infrastructure.
PAGE 17 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Comment
Infill development of this style is broadly supported by State policy at Clause 11 (Settlement) and 16 (Housing) and the Loddon Mallee South Regional Growth Plan (Cl. 11.12).
The proposed development will allow for urban consolidation which will utilise existing services and infrastructure. The proposal would also assist in implementing urban containment policy aims found with the MSS Housing Policy (Cl. 21.06), as well as the residential diversification aims of the zone.
The urban context of the site is suitable for further development, particularly due to the existing service infrastructure, good proximity to recreational public open space (approximately 300m from Fenton Street Reserve) and its short commuting/walking distance of the Bendigo CBD.
Whilst provision of housing is generally supported by the above policies, the importance of design and heritage protection is also emphasised under Clause 15, local policy and the zone.
In this case the proposal is found to be inappropriate with regards to heritage and neighbourhood character, due to the narrow, vertically oriented building form which is out of keeping with surrounding buildings. Detailed discussion on heritage and neighbourhood character is found below.
Local Policies
Clause 21.04, 21.05 and Clause 21.06-1 sets out the policies which aim to provide sufficient housing to support a forecasted increase in population for Bendigo of nearly 43,000 individuals by 2030. The policy and associated Residential Development Strategy have been prepared to guide future residential development in the urban areas of Bendigo. Relative to this application the Strategy promotes an increase in density on land which is suitable for infill development.
Clause 22.06 – Heritage Policy builds on the MSS objective in Clause 21.08-2 to protect and enhance the municipality’s built heritage for future generations. The policy also states that protecting cultural and natural heritage assets is important in maintaining the municipality’s character and sense of place.
Council’s Heritage Policy has the following objective which is most relevant to the subject site and application: To ensure that new land uses and developments are sympathetic with the appearance and character of heritage places.
Comment
In consideration of the Bendigo Residential Development Strategy 2004, the proposed development would allow for consolidation of residential land in an established urban area which is close to numerous services and infrastructure.
PAGE 18 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
A balance must be struck however, between accommodating residential growth and respecting neighbourhood character and areas of heritage significance. The major question in this case is whether the proposed infill development and subdivision is acceptable, with regards to heritage conservation and neighbourhood character.
It has been assessed that the proposal is an inappropriate heritage and neighbourhood character outcome. Again this is discussed in depth later in this report.
Is the development acceptable with regard to neighbourhood character policy?
The State and Local Planning Policy Framework, as well as the MSS and the purpose of the General Residential Zone encourage development that is respectful of neighbourhood character. This is also a requirement of ResCode.
The site is located within Central Bendigo Residential Character Precinct 5, which is described under Clause 22.11 as follows:
This precinct has a consistency created by the regular front and side setback to the dwellings. In some areas dwellings are sited at an angle to the street. The horizontal emphasis of the dwelling form adds to an open feel to the streetscape due to the long, low elevations of the buildings in relation to their height. Occasional tall trees in the low level gardens and low or open style fencing and consistent side setbacks provide a sense of spaciousness to the streetscape.
The statement of desired future character seeks to ensure that: the openness of the streetscapes and spaciousness of the dwelling settings will be maintained.
The desired future character is to be achieved by the objectives and design responses outlined and discussed in the table below:
Objectives Response To maintain and strengthen the garden Prepare a landscape plan to accompany settings of the dwellings. all applications for new dwellings, showing the incorporation of substantial vegetation. Retain large, established trees and provide for the planting of new trees wherever possible. Comment: No vegetation is required to be removed to facilitate the development. The small size and narrow width of the proposed lot, as well as the new dwelling’s footprint and driveway location leaves little opportunity for landscaping opportunities. A landscape plan has been provided which allows for one small tree to be planted in the front yard of the new dwelling. This is by no means a substantial amount of vegetation, however; it would partly add to the garden character of the street and would help soften the appearance of the new building. To maintain the consistency, where The front setback should be not less than
PAGE 19 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Objectives Response present, of building front setbacks. the average setback of the adjoining two dwellings. Comment: The dwelling’s front wall would sit approximately half way between the existing dwelling’s façade and the adjoining property’s front wall (which is built to the footpath). The upper level will also be further recessed from the street to be in line with the front wall of the existing dwelling. This design response would generally respect the consistency of front setbacks within Milroy Street and would comply with ResCode requirements. To reflect the existing rhythm of dwelling Buildings should be setback between 1 spacing. and 3 metres from one side boundary, based on the predominant pattern in the streetscape. Comment: The ground level side wall (NW) of the new dwelling is to be set back approximately 2.8 metres from the existing dwelling’s wall. The upper level would be recessed a further 480mm which would allow for a clearance of more than 3.0 metres between the buildings. The SE ground level side wall is proposed to be constructed to the side boundary. This is seen to be generally acceptable as the neighbouring dwelling has a visually dominant solid wall built across the entire front boundary. To ensure that buildings and extensions Respect the predominant building height do not dominate the streetscape. in the street and nearby properties. The height of the dwelling at the front of the dwelling should match the typical single storey wall height. Use low pitched roof forms. Comment: It is recognised that the proposed dwelling is double storey, where most surrounding buildings are single storey. It is also recognised that this is a major concern of objectors. The single storey nature and horizontal emphasis of dwellings in the surrounds forms a recognisable character. Whilst double storey dwellings are not opposed in theory, the narrow vertical form of the proposed double storey dwelling would sit oddly within the streetscape. Efforts have been made to setback the upper level of the building further from the street, to articulate the form of the building. Whilst this is an improvement, the building will still be out of keeping with the form and appearance of surrounding buildings. This will have an adverse impact on the character of the area. It should be noted that the proposed lot does not exist, and is currently part of the existing dwelling’s yard. To use building materials and finishes In streetscapes, where weatherboard
PAGE 20 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Objectives Response that complement the dominant pattern predominates, use timber or other non- within the streetscape. masonry cladding materials where possible, and render, bag or paint brick surfaces. Comment: The use of weatherboards and corrugated roofing materials would generally complement the dominant pattern within the streetscape and the wider area. If a permit were to be approved, face brickwork to the façade would be a more appropriate cladding option as it would pick up on common building materials found in the surrounds. To maintain the openness of the Provide low or open style front fencing up streetscape. to a maximum of 1.2 metres. Front fences should not exceed 1.2 metres other than in exceptional circumstances. Comment: A 1.5m high fence would be generally acceptable due to the existing dwelling’s high fence and the adjoining dwelling’s masonry walls built to the boundary. The proposed site cut and the dwelling’s siting below natural ground level would result in a fence height which screened much of the dwelling’s ground floor. This would be an unsatisfactory urban design outcome.
The proposal is found to be inconsistent with key aspects of the Central Bendigo Residential Character Policy for Precinct 5. Whilst many design objectives of Clause 22.11 have been satisfied, the proposed narrow lot size and the vertical orientation of the dwelling would be generally out of keeping with the existing neighbourhood character of the area.
Does the proposal comply with ResCode?
Clause 55 sets out the relevant standards and objectives to assess internal and external amenity provision/protection, neighbourhood character/design detail and building siting considerations (i.e. site coverage, overshadowing, wall heights, boundary setbacks, etc.).
Compliance with the objectives of Clause 55 (ResCode) is a mandatory requirement for developments of two or more dwellings on General Residential Zone land.
The proposed development has been assessed as being compliant with all Clause 55 standards and objectives with regard to building siting and internal and external amenity considerations.
Compliance with Clause 55.02-1 – Neighbourhood character objective and Clause 55.06-1 – Design detail objective has not been achieved, as discussed in the table above.
Due to this non-compliance, ResCode is not met, and no permit should be issued.
PAGE 21 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Will the proposal result in an acceptable heritage outcome?
The purposes of Clause 43.01 Heritage Overlay, relevant to this proposal are: - To conserve and enhance heritage places of natural or cultural significance, - To conserve and enhance those elements which contribute to the significance of heritage places, and; - To ensure that development does not adversely affect the significance of heritage places.
The decision guidelines of the Heritage Overlay reflect this, with the most relevant being the following: - Whether the location, bulk, form or appearance of the proposed building will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place. - Whether the location, bulk, form and appearance of the proposed building is in keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings and the heritage place. - Whether the proposed subdivision will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place.
The property at 42 Milroy Street is covered by HO841 ‘Bannerman Street, Long Gully & Bendigo, which forms part of the ‘Bannerman Street Precinct’.
The existing dwelling is identified as being contributory to the Bannerman Street Precinct (Ironbark Heritage Study 2010).
Comment
The City’s Heritage Advisor has raised concerns over the form of the building, with the following comments provided in the referral response:
"The proposed townhouse will sit forward of the dwellings on the north west side, and will have a tall narrow form. The location and form are not in keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings in the heritage precinct, and are likely to have an adverse effect on the significance of the heritage precinct."
To address this, the applicant took the advice of the Heritage Advisor to setback the upper level further from the street, and amended the plans accordingly. Whilst this has improved the design, the tall and narrow form remains, as does the new dwelling’s height difference over surrounding dwellings.
No concerns have been raised with the subdivision, particularly as it leaves a reasonable curtilage around the existing dwelling. The narrow width of the proposed lot would require a sensitive design if the proposal were to be respectful of the heritage precinct however.
Generally speaking, the roof forms and cladding materials are found to be acceptable for the heritage precinct. The garage door is also generally acceptable in the context of the adjoining modern building (subject to careful selection of materials and design detail).
PAGE 22 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
In consideration of the purpose and decision guidelines of the Heritage Overlay, Council’s Heritage Policy and the Ironbark Heritage Study citations, the proposed development is found to be inappropriate for the following reason: The narrow width of the new lot and tall, vertically oriented form of the proposed building are not in keeping with the form and siting of buildings within the precinct. This has potential to have an adverse impact on the significance and character of the heritage place.
Both the assessing officer and the City’s Heritage advisor do not support the proposal in its current form.
Objectors’ concerns not already addressed:
Concerns over tandem car parking bay length and driveway gradient. The development complies with the applicable requirements of Clause 52.06 (Car Parking), including the driveway widths, and car parking dimensions (including the minimum car parking bay length requirements for tandem car parking spaces). It is noted that the gradient requirements of Clause 52.06-8 do not apply to single property driveways.
Overshadowing to neighbours Shadowing diagrams have been submitted which demonstrate compliance with ResCode standard B21 (Overshadowing).
Conclusion
In conclusion, although the site is in a good location in terms of meeting infill development objectives, the application should be refused on the basis that the design response represents an unacceptable outcome with regard to Council’s Heritage Policy, the Heritage Overlay, Neighbourhood Character Policy and ResCode.
Options
Council, acting as the responsible authority for administering the Planning Scheme, may resolve to: grant a permit, grant a permit with conditions, or refuse to grant a permit.
Attachments
Objections.
PAGE 23 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to section 61 of the Planning and Environment Act (1987), Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to refuse to grant a permit for the construction of a second dwelling on a lot, subdivide land into 2 lots, construct front fence, construction of vehicle cross over and retrospective construction of car port and partial front fence demolition at 42 Milroy Street, BENDIGO on the following grounds:
1. The tall and narrow form of the building would adversely impact the significance and appearance of the heritage place, contrary to clauses 15.03, 21.08, 22.06 and 43.01 of the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme.
2. The proposed subdivision and development does not comply with Clause 22.11 (Central Bendigo Residential Character Policy) and is inconsistent with the purposes of Clause 32.08 (General Residential Zone) which call for new development to respect neighbourhood character and to implement neighbourhood character policy.
3. The proposal does not comply with ResCode (Clauses 55.02-1 and 55.06-1) due to the design response’s inconsistency with existing and preferred neighbourhood character.
PAGE 24 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
2.2 66 KIRKWOOD ROAD, EAGLEHAWK - CONSTRUCTION OF SECOND DWELLING ON A LOT (TWO STOREY) AND REMOVAL OF VEGETATION
Document Information
Author Lachlan Forsyth, Statutory Planner
Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning & Development Director
Summary/Purpose
Application details: Construction of second dwelling on a lot (two storey) and removal of vegetation. Application No: DR/690/2015 Applicant: Penno Drafting & Design Land: 66 Kirkwood Road, EAGLEHAWK Zoning: General Residential Zone (GRZ) Overlays: Environmental Significance Overlay 1 (ESO1) No. of objections: Six (6) Consultation 25 January 2016 - attended by Cr Williams, Cr Ruffell and Cr meeting: Cox. No resolution of issues. Key considerations: Whether the proposal is consistent with Planning Scheme policy regarding housing, design and infill development; Whether the proposal is consistent with neighbourhood character policy and the provisions of the General Residential Zone; Compliance with ResCode. Conclusion: Planning Scheme policy and the General Residential Zone supports construction of a second dwelling on the lot. The design is found to be appropriate with regards to neighbourhood character and the proposal is compliant with ResCode. Overall the development is an appropriate and orderly planning outcome.
Policy Context
City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013 – 2017 (2015-2016 Update) Planning for Growth
PAGE 25 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Housing options provide broader choice in order to meet current and future community expectations and needs. Productivity Council fosters business and industry growth. Sustainability The built and natural qualities that make Greater Bendigo an attractive and appealing place are valued and conserved.
Report
Subject Site and Surrounds
The subject site is a semi-regular shaped parcel of land located on the southern side of Kirkwood Road, Eaglehawk – to the north of Lake Neangar.
The lot has a frontage width of 18 metres, an average depth of ~60 metres and a total area of 948m². The topography of the land sees a gradual slope away from the street, with a change in level from front to rear of approximately 1.5m.
A single storey Victorian-era weatherboard dwelling is located at the front of the site. Vehicle access is provided by a gravel driveway along the south-western side of the lot. A small colorbond shed is also located in the rear yard.
Noteworthy landscaping includes one large gum tree in the rear yard, a conifer in the front yard and numerous shrubs/bushes.
The broader area is residential in nature, with most of the dwelling stock being single storey, clad in weatherboard or brick and featuring pitched roofs. There are examples of double storey and flat roof buildings in the immediate surrounds.
Land adjoining to the west and south is a small Crown land park which contains a Scout hall. The adjoining residential land to the east is vacant. The rear of the site is visible from Simpsons Road, although it is set back 40+m from the street.
Figure 1: Location map showing subject site. Objectors’ properties marked with a star.
PAGE 26 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Proposal
The applicant seeks approval to construct a second dwelling on the lot and to remove vegetation in the rear section of the lot.
Dwelling
The second dwelling is a double storey, contemporary “cuboid” design which is oriented to face south (looking towards Lake Neangar).
The dwelling features four bedrooms and a double garage. Living rooms and bathrooms are located at both ground and first floor level, as well as a south facing balcony.
A range of cladding materials are proposed including: - Ground level: concrete panels, face brickwork, rendered brickwork and stacked stone. - Upper level: horizontal lightweight “stria” cladding and “matrix panel” cladding.
Vehicle access is to be provided via the existing driveway which runs along the south west boundary of the lot. A new crossover, driveway and car parking area is proposed to be installed on the north eastern boundary of the lot to service the existing dwelling. Both driveways will be concreted.
Vegetation Removal
Vegetation removal includes one mature gum tree, two small trees/shrubs and bushes on the rear boundary.
Figure 2: Proposed site layout plan.
PAGE 27 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Figure 3: Side elevation of existing and proposed dwelling at rear.
Figure 4: 3D diagrams of proposed dwelling.
Planning Controls - Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme
The following clauses are relevant in the consideration of this proposal:
State Planning Policy Framework Integrated decision making (cl. 10.04) Regional development (cl. 11.05) Urban environment (cl. 15.01) Sustainable development (cl. 15.02) Residential development (cl. 16.01) Movement networks (cl. 18.02) Development infrastructure (cl. 19.03)
Municipal Strategic Statement Municipal profile (cl. 21.01) Key issues and influences (cl. 21.02) Vision - strategic framework (cl. 21.03) Strategic directions (cl. 21.04) Settlement (cl. 21.05) Housing (cl. 21.06)
PAGE 28 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Reference documents (cl. 21.10)
Local Planning Policies Eaglehawk Residential Character Precinct 2 (cl. 22.13)
Other Provisions General Residential Zone (cl 32.08) Environmental Significance Overlay – Schedule 1 (cl. 42.01) Car Parking (cl. 52.06) ResCode – Two or more dwellings on a lot (cl. 55) Decision guidelines (cl 65)
Permit Triggers Clause 32.08-4 General Residential Zone: Construction of two or more dwellings on a lot. Clause 42.01 – Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 1: Removal of vegetation.
Consultation/Communication
Referrals
The following authorities and internal departments have been consulted on the proposal:
Referral Authority / Department Comment Department of Environment, Land, No objection to the removal of vegetation, no Water and Planning (s.55) conditions relating to vegetation removal recommended. North Central Catchment No objection, no conditions. Management Authority (s.52) Traffic & Design No objection subject to standard driveway/cross over construction conditions and garage door width modifications. Drainage No objection subject to drainage conditions.
Public Notification
The application was advertised by erecting a notice board on the site and by posting letters to adjoining and nearby owners and occupiers. A statutory declaration was provided as evidence that the notice was given in accordance with the requirements of the Act.
As a result of advertising, six objections were received, with the grounds of objection being: a) Building will obstruct views to the lake. b) Not enough car parking provided.
PAGE 29 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016 c) Building will have negative impacts on the neighbourhood character of the area. d) Concerns with the character of potential future occupants (concerns the building will be used for public housing). e) Tree removal concerns. f) Traffic concerns. g) Development will have negative impact on property values. h) Inconsistencies with application documents. i) Potential noise impacts for new occupants from park and Scout hall. j) Concerns that the building will remain unfinished. k) Concern with the “character” of the property developer.
The objections are discussed below.
Planning Assessment
Is the proposal consistent with the General Residential Zone and relevant Planning Scheme policy regarding housing and infill development?
The subject land is zoned General Residential and is situated within the Bendigo Urban Growth Boundary. The property is situated in an established residential area of Eaglehawk which is served by existing civil infrastructure, local services, the Eaglehawk town centre and public recreation facilities.
The most relevant purposes of the General Residential Zone include: 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.
The proposal is found to be consistent with these purposes, as detailed below.
The construction of a second dwelling will allow for an increase in dwelling stock which will provide for the growing population of Greater Bendigo at a small scale. In doing so, the land will be consolidated and used to its full potential.
This will assist in implementing urban containment policy aims found with the MSS Housing Policy (Cl. 21.06), which seeks to accommodate an additional 3,164 dwellings, housing 6,000 new residents by 2030.
Infill development of this style is also broadly supported by state policy at Clause 11 (Settlement) and 16 (Housing), Council’s Residential Growth Strategy, and the Loddon Mallee South Regional Growth Plan (Cl. 11.12).
PAGE 30 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
The proposal will also allow for residential diversification that will utilise the existing services and facilities local to the area. It is noted that the subject site is located within close proximity to recreational public open space (adjoining Crown land, Lake Neangar 60m south and Canterbury Park 350m west) and is within short walking/commuting distance of the Eaglehawk town centre. The property is also within walking distance of public transport options (buses and trains) operating out of Eaglehawk.
Development within established urban areas is also beneficial from a sustainability viewpoint as all civil and service infrastructure exists, and can be taken advantage of (electricity, water, sewerage, roads, telecoms, etc.).
The design of the dwelling is also considered to be satisfactory and will be suitably integrated within the surrounding established neighbourhood. A more thorough discussion on design and neighbourhood character is detailed below.
Overall the proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant State and Local Planning Policy Framework objectives and the purposes and decision guidelines of the zone.
Is the development acceptable with regard to neighbourhood character policy?
The State and Local Planning Policy Framework, as well as the MSS and the purpose of the General Residential Zone encourage development that is respectful of neighbourhood character. This is also a requirement of ResCode.
The site is located within Eaglehawk Residential Character Precinct 4, which is described under Clause 22.13 as follows:
This precinct contains housing mainly built since the 1950s that constitute the ‘outer suburbs' of Eaglehawk. Consistency of setbacks within street scapes is important, as are roof shapes, because they can be dominant in streetscapes and provide a consistent theme. The horizontal emphasis of the dwelling form is also important, resulting from the long, low elevations of the buildings in relation to their height. Mature vegetation in private yards and public reserves often provides a backdrop.
The statement of desired future character seeks to ensure that the consistency of siting and horizontality of the dwellings will be maintained.
The desired future character is to be achieved by the objectives and design responses outlined and discussed in the table below:
Objectives Response To maintain and strengthen the garden Prepare a landscape plan to accompany settings of the dwellings. all applications for new dwellings. Retain large, established trees and provide for the planting of new trees wherever possible. Comment:
PAGE 31 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Objectives Response One large tree is proposed to be removed from the rear of the site to facilitate the development. Whilst this tree does contribute partly to the character of the area, its removal will not significantly alter the character or appearance of the neighbourhood. The existing trees within the adjoining reserve and neighbouring lot and the retention of the mature conifer within the front yard ensure the garden character of the area is maintained. Further to this, a landscape plan has been submitted which includes planting around the new dwelling. A further condition will require replanting of a suitably chosen and sited canopy tree to replace the removed tree. To minimise site disturbance and impact Buildings should be designed to follow of the building on the landscape. the contours of the site or step down the site. Comment: The dwelling has been designed to follow the contours of the site as much as practicable. Minimal site cuts are proposed which allows for minimal site disturbance, particularly when viewed from the street.
To reflect the consistency, where The front setback should be not less than present, of building front setbacks. the average setback of the adjoining two dwellings. Comment: The new dwelling is to be sited at the rear of the existing dwelling. This will ensure that building setbacks within the Kirkwood Road streetscape are maintained. Further to this, the new building is setback 40+m from Simpson Road. Given the large street setbacks, the building will not be visually prominent from either road. To reflect the existing rhythm of dwelling Buildings should be setback between 1 spacing. and 3 metres from both side boundaries, based on the predominant pattern in the streetscape. Comment: Again it should be noted that the new dwelling is sited at the rear of the existing dwelling. Further to this, no dwelling abuts the site on either side due to the Crown land to the west and a vacant lot to the east. As a result, the rhythm of building spacing within the streetscape is maintained. To ensure that buildings and extensions Respect the predominant building height do not dominate the streetscape. in the street and nearby properties. Use low pitched roof forms. Comment: It is recognised that the proposed dwelling is double storey, where most surrounding
PAGE 32 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Objectives Response buildings are single storey. The design response is seen to be appropriate, however, for the following reasons: - The dwelling is set behind the existing building which will partly screen it from street view. - The fall of the land away from the street helps reduce the overall height of the building when viewed from Kirkwood Road. - The upper level of the building will be set back approximately 15m beyond the existing dwelling, and approximately 37 metres from the front boundary. This siting will ensure the building is not visually prominent when viewed from the street. Rather than being prominent within the streetscape, the building will form a common backdrop in an established suburban area. - The building is setback more than 40 metres from Simpsons Road. - The building’s upper level has been visually articulated by use of varied materials and physical wall articulation. - The staggered built form of the dwelling (upper level set back further from the street than the lower level) allows a graduation in height between the existing and new dwelling. - Similar built forms exist in Kirkwood Road, particularly the double storey square façade and flat roof of 71A Kirkwood Road. To use building materials and finishes In streetscapes where weatherboard which complement the dominant pattern predominates, render, bag or paint brick within the streetscape. surfaces. Comment: The most visually prominent walls of the building from the street will have brick cladding on the SW ground floor and horizontal lightweight board cladding at upper level NW and SW elevations. These materials are commonly found in the precinct and are acceptable. The other materials (rendered brick, matrix cladding and concrete) will also respectfully sit within the neighbourhood. To maintain the openness of the Provide low or open style front fences. streetscape. Comment: No front fencing is proposed. This will maintain the open character of Kirkwood Road.
With regards to neighbourhood character the proposal is considered to be appropriate.
Does the proposal comply with ResCode?
Compliance with the objectives of Clause 55 (ResCode) is a mandatory requirement for developments of two or more dwellings on General Residential Zone land.
PAGE 33 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
To achieve automatic compliance with an objective, a number of standards are detailed within Clause 55. It is noted that compliance with the standard is not mandatory, and that alternate options can be considered where particular siting or design contexts warrant a variation.
In this case, the majority of standards are complied with, and thus the objectives are also met. There are two standards which the proposal does not meet, but are considered to meet the objective as outlined below:
Cl. 55.04-1 Side and rear setbacks objective “To ensure that the height and setback of a building from a boundary respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and limits the impact on the amenity of dwellings”
Comment: To meet the standard, the side walls of the dwelling would have to be setback the following distances: - North east elevation: 2.4m rather than the 1.64m proposed. - South west elevation: 2.5m rather than the 1.5m proposed. The objective (outlined above) is considered to be met as both of these walls abut vacant land and as such, will have no adverse amenity impacts. The design response is also seen to be an acceptable neighbourhood character outcome, as detailed earlier in this report.
Cl. 55.04-2 Walls on boundaries objective “The ensure that the location, length and height of a wall on a boundary respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and limits the impact on the amenity of dwellings”
Comment: The new dwelling’s garage wall is the only wall to be built on a boundary. The length and setback of this wall meets the requirements of the standard, however the height does not as the average height exceeds 3.2m by approximately 600mm.
This wall abuts the small neighbourhood park (Crown land). Due to this context, the wall will have no adverse impact on residential amenity as it does not abut a dwelling. The height variation is also seen to be minor, and will not have an unreasonable impact on neighbourhood character.
Removal of vegetation within the Environmental Significance Overlay 1
The purpose of the ESO1 is to protect waterways and their riparian zones. A permit is required to remove any vegetation from an area covered by an ESO1.
In this case the waterway in question is a drainage depression running along the rear of the site towards Lake Neangar.
PAGE 34 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
The advice of the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning has been sought (determining authority). The Department has offered no objection and has recommended that no offset conditions are necessary in this circumstance. With regard to the purpose and decision guidelines of the overlay, the City agrees that the proposed removal of vegetation does not pose unreasonable environmental risk to the waterway, and should be allowed.
Objectors' concerns not already addressed:
. Building will obstruct views to the lake. The question of whether impacts on views are a valid ground has been tested numerous times at VCAT. VCAT has found (and the City agrees) that potential impacts on views as a result of developments is rarely a relevant planning consideration.
. Not enough car parking provided. Both dwellings been provided with two car spaces (with at least one covered car space provided). This meets the Planning Scheme requirements for car parking provision (Cl. 52.06).
. Concerns with the “character” of potential future occupants (concerns the building will be used for public housing). The character and nature of potential occupants is not regulated by the planning system and is not a valid ground of objection.
. Traffic concerns. The new dwelling and its vehicle accessway have been designed to allow vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forwards direction. The City’s engineers have assessed this arrangement (and the new driveway/carport for the existing house) and have raised no concern with the safety or functionality of the layout. Adequate sight lines for pedestrian and vehicle entry/exit are also provided at the site frontage.
. Development will have negative impact on property values. Potential property devaluation is not a relevant planning consideration. There is a long standing position by VCAT and the City that other than in exceptional cases, and where clear evidence can be presented, loss in property value will not be entertained as a valid ground of objection.
. Potential noise impacts for new occupants from park and Scout hall. The adjoining park and Scout hall is not considered to pose significant risk to the amenity of future residents with respect to noise. It is commonly held that public parks are a necessary and complimentary land use/asset in residential areas.
. Concerns that the building will remain unfinished. There is no evidence to suggest the building will not be completed.
. Concern with the “character” of the property developer. This has no planning relevance and should be given no weight whatsoever.
PAGE 35 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the application is found to comply with the Planning Scheme and a permit should be granted.
The proposal is compliant with ResCode and relevant housing and neighbourhood character policy found within the planning scheme.
The proposal represents an orderly and sustainable land use and development outcome which will utilise existing, serviced residential land.
Options
Council, acting as the responsible authority for administering the Planning Scheme, may resolve to: grant a permit, grant a permit with conditions, or refuse to grant a permit.
Attachments
Objections
RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to section 61 of the Planning and Environment Act (1987), Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for construction of second dwelling on a lot (two storey) and removal of vegetation at 66 Kirkwood Road, EAGLEHAWK 3556 subject to the following conditions:
1. MODIFIED PLAN REQUIRED Before the use and/or development start(s), amended plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and 2 copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application but modified to show: (a) Existing dwelling’s side window which adjoins the driveway to be removed and replaced with window which has a sill height of no less than 1.7m above finished floor level. (b) Amended landscape plan in accordance with Condition 3 (additional canopy tree). (c) Driveways to be concrete or similar. (d) Provision of carport for existing dwelling (set behind the front wall of the existing building). (e) Proposed dwelling’s garage door widened to 5.40 metres.
2. NO LAYOUT ALTERATION The use and development permitted by this permit as shown on the endorsed plans and/or described in the endorsed documents must not be altered or modified (for any reason) except with the prior written consent of the responsible authority.
PAGE 36 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
3. LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIRED Before the development starts, a landscape plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and two copies must be provided. The plan must show: (a) A survey (including botanical names) of all existing vegetation to be retained and/or removed. (b) Details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways. (c) Planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers, including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant. (d) Provision of one (1) appropriately selected canopy tree (minimum two metres tall when planted and 8+ metres tall when mature, preferably native species) in the rear yard of the new dwelling.
4. COMPLETIOJN OF LANDSCAPING Before the occupation of the development starts or by such later date as is approved by the responsible authority in writing, the landscaping works shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
5. LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.
6. GENERAL EXTERIOR TREATMENT The exterior treatment of the buildings permitted by this permit including all exterior decoration, materials, finishes and colours must be to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The exterior treatment of the building(s) must be maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
7. REFRIGERATION AND AIR-CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT Any equipment required for refrigeration, air-conditioning, heating and the like must be suitably insulated for the purpose of reducing noise emissions and must be located so as to not be highly visible from the street to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
8. CONSTRUCTION PHASE All activities associated with the construction of the development permitted by this permit must be carried out to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and all care must be taken to minimise the effect of such activities on the amenity of the locality.
9. STORMWATER DRAINAGE Prior to commencement of the development, drainage plans, including computations and longitudinal sections, must be provided to and approved by the Responsible Authority for the lot in the development to the responsible authority’s nominated point of discharge. Once approved, the plans will be
PAGE 37 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
endorsed as part of the planning permit and must not be further altered without the prior written consent of the responsible authority.
10. GENERAL DRAINAGE The proposed building(s) and works must be drained to the satisfaction of the City of Greater Bendigo as the responsible drainage authority.
11. VEHICLE CROSSINGS Vehicular access to the subject land from any roadway or service lane (and vice versa) must be by way of a vehicle crossing(s) constructed at right angles to the road, to suit the proposed driveway(s) and vehicles that will use the crossing. A Works within Road Reserves permit must be obtained from the City of Greater Bendigo Engineering & Public Space Unit prior to any work commencing in the road reserve.
12. SEALED CAR PARKING AND DRIVEWAY AREAS Areas set aside for the parking of vehicles together with the aisles and drives must be properly formed to such levels that they can be utilised in accordance with the endorsed plan and must be drained and provided with an impervious all weather seal coat. The areas must be constructed, drained and maintained in a continuously useable condition to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
13. USE OF CAR PARKING AND DRIVEWAY AREAS Areas set aside for the parking and movement of vehicles as shown on the endorsed plan must be made available for such use and must not be used for any other purpose.
14. NO MUD ON ROADS In the event of mud, crushed rock or other debris being carried onto public roads or footpaths from the subject land, appropriate measures must be implemented to minimise the problem to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
15. EXPIRY This permit will expire if the development permitted by this permit is not completed within 2 years from the date hereof. The time within which the development must be completed may be extended, on written request to the responsible authority, before or within 6 months after the expiry of this permit where the development has not yet started or 12 months where the development has commenced.
PAGE 38 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
2.3 575 SEDGWICK ROAD, SEDGWICK - USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF A STORE (MACHINERY) AND USE LAND FOR AGRICULTURE (CROPPING)
Document Information
Author Nick Butler, Student Planner
Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning & Development Director
Summary/Purpose
Application details: Use and development of a store (machinery) and use land for agriculture (cropping) Application No: DG/772/2015 Applicant: W G Aylett Land: 575 Sedgwick Road, SEDGWICK Zoning: Rural Living Zone Overlays: Environmental Significance Overlay 1 No. of objections: 5 Consultation A consultation meeting was held on 17 December 2015 attended meeting: by one Ward Councillor, two planning officers, applicant (and family member) and 5 objectors. Key considerations: Whether the proposed uses are appropriate for the site; What impact the proposed store will have on the landscape; Proposed measures to minimise potential impacts. The objections received from residents. Conclusion: The site is an undersized Rural Living zoned property with a primary frontage to Sedgwick Road. Whilst the site is suitable for an agricultural use, the design and location of the store fails to address the landscape values of the area and is detrimental to the character of the area.
It is recommended Council refuse the application.
Policy Context
City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013 – 2017 (2015-2016 Update) Planning for Growth
PAGE 39 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Housing options provide broader choice in order to meet current and future community expectations and needs. Productivity Council fosters business and industry growth. Sustainability The built and natural qualities that make Greater Bendigo an attractive and appealing place are valued and conserved.
Background Information
The original proposal was for the construction of an outbuilding (for machinery). The applicant was advised that the use was classified as a ‘store’ which required planning approval. It also became apparent that the land would also be used for agriculture (crop raising).
The application was amended on 2 November 2015 to include in the permit description ‘Use and development of a store (machinery) and use of land for agriculture (cropping).
The minimum lot size in the rural living zone varies across the Municipality but the lot size required in this area is 8 hectares. The average lot size in the immediate vicinity is 7. hectares with lots ranging from 0.5 to 14 hectares. This site is 3.66ha and these smaller lots are historical and would be prohibited under the current Planning Scheme controls.
Report
Subject Site and Surrounds
PAGE 40 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Figure 1: Location map showing subject site. Objectors' properties marked with a star.
The site is a 3.66ha irregular rectangular shaped allotment located east of Sedgwick Road and north of Boyd Lane. The site is zoned Rural Living and an Environmental Significance Overlay (Schedule 1 – Watercourse Protection) applies to part of the south western section of the site. The site has an approximate frontage to Sedgwick Road of 372m and at its widest point is 156m wide. A dam is located adjacent to the Sedgwick Road frontage towards the south of the site.
A single storey cream brick dwelling and associated outbuildings and landscaped areas are present along the Sedgwick Road frontage approximately 110m from the northern- most point of the property. The dwelling is setback approximately 40m from the road frontage.
With the exception of a remnant patch of native vegetation in the south-west corner of the property, and a mix of native and exotic trees surrounding the dwelling, the site is mostly cleared of vegetation, featuring a number of scattered trees around the site.
The predominant use in the area immediately surrounding the subject land is rural living, often with a low scale ‘hobby farm’ use subsidiary to the dwelling. This includes a number of outbuildings. Opposite Boyd Lane is the Sedgwick Hall (including playground and tennis courts) and Sedgwick Country Fire Authority brigade. Adjoining the site to the east is the Sedgwick conservation reserve.
PAGE 41 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Proposal
The applicant proposes to use and develop the land for a machinery store, and to use the land for agriculture (crop raising). Plans detailing the site layout in terms of agricultural use have not yet been supplied, however the applicant has proposed to spray irrigate Lucerne as well as fruit and vegetables.
The proposed store would accommodate tractors and other machinery associated with both the agricultural use and to store produce from the land.
The proposed store would be setback 25m from Sedgwick Road and located 30m to the north of the dwelling. It will be 42.5m in length, 16m wide and have a total height of 7.91m. The shed will cover 680 square metres. The roof will have a 20 degree pitch with a 5m eave height. The applicant proposes to place 40 kilowatts of solar panels on the north facing roof panel.
On the south side, the store is proposed to have 7 bays comprising of a combination of electric and manual roller doors. See the site and elevation plans below:
Figure 2: Site plan showing location of proposed store.
PAGE 42 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Figure 3: Elevation plans of the proposed store.
The proponent has submitted a draft landscaping plan, however the plan does not enter into specific detail of what is proposed with the exception of some planting surrounding the proposed store.
Planning Controls - Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme
The subject land is zoned Rural Living. Under the zoning provisions, a permit is required to: Use land for agriculture (crop raising). Use land for a store (equipment, goods, or motor vehicles used in conjunction with the occupation of a resident of a dwelling on the lot). Construct a building associated with an agricultural use. Construct a building within 100m of a waterway.
The following clauses are relevant in the consideration of this proposal:
State Planning Policy Framework Loddon Mallee South regional growth (cl 11.12) Significant environments and landscapes (cl 12.04) Agriculture (cl 14.01) Sustainable development (cl 15.02)
Municipal Strategic Statement Key Issues and Influences (cl 21.02) Economic Development (cl 21.07)
Other Provisions Rural Living Zone (cl 35.03)
PAGE 43 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Consultation/Communication
Referrals
The following internal department has been consulted on the proposal:
Referral Comment Environmental Health No objection subject to standard notation.
Public Notification
The application was advertised by way of notice on the site and letters to adjoining and nearby owners and occupiers.
As a result of advertising, 5 objections were received, with the grounds of objection being: Size and siting of proposed store. Eyesore to passing traffic and impact on landscape due to visual bulk. Out of character for the area. Storage of hay is a fire hazard. Impact on land values. Potential future uses of store. The objections are discussed below.
Planning Assessment
Is the site suitable for the proposed uses?
The site is zoned rural living. The zone primarily serves to provide for a residential use, but also allowing agricultural land uses that do not affect the amenity of the neighbouring residential properties. There is evidence to suggest that at some stage an agricultural use - be it low-scale grazing or cropping - may have been subsidiary to the use of land for the existing dwelling. Further, State and local policy (clauses 11.12-6, 14.01-2, 21.02- 4) encourage the retention and use of agricultural land, the ongoing investment in high value agriculture and assisting the development of innovative approaches to sustainable practices. One strategy relevant to the proposed use is listed in clause 11.12-6, which states:
“Facilitate new opportunities in agriculture that respond to the potential impacts of climate change.”
PAGE 44 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Although minimal details of the agricultural use have been supplied, the applicant has explained their proposed practices, utilising solar panels, moisture sensitive drip-feeding and ‘hanging gardens’, ultimately aiming to innovate and set a precedent for future operations worldwide. It is considered that the proposed agricultural use has the potential to be innovative and acceptable in close proximity to rural residential properties (subject to further information being provided), and could be consistent with State and local policy. Furthermore, the objectors’ concerns only related to the proposed store and not the agricultural use.
Similarly, many other lots in the Sedgwick area have outbuildings used to store machinery assisting maintenance of the property or in conjunction of the occupation. Such a use in the Rural Living Zone requires planning permission, however, this is not to say it is unreasonable to store machinery in a rural residential setting.
The objectors have a number of concerns about the proposed store. These include: Storage of hay a fire hazard. Size of store not justified for size of property. Potential future uses if land is sold. Siting of proposed store.
The applicant operates a similar cropping operation on a leased parcel of farming land approximately 10 kilometres from the subject site. The proposed store would not only house machinery and produce from the agricultural use on the subject land, but also machinery and produce from the external farm.
The storage of hay being a fire hazard is not so much a planning issue but building and maintenance. If the use of the proposed store were to change to industry (as raised by objectors), rural or otherwise, the new use would likely be either prohibited or require planning approval.
In summary, it is considered that both an agricultural use and store of machinery could be appropriate to the site.
What impact will the design and siting of the proposed store have on the landscape?
State Planning Policy (clause 12.04-2) and zoning provisions aim to mitigate poorly thought out development in order to protect the landscape. State policy has an objective to:
“Protect landscapes and significant open spaces that contribute to character, identity and sustainable environments.”
As above, the zone serves a purpose to:
“Protect and enhance the natural resources, biodiversity and landscape and heritage values of the area.”
Notably, in the decision guidelines of the zone (clause 35.03-5) are environment, and design and siting issues, listed below as relevant:
PAGE 45 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
The impact of siting, design, height, bulk, colours and materials to be used, on the natural environment, major roads, vistas and water features and the measures to be undertaken to minimize any adverse impacts. The impact on the character and appearance of the area or features of architectural, historic or scientific significance or of natural scenic beauty or importance.
Several objectors in their submissions made reference to ‘the Sedgwick valley’ and the aesthetics and landscape values of the area. The proposed store is located just 25m from the property boundary abutting Sedgwick Road, the main thoroughfare in the area.
Figure 4: View from Sedgwick Road to location of proposed store looking east.
The visual bulk of a structure that is 42m wide and 8m high, only partially screened by some smaller vegetation in the road reserve will be significant. Given its size and siting just 25m from the main road the shed would be in a high-profile location. Driving south along Sedgwick Road, the proposed structure will be visible from over 400m away.
PAGE 46 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Figure 5: View from Sedgwick Road from North to location of proposed store. Note – The shipping container is approximately one quarter of the bulk of the proposed store.
Some objectors offered potential solutions to relocate the proposed store to a lower profile location and it is possible that a different location may be considered in a different light. However, the applicant is not prepared to consider alternative locations or a reduction in size of the shed. A structure such as the one proposed in such a location has a considerable impact on the landscape.
What measures are proposed to minimize the impact on the landscape?
As an alternative to refusing the application it is prudent to consider whether any mitigation measures could be applied to make the development acceptable.
The applicant has submitted a landscape plan (see figure 6) which identifies 4 key areas, those being around the proposed store, around the dwelling, west of the dam and the northern-most pocket of the site. At present, details are lacking for the area west of the dam and the fruit and vegetable plot to the North of the proposed store.
PAGE 47 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Figure 6: Draft Landscape Plan
Of these areas, the fruit and vegetable plot and area around the proposed store are particularly relevant in acting as a ‘screen’ for the proposed store. Although the fruit and vegetable area lacks detail, the area around the proposed store goes into some detail about what is to be planted.
Figure 7: Draft Landscape Plan around proposed store (highlighted area edited due to poor scanning).
PAGE 48 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
The plan makes reference to planting trees with a mature height of at least 5m, three rows deep. A 30m section is proposed to be planted along the Sedgwick Road end of the proposed store, a 50m section to the north of the store and a 45m section along the eastern end of the store. This will result in the planting of approximately 100 Pittosporum angustifolium (Weeping Pottosporum), 20 Santalum acuminatum (Sweet Quandong) and 100 Callistemon viminalis (Dawson River Weeper).
Whilst the proposed planting will somewhat minimise the impact the proposed structure will have on the landscape, the trees will take many years to mature and even then it is unclear the extent that this vegetation will screen the store as no concept elevation plans or view lines have been provided. The report mentions that the trees will have a minimum mature height of 5m, however, the store is proposed to be 7.912m high. The north facing roof panel will be covered in solar. Considering that vegetation higher than eave height minimises the gain from the solar panels, it is unlikely that the mature height of the trees will screen the roof and solar panels from vantage points, including Sedgwick Road to the North of the site.
The applicant has not selected a colour for the proposed store, offering that the objectors choose the colour in an effort to minimise their concerns. Regardless of colour, the proposed store is of excessive bulk in the proposed location.
Whilst the landscape plan has some merit, it is considered that the lack of detail in the report/plans, the size of the proposed store and the high profile location in close proximity to the main road servicing the area have not satisfactorily considered the landscape values of the area and other design and siting issues.
Conclusion
The site lends itself to the proposed uses, however a range of issues have not been addressed by the design and siting of the proposed machinery store. Even with the proposed landscaping, the visual bulk of the proposed store is excessive for the siting.
A building of such scale is not appropriate for this Rural Living zoned site and other design responses such as staggered roof heights and smaller stores were discussed with the applicant. Unfortunately the changes were not agreed to and could not be required by way of conditions on a permit as the applicant seeks approval for the plans as submitted.
Ultimately, the proposal fails to satisfactorily consider and address the landscape values of the area, the impact of the proposed structure on nearby major roads and the visual amenity of nearby residences which the rural living zone seeks to protect.
Options
Council, acting as the responsible authority for administering the Planning Scheme, may resolve to: grant a permit, grant a permit with conditions, or refuse to grant a permit.
PAGE 49 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Attachments
Objections Draft Landscape Plan
RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to section 61 of the Planning and Environment Act (1987), Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to Refuse to Grant a Permit for the Use and Development of a Store (Machinery) and Use of Land for Agriculture at 575 Sedgwick Road, SEDGWICK 3551, for the following reason:
1. The visual bulk and siting of the proposed store would unreasonably impact on the landscape values of the area, contrary to clauses 12.04-2 and 35.03 of the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme.
PAGE 50 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
2.4 1 ARLINGTON COURT, MAIDEN GULLY - SUBDIVIDE LAND INTO 2 LOTS
Document Information
Author Liz Commadeur, Subdivision Planner
Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning & Development Director
Summary/Purpose
Application details: Subdivide land into 2 lots Application No: DS/712/2015 Applicant: Hadden Farren Land Surveyors Pty Ltd Land: 1 Arlington Court, MAIDEN GULLY Zoning: General Residential Zone Overlays: Design and Development Overlay 10 Environmental Significance Overlay 2 No. of objections: 2 Consultation 26 November 2015 meeting: Key considerations: Central to an assessment of the application is the small size of Lot 1 relative to the character of the neighbourhood where large allotments predominate. Conclusion: It is considered that the proposed subdivision does not satisfy the requirement of the Design and Development Plan 10 which requires that subdivisions respect neighbourhood character.
Policy Context
City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013 – 2017 (2015-2016 Update) Planning for Growth Housing options provide broader choice in order to meet current and future community expectations and needs. Productivity Council fosters business and industry growth.
PAGE 51 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Sustainability The built and natural qualities that make Greater Bendigo an attractive and appealing place are valued and conserved.
Report
Subject Site and Surrounds
The subject site is located in an established residential area of Maiden Gully on the corner of Highland Way and Arlington Court. The site is generally rectangular in shape with an area of 1,291 square metres. A brick dwelling is located on the southern end of the site. The backyard is devoid of vegetation and outbuildings. There is a reasonable slope from north east to the west.
The subject site is formally described as Lot 59 on Plan of Subdivision 518344E. A covenant (AF022210B) was initially registered on the land title precluding further subdivision of lots but has now extinguished as of 13 April 2013.
Services, including reticulated water and sewerage, power, gas and telecommunications are able to be connected to the site.
Lot sizes in the area range from 620 square metres to 1,600 square metres. The dwellings in the area tend to be large with reasonable side setbacks. The site is located within close proximity to the Maiden Gully shopping precinct, primary school and recreation reserve. Highland Way and Arlington Court are sealed roads with kerb and channel. A footpath has been constructed along the Highland Way frontage of the site.
Figure 1: Location map showing subject site. Objectors’ properties are marked with a star.
PAGE 52 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Proposal
The applicant seeks approval to subdivide the site into two residential lots. It is proposed to subdivide the backyard off from the existing house to create a new vacant lot suitable for a dwelling. Lot 1 will have an area of 501 square metres. Lot 2 will have an area of 790 square metres and will retain the existing dwelling. Access to Lot 1 will be from Highland Way. Access to Lot 2 will continue from Arlington Court.
Figure 2: Proposed Subdivision Layout.
PAGE 53 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Planning Controls - Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme
The site is in the General Residential Zone (GRZ) and is affected by The Design and Development Overlay 10 (DDO10) and Environmental Significance Overlay 2 (ESO2)(Groundwater Recharge Protection Area). A permit is required to subdivide land under the GRZ and ESO2.
The following clauses are relevant in the consideration of this proposal:
State Planning Policy Framework: Regional development (clause 11.05). Urban environment (clause 15.01). Sustainable development (clause 15.02). Integrated transport (clause 18.01). Movement networks (clause 18.02).
Municipal Strategic Statement: Municipal profile (clause 21.01). Key issues and influences (clause 21.02). Vision - strategic framework (clause 21.03). Strategic directions (clause 21.04). Settlement (clause 21.05). Housing (clause 21.06). Environment (clause 21.08). Infrastructure (clause 21.09). Reference documents (clause 21.10).
Local Planning Policies: Salinity and erosion risk policy (clause 22.04).
Other relevant provisions: Residential subdivision (clause 56) Decision guidelines (clause 65). Referral and notice provisions (clause 66).
Consultation/Communication
Referrals
The following authorities and internal departments have been consulted on the proposal:
Referral Comment Goulburn-Murray Water No objection subject to one condition Drainage No objection subject to conditions
PAGE 54 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Public Notification
The application was advertised by way of notice on the site and letters to adjoining and nearby owners and occupiers.
The application was advertised by way of notice on the site and letters to adjoining and nearby owners and occupiers.
As a result of advertising, two objections were received, with the grounds of objection being: Proposed subdivision will compromise the existing neighbourhood character. Future development on Lot 1 will cause amenity issues for the abutting neighbours. Proposed subdivision will cause devaluation of their properties.
The objections are discussed below.
Planning Assessment
Neighbourhood Character
Maiden Gully has been the subject of detailed planning through the implementation of the Maiden Gully Structure Plan and in more recent times the inclusion of the Design and Development Overlay 10 (Maiden Gully Structure Plan) into the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme. The Maiden Gully Structure Plan has general aims consistent with the DDO10 to maintain the area’s amenity and rural residential character and also ensuring new residential development complies with the lot sizes indicated in the relevant precinct. With regard to this proposal, the subject site is included in Precinct 4 of the Maiden Gully Structure Plan. The Plan seeks the following outcomes with respect to Precinct 4: “No minimum lot size. Consideration must be given to achieving a range of lot sizes - generally from about 600 square metres at the northern end of this precinct up to about 1500 square metres."
An outline development plan has been approved for Precinct 4 that shows broad-scale residential development at a range of densities. A considerable amount of Precinct 4 has been developed, in the form of new housing estates such as "The Meadows", "Lorient Park" and "Parklands".
The site is a part of "The Meadows Estate", which is located in the northern part of Precinct 4. Lot sizes throughout the neighbourhood are mostly 1,000 square metres or larger with single-storey detached dwellings backyards typical. Some smaller lots (600- 700 square metres) are scattered throughout the northern end of the neighbourhood.
These lot densities have created a neighbourhood with a somewhat semi-rural character which is reinforced by scattered native vegetation, low-rise built form and spaciousness between buildings.
PAGE 55 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Even though the DDO10 does not preclude lots less than 600 square metres in Precinct 4, the assessment of proposed subdivisions needs to occur in a manner that meets the Decision Guidelines, including consideration of the existing character of the area and taking into account of the Maiden Gully Structure Plan.
The pattern of development along this part of Highland Way and Arlington Court is characterised by medium to large dwellings that are single storey and have generous setbacks from the street, which is in contrast to the likely siting of any new dwelling on Lot 1. If the proposed subdivision is approved it will have a detrimental impact on the low density character of Precinct 4 and it will set a poor precedent for future development within Maiden Gully. The area available for construction of a dwelling is half the size of the abutting lots. The area is too small to allow for the flexible siting of a dwelling - site coverage is likely to be high and front and side setbacks minimal. The proposed size of Lot 1 is not in keeping with the general range of lot sizes in the area, particularly being located in the northern part of the precinct. Whilst a small number of two lot subdivisions have been approved to the south of the site, it is noted that the average size lots here are generally much smaller than those in the north. A future dwelling on Lot 1 will leave little room for the planting of trees and other vegetation. Vegetation coverage is important to the character of Precinct 4 and the wider Maiden Gully area.
Amenity
The objectors are concerned that the future construction of a dwelling on Lot 1 will impact on the privacy and amenity of their properties. The neighbours have enjoyed a sense of openness in the past and suddenly could be confronted with some overlooking into the back and side yards. One neighbour to the west is also concerned that the construction of a dwelling on Lot 1 will compromise the integrity of the solar panels on the roof of their home.
The proposal will potentially enable the construction of an additional dwelling on the site. Whether the dwelling is single or double storey, it is difficult to suggest that this would result in a loss of privacy or other adverse impact on residential amenity over and above what could be expected in a suburban environment.
There is potential for some overshadowing of the objector’s property at 2 Arlington Court in the mid-morning, however, the overshadowing effect on the this property for the balance of the day will be minimal.
Any new development within the backyard of a site can potentially create amenity issues. In regards to this application, the abutting neighbour to the west argues that their privacy will be greatly curtailed by the construction of a future dwelling on Lot 1. Some overlooking may occur because any future dwelling on Lot 1 would be constructed reasonably close to the common boundary and the site is situated at a slightly higher elevation than the abutting property. However, in the event of the future construction of a dwelling on Lot 1, the minimisation of potential overlooking can be assessed at the Building Permit stage. So, in conclusion it is unlikely that the proposed subdivision will have any significant impact with either overshadowing or overlooking into the back yard of the abutting neighbours.
PAGE 56 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Devaluation of properties in the neighbourhood
The objectors are concerned that the proposed subdivision will cause devaluation of their own properties.
Devaluation of property is not a town planning consideration and has been repeatedly tested at VCAT in the past.
Conclusion
The amenity issues raised by the objectors are unlikely to have any significant impact on the neighbouring properties.
However, it is considered that the application to subdivide land into 2 lots at 1 Arlington Court not be supported on the grounds that the proposed size of Lot 1 does not meet the preferred lot size of 600 square metres and subsequently does not accord with the character of the neighbourhood.
Options
Council, acting as the responsible authority for administering the Planning Scheme, may resolve to: grant a permit, grant a permit with conditions, or refuse to grant a permit.
Attachments
Objections
RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to section 61 of the Planning and Environment Act (1987), Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to issue a Refusal to Grant a Permit for a two lot subdivision at 1 Arlington Court, MAIDEN GULLY 3551 for the following reason:
1. The subdivision is not in keeping with the neighbourhood character due to the small size of the lots and in this regard it is contrary to the Maiden Gully Structure Plan.
PAGE 57 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
2.5 INTENSIVE ANIMAL INDUSTRIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION PAPER - SUBMISSION BY THE CITY OF GREATER BENDIGO
Document Information
Author Trevor Budge, Manager Strategy
Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning and Development Director
Summary/Purpose
This report provides a copy of the Council submission to the Intensive Animal Industries Advisory Committee Discussion Paper and seeks endorsement of that submission. The Committee was established by the Minister for Planning to provide advice to both him and the Minister for Agriculture. The Discussion Paper was released on 21 December 2015 and required submissions to be forwarded to the Committee by 5 February 2016. This did not provide sufficient lead time to enable the submission to be prepared in time to be placed on an earlier Council agenda. The development of the submission has been informed by input from relevant CoGB staff, members of the Bendigo Manufacturing Group who are intensive animal industries producers (who have also made their own submission) and from Council’s Farming Advisory Committee chaired by Cr Williams. Trevor Budge Manager, Strategy is also a member of a Reference Group established by the Minister’s Advisory Committee to assist in the process. The Committee has indicated that it will hold hearings in late February to early March 2016 with the view to finalising its advice to the Ministers by 29 April 2016.
The submission sets out the importance and potential of intensive animal industries to Bendigo, issues that have arisen in respect to land use planning in the City of Greater Bendigo in relation to intensive animal industries and specific responses to a series of policy directions posed by the Advisory Committee in their Discussion Paper.
Policy Context
Council Plan Reference: Leadership and Good Governance – Strategy 1.3 Contribute to policy and strategy development being led by government and other agencies
Planning for Growth - Strategy 2.2 Council manages the planning and development of the City through the preparation of major strategies and effective amendments to the planning scheme.
Productivity - Strategy 4.1 Council fosters business and industry growth
PAGE 58 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Strategy Reference: An Intensive Animal Industries Strategy was endorsed by Council at its meeting in November 2013. It identified the importance of intensive animal industries to the Bendigo and regional economy. It set out proposals to amend the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme to protect existing operations from encroachment by ad hoc residential development. Subsequently Council drafted an Amendment to require planning permits for development in the buffers of existing intensive animal industries and sought authorisation from the Minister for Planning to exhibit the amendment. This amendment is now on hold pending the government’s response to the Advisory Committee report.
Regional Strategic Plan Reference: The Loddon Mallee South Regional Growth Plan identifies the major economic role that intensive animal industries play in the region and supports the potential to grow the industry and the need to ensure that potential land use conflicts are minimised.
Background Information
In late 2015 the Minister for Planning established an Advisory Committee to provide advice to the Minister for Planning and the Minister for Agriculture on how the planning system can support the establishment and expansion of productive, competitive and market-responsive animal industries in Victoria, while balancing environmental outcomes and community expectations.
Specifically the Advisory Committee was asked to provide advice and present findings and conclusions on: The role and function of the planning system in supporting the establishment and expansion of animal industries in the context of changing industry practice to increase production, be competitive and respond to market changes. The adequacy of the definition of ‘intensive animal husbandry’ in Clause 74 of the Victoria Planning Provisions and all planning schemes having regard to emerging farming systems and practices, incremental changes to existing operations over time and changing consumer preference.
In late December 2015 the Advisory Committee released a Discussion Paper and invited submissions. The Discussion Paper noted that: Livestock production systems are changing. On the one hand, free range pig and poultry production systems are growing to meet consumer demands, while on the other hand more intensive grazing and production systems are being adopted in the sheep, beef and dairy industries. The trend towards more intensive production systems is likely to continue, some say it needs to continue, if Victorian agriculture is to meet growing overseas demand for its produce. All livestock production systems have the potential for off-farm impacts on the environment and community. Community and local resident expectations are changing with more ‘non-farming’ or hobby farm residents living in farming zones. Tourism-based agricultural enterprises, such as wineries with cellar door sales and restaurants, eco-tourism, and farm stays are taking advantage of Victoria’s rural amenity and increasing in number.
PAGE 59 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
The potential impacts from farming activities can be broadly categorised as: Animal welfare and biosecurity Environment Residential amenity Rural economic development Infrastructure.”
A submission (attached) was drafted with input from relevant CoGB staff, members of the Bendigo Manufacturing Group who are intensive animal industries producers (who have also made their own submission) and from Council’s Farming Advisory Committee chaired by Cr Williams which includes Councillors Campbell and Chapman and forwarded to the Committee prior to the closing date of submissions 5 February 2016.
Report
The Council submission sets out the economic importance of intensive animal industries to the City of Greater Bendigo and the wider Loddon Mallee South region and specifically addresses 16 questions that the Committee sought responses to. In summary the major points made in the submission are that: The Farming zone should be constructed to provide greater certainty from encroachment on existing industries by residential development. A system of buffers should be established in planning schemes to provide greater certainty for intensive animal industry operations. Codes of Practice need to be the major way that the industry is regulated. Compliance against Codes should be responsibility of a well-equipped EPA rather than local government.
Priority/Importance:
The final outcomes of this process are important as it relates to a major industry in the City.
Options/Alternatives:
The Council has the option of endorsing the submission or amending it.
Timelines:
Council in its submission has requested the opportunity to discuss its submission with the Advisory Committee when it holds hearings in late February / early March. If the Advisory Committee’s Report (due on 29 April 2016) is publicly released Council may wish to make any further submission. Further action would await the release of the government’s response. The content of the government’s response will determine what action Council needs to take in regard to the amendment to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme that Council has on hold pending the outcomes of the Advisory Committee work.
PAGE 60 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Risk Analysis:
Not applicable
Consultation/Communication
Internal Consultation:
Internal consultation from staff with particular interests and responsibilities related to this area.
External Consultation:
Input from members of Council’s Farming Advisory Committee and from intensive animal producers who are members of the Bendigo Manufacturing Group informed the preparation of the submission.
Resource Implications
Budget Allocation in the Current Financial Year: Council in its submission has requested the opportunity to discuss its submission with the Advisory Committee when it holds hearings in late February / early March. This is covered by existing budget arrangements.
Previous Council Support: Council has resolved to exhibit a planning scheme amendment to implement a number of the items included in the submission.
Projected costs for future financial years: Not Applicable
Conclusion
Intensive Animal Industries are a significant component of the Bendigo and wider regional economy. Bendigo is one of Australia’s major regional centres for intensive animal industries. Greater certainty is required for the industry and this can be achieved by relevant changes in the current planning system and planning scheme provisions.
Attachments
1. Council submission to the Intensive Animal Industries Advisory Committee Discussion Paper.
RECOMMENDATION
1. That the Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to endorse the submission to the Intensive Animal Industries Advisory Committee Discussion Paper.
PAGE 61 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
City of Greater Bendigo Submission to the Intensive Animal Industries Advisory Committee Discussion Paper
Background
In late 2015 the Minister for Planning established an Advisory Committee to provide advice to the Minister for Planning and the Minister for Agriculture on how the planning system can support the establishment and expansion of productive, competitive and market-responsive animal industries in Victoria, while balancing environmental outcomes and community expectations.
Specifically the Advisory Committee was asked to provide advice and present findings and conclusions on:
The role and function of the planning system in supporting the establishment and expansion of animal industries in the context of changing industry practice to increase production, be competitive and respond to market changes. The adequacy of the definition of ‘intensive animal husbandry’ in Clause 74 of the Victoria Planning Provisions and all planning schemes having regard to emerging farming systems and practices, incremental changes to existing operations over time and changing consumer preference. In December 2015 the Advisory Committee released a Discussion Paper and invited submissions.
The Discussion Paper noted that
• Livestock production systems are changing. On the one hand, free range pig and poultry production systems are growing to meet consumer demands, while on the other hand more intensive grazing and production systems are being adopted in the sheep, beef and dairy industries. • The trend towards more intensive production systems is likely to continue, some say it needs to continue, if Victorian agriculture is to meet growing overseas demand for its produce. • All livestock production systems have the potential for off-farm impacts on the environment and community. • Community and local resident expectations are changing with more ‘non-farming’ or hobby farm residents living in farming zones. • Tourism-based agricultural enterprises, such as wineries with cellar door sales and restaurants, eco-tourism, and farm stays are taking advantage of Victoria’s rural amenity and increasing in number. The potential impacts from farming activities can be broadly categorised as:
• Animal welfare and biosecurity • Environment • Residential amenity • Rural economic development • Infrastructure. The Discussion Paper invited general comments and specifically sought responses to 16 questions.
General Comments
Intensive animal industries are one of the major employment industries across the City of Greater Bendigo. It is an industry that has the capacity to expand further. About 2,000 persons are
PAGE 62 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
directly and indirectly employed in the City in this industry. There is considerable employment in processing as well as production. In November 2014 Council engaged REMPLAN to prepare an Agribusiness Economic Contributions Study using available ABS data. While it is not possible to separate intensive animal production and processing from other production and processing it showed in summary that Food product production and processing (mostly from intensive animal production) was worth about $500m in total output to the Greater Bendigo economy, employed around 1,300 people, value added (value-added represents the marginal economic value that is added by each industry sector in a defined region) just over $1.06billion to the City’s economy and the multiplier effect of the agribusiness industry as a whole was 1.8. A copy of the report is attached. Bendigo sits in a strategic location in regional cluster of such industries across the Loddon Mallee South region. Industry estimates are that there are over 4,000 persons employed directly or indirectly in intensive animal industries across the Loddon Mallee South region. The Loddon Mallee South Regional Growth recognises the importance of this industry and its capacity for expansion. The industry provides many jobs for unskilled and semi-skilled persons. The region is one of the major national intensive animal production and processing areas. This situation reflects long established production, processing plants, skilled and unskilled local labour force, supply of feed for animals from the wider region, and support industries such as trucking. There is capacity and private sector support to further expand this industry and create greater levels of employment. A copy of the City’s adopted Intensive Animal Industry Strategy is attached.
The Greater Bendigo Council’s position is that the intensive animal industry is a vital component of the local and regional economy which has considerable further capacity to expand and it should be strongly supported by the state government.
The land use planning system in respect to intensive animal industries should be geared to provide the maximum level of certainty for existing operators to protect their investment.
Once established and operating with the appropriate permits and controls through state wide industry codes operators should not be subject to uncertainty due to issues like protecting biosecurity and amenity complaints from adjoining land owners.
Planning provisions in the Farming Zone should clearly set a framework where dwellings and other uses and developments cannot be allowed within the established buffer distances from intensive animal operations. If there is discretion for uses or developments within the buffer distance then the planning provisions must clearly give Council the discretion to refuse the development based on the likely detrimental impact on the intensive animal industry. Prior to the governments establishment of the Intensive Animal Industry Advisory Committee Greater Bendigo Council had sought authorisation for an amendment to its planning scheme to allow it to refuse dwellings that were sited within the buffer distance. In the absence of the work of the Advisory Committee establishing such a position and the government making relevant changes to the Victoria Planning Provisions Council will further pursue its own amendment.
PAGE 63 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Council supports a new regime where the EPA is charged with the responsibility and provided with the resources to deal with the technical aspects of compliance with relevant state wide intensive animal industry codes. Achieving mandatory sign off by the EPA of compliance with the relevant code should be part of the planning process. Councils are not necessarily equipped with the staff or financial resources to pursue the technical aspects of compliance with the relevant code. Multiple agencies responsible for regulations and enforcement create uncertainty confusion and potential for overlap and conflict.
The Greater Bendigo Council’s position is that state wide planning scheme provisions should be strengthened so as to prevent land uses and developments impacting on the ongoing operation of intensive animal industries and that the EPA should be resourced to deal with compliance with relevant industry codes.
Representatives from the poultry industry in the City of Greater Bendigo are members of the Bendigo Manufacturing Group - a peak industry advisory committee to the City of Greater Bendigo’s Economic Development Unit which has been operating since 2001. They are of the view that the Farming Zone (and its forerunners) has been diluted over time and it no longer provides the level of protection for the right to farm. In particular, the conflict between farming operations and ‘sensitive land uses’ (such as non- farming related housing), and rezoning of farming land to residential uses without proper consideration of its impact on commercial intensive animal operations has been a product of the evolving planning system to the detriment of farming. Further they believe that there has been insufficient farming protection and priority policy to guide planners in assessing planning permit applications related to this matter. They contend that intensive farming operations have been adversely impacted resulting in the relocation of parts of farming enterprise operations, limiting further growth at an enterprise’s principal operational site and in some cases leading to the cessation of the farming operations.
While the Advisory Committee has been established to focus on issues associated with the planning system Greater Bendigo Council submits that the issues and opportunities associated with the intensive animal industry are wider than this and warrant government attention. The economic opportunities for Victoria in this industry are extensive and they revolve around Australia’s bio-security, reputation and ability to deliver product that is safe and world class. There is an increasing demand in Asia for product and particularly protein. Australia including Victoria is a large exporter of grain as a raw product. Value adding in Victoria can provide increased jobs and higher returns. Maintaining this advantage and producing product that is both ethically and environmentally sound is important to these outcomes.
The Greater Bendigo Council’s position is that supporting an improved land use planning regime is important in this whole process of capitalising on the advantages of this industry sector. It needs to be matched by other state government initiatives and support that can fully capitalise on the potential of the industry. The Loddon Mallee South region is ideally placed to further expand on its leading regional role in intensive animal industry production and processing.
In respect to the sixteen questions posed by the Intensive Animal Industries Discussion Paper and on which comment has been sought, the Greater Bendigo Council submits:
Proposed Policy Direction
1. Provide stronger strategic guidance by undertaking regional agricultural land capability assessments and identifying appropriate areas for intensive agriculture in local planning policies.
PAGE 64 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Response
This direction is completely misplaced. The siting of most intensive animal industries has little if anything to do with regional agricultural land capability assessments. Siting is largely a factor of access to grain and other feed, provision of water and power, access to a large pool of labour – particularly where production and processing are combined on a single site, good transport infrastructure and ready access to markets. It is this combination of factors that has made the Loddon Mallee South region such an attractive area for production and processing. The fact that industry production can take place on land with low quality agricultural land capability is often seen as a bonus. In fact it can be argued that siting such uses on land of high quality is a ‘waste’ of such a resource.
Council submits that there are considerable advantages in strengthening the State Planning Policy Framework to clearly indicate that this is an industry which government supports and that Councils in their Municipal Strategic Statement should if relevant identify areas where they would support such industries.
Proposed Policy Direction
2. Strengthen the purpose of the Farming Zone to promote agriculture activity as the priority activity and remove reference to encouraging dwellings as a means of promoting population growth.
Response
Agree. This is a fundamental change that is required. Changing the role and purpose of the Farming Zone periodically has sent confusing messages. Treat the Farming zone as essentially an ‘outdoor industrial’ type zone and protect its integrity and role accordingly.
Proposed Policy Direction
3. Identify in planning schemes defined buffer distances for different types and scales of intensive animal industries.
Response
Agree. Minimum distances required by Codes could be clearly stated. Currently all the relevant Codes are incorporated documents in all schemes. Few people have access to the relevant most up to date codes, stating the distances in the planning scheme would assist. The first reference people make to a planning scheme is to check the zone and then the overlay. There is inconsistency across the state in the application of Overlays relating to developments with potential off site impacts some waste water treatment plants, intensive operations etc. have an Overlay which alerts someone looking at the planning scheme – most don’t. A uniform approach across the State on a buffer which recognises an ‘impact area’ would assist everyone.
Proposed Policy Direction
4. Require a permit in the farming zones for new dwellings within the buffer distance of intensive animal operations.
PAGE 65 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Response
Support strongly. The potential to apply an absolute prohibition in close proximity should be considered. Where properties are in Faming zone adjoining parcels are relatively large and alternative sites are generally possible. For instance, in the City of Greater Bendigo we examined every parcel of land within 500 metres of an existing intensive animal operation. There were about 600 such parcels. There were only four parcels where an owner could not locate a house more than 500 meters from the existing operation. The City was therefore proposing an Amendment to its Planning Scheme which would have proposed a requirement for a planning permit in the Farming Zone within 500 metres of a broiler shed and 700 metres from a piggery. Very few landowners would have been impacted. Other uses and developments should be considered for a planning permit; subdivision (which usually has an expectation that a potential house lot has been created, dams (issues of birds landing on with consequent water- biosecurity issues), tourist uses etc.
Proposed Policy Direction
5. Base the generic definition of intensive animal husbandry on the impacts of the operation.
Response
Agree, include impact as part of the definition.
Proposed Policy Direction
6. Base the requirement for a permit for animal industries on the potential environmental and amenity impacts of the operation derived from an assessment with an online tool.
Response
Support to the extent that online tool can deliver on this requirement. It is not likely that a tool could achieve tis in all circumstances. Such a tool could easily indicate that a proposal would not meet the code and scheme requirements but it is likely that there will be circumstances where further inflation is required.
Proposed Policy Direction
7. Create specific land use terms for poultry farms (broiler, egg and hatcheries), cattle and sheep feedlots and piggeries and other clearly intensive uses, to avoid reliance on a generic intensive animal husbandry definition where possible.
Response
Agree but these need to be subject to periodic review. Farming techniques and operations change.
Proposed Policy Direction
8. Strengthen permit triggers, application requirements and referral arrangements for animal industry applications.
PAGE 66 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Response
Agree on the basis that it is very clear in the planning scheme and relevant codes when and where a planning permit is required.
Proposed Policy Direction
9. Limit the ‘right to object’ in the Farming Zone when standards prescribed for an animal husbandry enterprise type are met.
Response
Does the term limit mean prevent? Where the standards are fully met the right to object and have any decision subject to review can be removed through relevant clauses in the planning scheme. If the Code is properly framed and there is confidence that it can be enforced than the planning provisions in the Farming zone can establish that many elements that are currently subject to a planning permit can be as of right subject to compliance with conditions.
Proposed Policy Direction
10. Clarify when farming operations have existing use rights.
Response
Agree. Farming operations are subject to change over time. What may now be common practice may not have existed ten years ago. This would need some process of periodic review. There is a danger that over time as farming operations change what would once be considered usual practices could effectively become a ‘non-conforming use’.
Proposed Policy Direction
11. Create a single point of contact for all enforcement actions whose role it is to oversee enforcement activities.
Response
Strongly support on the basis that this is not local government. Qualified and experienced personnel from a single agency suitably equipped to undertake inspections and compliance.
Proposed Policy Direction
12. Increase the role of the EPA as an enforcement body.
Response
Strongly support an appropriately resourced EPA is the most effective course of action. Compliance and enforcement action undertaken by the EPA should be in consultation with the relevant local Council.
Policy Proposed Direction
13. Set clearer prescribed standards and conditions for intensive animal industries in planning schemes using the Codes of Practice approach.
PAGE 67 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Response
Strongly agree
Proposed Policy Direction
14. Develop and maintain a contemporary Codes of Practice for all intensively farmed livestock (as a minimum for poultry (broiler, egg and hatchery), piggeries, cattle feedlots, sheep feedlots, and feedlot dairies).
Response
Strongly agree
Proposed Policy Direction
15. Introduce a fast track process for applications that meet defined standards.
Response
Agree. If this is to be pursued than it applies equally to all relevant state government authorities and agencies not just local government.
Proposed Policy Direction
16. Formally recognise participation in compliant industry assurance programs in the planning process. Some examples include APIQ, NFAS, Chicken Care and Egg Corp Assured.
Response
Agree
PAGE 68 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
2.6 GREATER BENDIGO RESIDENTIAL STRATEGY AND ADOPTION OF GREATER BENDIGO PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C215
Document Information
Author Andrew Cockerall, Coordinator Strategic Planning
Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning & Development Director
Summary/Purpose
Amendment details: The amendment proposes to implement the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy (2014). Changes proposed by the amendment include: Updating the Municipal Strategic Statement to include a new clause “Compact Bendigo”, strengthen the provisions relating to the Urban Growth Boundary, introduce new provisions relating to 10 minute neighbourhoods and including the strategy as a Reference Document. Various zone and overlay changes. No. of submissions: 71 in total (27 supporting, 32 seeking changes to the amendment, 12 opposing) Key issues: Inclusion of other land within the amendment. Urban Growth Boundary. Panel recommendations. Recommendation: That Council adopts Amendment C215 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme as recommended by the Panel, with changes set out in this report, and request approval from the Minister for Planning.
Policy Context
City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013 – 2017 (2015-16 update) Planning for Growth
Complete and implement the following major strategies through planning scheme amendments: Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy Background Information
The key steps in the Amendment process are summarised below:
PAGE 69 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Amendment and Planning permit application prepared
Council decides whether to seek Ministerial Authorisation
Public Exhibition of Amendment and permit application
Submissions received
Council requests an Independent Panel to consider submissions
Panel Hearing held
Council decides to Adopt or Abandon the Amendment We are at this point
Send to Minister for Approval and Gazettal and issue of Planning permit
Previous Council Decisions
15/06/11 Council endorsed the brief for the review. 29/02/12 Council adopted the Audit of the Residential Development Strategy. 06/03/13 Council releases the Issues and Options Paper. 21/08/13 Council seeks Ministerial Amendment for the conversion of the residential zones. 26/03/14 Council releases the draft Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy for community comment. 22/10/14 Council adopts the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy and resolves to commence the amendment process. 06/05/15 Council considers submissions received to the exhibition of the amendment and requests the appointment of an Independent Panel. Report
Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy
The Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy (2014) was adopted by Council on 22 October 2014. The strategy establishes a framework to guide the residential growth of the Municipality to 2040 and beyond.
PAGE 70 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
The strategy is focussed on accommodating Bendigo’s future residential development through creating a compact city, vibrant City Centre, neighbourhoods and small towns where people can readily access their daily needs and where there is real transport choice rather than relying on the car.
What the amendment does
Amendment C215 implements the recommendations of the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy (2014) into the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme.
The amendment is largely focussed on making strategy and policy changes within the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) to reinforce the overall strategic direction of promoting a compact urban form.
Among the key changes to the MSS proposed by Amendment C215 are: Updating the “Key Issues and Influences” clause to include issues such as liveability, transport integration and planning for health. Combining the Housing and Settlement clauses into a new clause “Compact Bendigo”. Strengthening the provisions around the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). New strategies around 10 minute neighbourhoods, key development sites, housing density and diversity and design quality. Inclusion of the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy (2014) as a Reference Document within the Planning Scheme.
A number of zone and overlay changes are proposed in the amendment including: Land identified in the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan and Huntly Township Plan that was identified for residential development but is yet to be rezoned. These areas are being rezoned from a Rural Living Zone to either a General Residential Zone or a Low Density Residential Zone. Inclusion of land off Goynes Road, Epsom in the General Residential Zone. Removal of the Design and Development Overlay 10 which requires larger lot sizes from parts of “Precinct 6” in Maiden Gully to allow for more conventional subdivision consistent with the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy (2014).
Consultation/Communication
Exhibition procedures
The Amendment was exhibited for 6 weeks between 5 February and 20 March 2015.
Notice was provided in the following manner: Individual notices were sent to 700 residents, government agencies and interest groups who were affected by the amendment or had previously registered an interest in the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy. Notices to the prescribed Ministers under Section 19(1)(c) of the Planning and Environment Act. Public Notice of the Amendment in the Bendigo Advertiser on 4, 7, 11, 14, 21 and 28 February and in the McIvor Times on 5 and 12 February 2015.
PAGE 71 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Public Notice of the Amendment in the Government Gazette on 5 February 2015.
As a result of these procedures, 68 submissions were received. Of the 68 submissions, 27 supported the amendment, 31 submissions sought to have changes made (such as including additional land within the amendment) and 10 submissions were objections.
Three late submissions were received immediately prior and during the Panel Hearing that were accepted by the Panel.
Submissions
The major issues raised in the submissions were: Support for the strategic direction of the GBRS and the focus on promoting a Compact Bendigo. Submissions seeking to have additional land included within the UGB at various locations around the City. Inclusion of a number of parcels of land as Key Development Sites. Review of the zoning of individual parcels of land within the UGB. Support and opposition for the zone and overlay changes proposed by the Amendment. A submission regarding the lack of recreation facilities and clear strategic direction for Marong. Submissions from service authorities regarding aspects of Clause 21.05. Submissions from the planning and development industry relating to land supply, resourcing, capacity to realise infill development and consistency in decision making and the application of the UGB.
Response by the City to major issues raised in submissions
Generally speaking the responses to the issues raised in the submissions were: Additional land should not be included within the amendment at this stage as they were not exhibited. These submissions are being considered in the context of the Housing Strategy. The submissions from government / servicing agencies and those seeking changes to the MSS are generally supported. The objecting submissions are not supported. The submissions relating to land supply and the UGB are acknowledged but not supported.
The Panel Hearing
The Minister for Planning appointed an Independent Panel to consider the Amendment. The Hearing was held on 20-23 July, 7-12 August and 11 September 2015. The Panel considered all written and oral submissions and material presented to it in connection with the Amendment.
The Panel Report and Recommendations
Included in the key findings of the Panel were:
PAGE 72 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Strong support for the Compact Bendigo model and recognition of the “significant and comprehensive background work” that supports the strategy. Support for all proposed zone and overlay changes, subject to some minor modifications. The Panel was particularly impressed by how the City and the development industry have worked together. Planning for an eventual population of 200,000 needs to be actively pursued. The Panel expressed some concern regarding land supply given the time it takes to prepare structure plans, rezone land and lag times for development. The Panel supported the UGB but were concerned that the UGB is a medium term proposition and not a longer term planning tool and recommended that the alignment of the UGB should be reviewed as part of the Housing Strategy. There is a need to review all zones and overlays, especially those related to neighbourhood character if infill development is to be pursued. Minor changes to the wording in the MSS which were agreed to during the hearing.
In considering the Panel’s report in respect to: Land supply – agreement that we have 13-17 years greenfield land supply within the UGB and Marong but concern about whether it all can be brought on stream in a timely manner Planning for 200,000 people – being able to identify where Bendigo will grow. The Panel’s recommendation to include two areas (Balgownie and Cherry Tree Lane) in the UGB but without setting out a clear strategic justification for the choice of Balgownie over other sites the Panel identified as suitable for residential development in the longer term. The Panel’s acceptance that the Housing Strategy and Housing Audit will identify and detail land supply to ensure the government’s 15 year requirement will be met considerable further analysis has been undertaken to clarify land supply and t to give greater certainty about where and how the City could accommodate a population of 200,000. That analysis has demonstrated with two separate exercises (one undertaken by staff and one undertaken by id consulting) that without bringing on more land through rezoning from within the UGB a 15 year land supply is currently available and that supply will be further tested by an annual Housing Audit. If land supply is not adequate the City will bring timelines forward. That taking into consideration the adopted Residential Strategy and ITLUS, current growth patterns, land suitability, likely take up rates, servicing, and land availability, Council should identify an area termed ‘Maiden Gully North West’ embracing all of Balgownie, Eaglehawk Golf Course and the intervening land and including the proposed site of the Maiden Gully Railway Station and land to the north of the Eaglehawk – Marong railway line, as a Structure Plan investigation area, to be considered as part of the next Residential Strategy Review which will commence in 2022 and be ready for a scheduled adoption by Council in 2024. Noting that this does not preclude landowners from undertaking relevant investigations in preparation for consideration in the Structure Planning process. This area is indicated on the following map:
PAGE 73 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Maiden Gully North West is clearly signalling that the area is confirmed as the next area for urban growth, not just “potential” for future growth. The Structure Planning process will involve the comprehensive technical analysis and design and community engagement needed to resolve the exact boundary and the area would be developed. It is anticipated that the Structure Plan would commence in around 2022, depending on land take up.
The following table lists the Panel's recommendations and recommended response.
PAGE 74 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Table 1 Panel Recommendations
Rec. Panel Recommendation Officer Recommendation No. 1. Amend Clause 21.05-2 under ‘Urban AGREE Growth Boundary Objective’ to add the wording:
“To better manage the City’s growth by focusing development into designated growth areas, preventing development in areas which Council wants to protect, and discouraging proposals to expand the urban area except where consistent with the Bendigo Urban Area Residential Growth Framework”. 2. Amend Clause 21.05-2 under AGREE ‘Strategies’ to change the wording:
(a) Dot point 1 - “Rezoning proposals for sites that are not contiguous with the Urban Growth Boundary are strongly discouraged and will not be supported unless they give effect to the Residential Development Objectives in the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy 2014.” (b) Dot point 2 - “Rezoning proposals for sites outside but abutting the Urban Growth Boundary are discouraged with an assumption they will not be supported unless they are consistent with or give effect to the Residential Development Objectives in the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy 2014. Consideration of any sites will be on the merits of the proposal and must be accompanied by a report that demonstrates the suitability of the land for urban development and addresses the following matters:” 3. Amend Clause 21.05‐ 2 to include the AGREE following criteria when considering future rezoning:
PAGE 75 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Rec. Panel Recommendation Officer Recommendation No.
(a) Whether the area is identified in the Bendigo Urban Area Residential Growth Framework as Potential Longer Term Growth. (b) Whether the site assists in building the catchment for a township, neighbourhood centre or local school and supports the ‘10 Minute Neighbourhood principle’. (c) Whether the site is within walking distance of a proposed or existing railway station or bus route.’ 4. Amend Clause 21.05 Framework Plan DISAGREE to include the Kangaroo Flat South Investigation Area (excluding Furness This is a relatively small area of land Street) within the Urban Growth – and its inclusion is likely to be Boundary and a notation ‘subject to incidental to the overall strategy. detailed structure planning’. However, this land is not needed to accommodate residential The Panel considers that the area is a development in the short to medium logical inclusion in the UGB and the term to 2024. forest is a natural boundary. It is noted that Coliban Water has The Residential Growth Framework expressed concerns regarding water Plan should identify the Kangaroo Flat pressure and sewer capacity on the South Investigation Area within the southern fringes of urban Bendigo. UGB with a recommendation that, The CFA have also indicated a prior to any rezoning, the land be concern from a bushfire risk subject to detailed structure planning perspective. These are key issues and a planning regime that manages that are yet to be addressed. the issues of risk and environmental values. This site forms a significant part of Bendigo’s major gateway-entrance. Design and presentation of this site from the Highway is very important and must be a major consideration in terms of the approval of any structure plan.
As an alternative it is recommended that the Residential Growth Framework Plan be amended to identify the land as being a Future Growth Area and for it to be actively considered as part of the 2024
PAGE 76 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Rec. Panel Recommendation Officer Recommendation No. review of the strategy.
This approach doesn’t preclude the owners of the land undertaking their own assessment and background studies and drafting a structure plan and list of infrastructure they propose to fund. 5. Amend Clause 21.05 Residential AGREE Growth Framework Plan to identify the Simpsons Road Investigation Area as for Potential Longer Term Growth.
This area abuts an area that is currently developing, to be supported with a neighbourhood activity centre. Given the size of the investigation area and the need to clarify the context of the Waste Water Treatment Plant, it is recommended that the Simpsons Road Investigation Area remain outside the UGB at this point in time but that it be identified as Potential Longer Term Growth in the Residential Growth Framework Plan. 6. Amend Clause 21.05 Framework Plan DISAGREE to include the land west of Schumakers Lane, north of Hermitage This land is not needed to Road and south of the railway line accommodate residential (Balgownie) within the Urban Growth development in the short to medium Boundary and a notation ‘subject to term to 2024. detailed structure planning’. This land is considered as The Panel considers that the land potentially suitable to meet the post west of Schumakers Lane, north of 2024 – 15 year land supply category Hermitage Road and south of the as identified in the Bendigo Urban railway line should be included within Area Residential Growth Framework the UGB as a logical inclusion having Plan regard to its location and attributes and a strategic inclusion to support It is recommended that the service infrastructure delivery into the Residential Growth Framework Plan wider Maiden Gully PSP area. be amended to identify the land as being part of a Maiden Gully North West Structure Plan area, subject to a structure planning exercise which will be undertaken as part of the lead up to the next Residential
PAGE 77 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Rec. Panel Recommendation Officer Recommendation No. Strategy review scheduled to be completed and adopted by 2024.
This approach doesn’t preclude the owners of the land undertaking their own assessment and background studies and drafting a structure plan and list of infrastructure they propose to fund. 7. Amend the Neighbourhood Character AGREE section in Clause 21.02 to include: ‘The residents of Greater Bendigo value the neighbourhood character and as a consequence Council is committed to ensuring the neighbourhood character of Greater Bendigo is both protected and enhanced through new residential developments while furthering the objectives of the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy 2014’. 8. Amend Clause 21.03‐5 AGREE Implementation to delete the reference to the ‘Residential Development Strategy, 2004’, insert ‘Applying the Residential Growth Zone to identified Key Development Sites’ and include ‘Prepare Structure Plans and a Housing Strategy’ under ‘Further strategic work’. 9. Replace the Incorporated Plan ‘City of AGREE Greater Bendigo Residential Growth Plan – (2009) (Amended 2012)’ with a plan consistent with the Bendigo Urban Area Residential Growth Framework Plan. 10. Change the legend for the ‘Bendigo AGREE Urban Area Residential Growth Framework Plan’ by replacing the words ‘Major Infill and Renewal Site’ with the words ‘Key Development Site’ to ensure clearer cross referencing with Clause 21.05.
11. For the ‘Forest Park’ development, AGREE
PAGE 78 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Rec. Panel Recommendation Officer Recommendation No. 244 Edwards Road, Maiden Gully: (a) Identify part of the site as a Key Development Site on the ‘Bendigo Urban Area Residential Growth Framework Plan’ in the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy (b) Amend Clause 21.05-1 to include ‘and other activity centres, including the proposed Local Activity Hub at 244 Edwards Road, Maiden Gully’ as a Key Development Site. 12. Former VicRoads Depot, Lansell AGREE Street, Bendigo East: (a) Identify the site as a Key Development Site on the ‘Bendigo Urban Area Residential Growth Framework Plan’ in the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy (b) Amend Clause 21.05-1 to include ‘the former VicRoads Depot, Lansell Street, Bendigo East’ as a Key Development Site. 13. La Trobe University land - Osborne DISAGREE Street, Flora Hill (a) Identify the entire University site as While the location of the athletics a Key Development Site on the track will need to be incorporated ‘Bendigo Urban Area Residential into the planning for the remainder Growth Framework Plan’ in the of the site it has never been Greater Bendigo Residential identified for residential Strategy. development and will remain as active open space.
To include it as part of the Key Development Site would create uncertainty for users of the facility and the community in general. 14. Amend the extent of the General AGREE Residential Zone and Low Density Residential Zone at 29 Emu Street, Strathfieldsaye in accordance with the map in the City of Greater Bendigo Attachments to Submission – Response to submission 5, as presented at the Panel Hearing.
PAGE 79 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Rec. Panel Recommendation Officer Recommendation No. 15. Seek an amendment under Section AGREE 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to rezone the This has been referred to the land known as ‘Frog Hollow, Statutory Planning Department for Strathdale’ as Public Park and inclusion in the next “clean up” Recreation Zone, or Public amendment. Conservation and Resource Zone to reflect the role of the park or through the translation of the Residential Zones. 16. The Urban Growth Boundary be AGREE reviewed as part of the upcoming Housing Strategy and Integrated The LMSRGP includes the target of Transport and Land Use Strategy 200,000 people by 2041 (however implementation with a long term this is likely to be in 2050). The growth scenario of a population of Regional Growth Plans are adopted 200,000 at 2041. state policy and a Council policy position.
On the current trends and consistent with id consulting projections CoGB would reach 200,000 by about 2050.
Regardless of dates there is merit in having an overall plan setting out how the City could support a population of 200,000 people. A detailed report on this has been provided for Council consideration.
Note: supporting this recommendation does not mean that land needs to be zoned now or that the UGB must now embrace the area that could accommodate 200,000 – only that Council can clearly indicate where this level of population can be accommodated. A separate report titled Greater Bendigo Land Use and Development Strategy has been prepared setting out a proposed framework to accommodate 200,000 persons. 17. When preparing the upcoming AGREE Housing Strategy and Integrated Transport and Land Use Strategy The review of the planning controls
PAGE 80 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Rec. Panel Recommendation Officer Recommendation No. implementation, the City of Greater is important in pursuing a Compact Bendigo should review the existing Bendigo, however this is a zoning, overlay and policy regime to significant piece of work and would facilitate infill development in strategic need to be done progressively. areas consistent with the Compact City principle within the GBRS.
This recommendation came about as a result of submissions from the development industry who were of the view that current planning scheme controls, in particular the neighbourhood character provisions, worked against the strategic direction of a Compact Bendigo. 18. The City of Greater Bendigo consider AGREE (a) the properties bounded by Bendigo Creek, Buckland and Saade Streets and Montis Lane, known as 1 Buckland Street and 20 Montis Lane, should be further considered in the upcoming Housing Strategy with a view to future rezoning to General Residential Zone and applying the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay as required. 18. The City of Greater Bendigo consider AGREE – subject to agreement with (b) the property at 91 Howard Street in Coliban Water and the Environment the context of its Housing Strategy Protection Authority. with a view to future rezoning of all or part of the land for residential use Issues around protecting the subject to detailed consideration of operation of the Waste Water any buffer needs and environmental Treatment Plant are critical given constraints. the importance of this infrastructure.
The Panel concludes that 91 Howard The owners of the land can Street is likely to have some undertake their own assessment residential development potential but and background studies to resolve there are significant planning issues to these issues. be resolved before such a proposal could be considered, including Any change to the zoning must be whether a buffer from the Coliban agreed to by Coliban Water and the Water plant needs to affect the EPA who have expressed concerns property. with the development of this site.
Issues around bushfire risk would also need to be resolved.
PAGE 81 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Rec. Panel Recommendation Officer Recommendation No. 18. The City of Greater Bendigo review AGREE (c) the zoning of 33G Sawmill Road and land fronting the Midland Highway in the context of its Housing Strategy with a view to future residential use.
The Panel supports the consideration of 33G Sawmill Road for infill development. Given notification has not occurred this should be considered in a future Amendment with the implementation of Housing Strategy. 18. The City of Greater Bendigo review AGREE (d) the zoning of 698 Strathfieldsaye Road, Strathfieldsaye in the context of This is being considered as part of its Housing Strategy with a view to the Housing Strategy. future residential use.
The Panel is reluctant to support direct rezoning of the land through Amendment C215 given it was not included in the Amendment and there has been no notice of it. However the Panel considers that Council could consider a site specific rezoning in advance of the Housing Strategy. 18. The City of Greater Bendigo review AGREE (e) the zoning of 467 Somerset Park Road, Strathfieldsaye in the context of its Housing Strategy with a view to future residential use. 19. The City of Greater Bendigo in its AGREE IN PRINCIPLE Housing Strategy undertake structure planning for the White Hills area. The position put to the Panel was that this is an area that needs to be The Panel considers Council should reviewed. However there are undertake a PSP for White Hills, concerns about including a structure including development contributions plan within the Housing Strategy. and further planning work with Coliban Water. A fully developed structure plan takes considerable resources and As with the Huntly and Maidens Gully time that are not currently budgeted areas, it is recommended that the or planned for. Council undertake a strategic review of its Low Density Residential areas Alternate mechanisms to a fully
PAGE 82 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Rec. Panel Recommendation Officer Recommendation No. within the UGB. While character is an developed structure plan are being important factor, not all character investigated. needs to be protected. Council has made the case for infill over sprawl, and in that context, needs a zoning regime which supports this approach. 20. The City of Greater Bendigo review AGREE the density provisions in the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan in relation to land outside Schedule 26 to the Design and Development Overlay in the preparation of the Housing Strategy, having regard to the Compact City principle in the GBRS.
The 1,500 square metres reference in the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan for Precinct 7 ought to carry little weight as it has not been translated into a statutory control and is inconsistent with the GRZ and strategic focus of the GBRS for a Compact City. This reference ought to be reviewed as part of the Housing Strategy.
In addition to the recommendations made by the Panel, comments were made on a number of submissions that should be noted by Council.
Property/ Summary of Panel Comments Officer Comment Submitter Issue “Precinct 6”, The amendment The Panel understands Consistent with Maiden Gully proposed to the concerns of submitters Council’s position remove the with regard to the impacts that it presented DDO10 control of increased density and at the Panel that has a that the area will undergo minimum change over time. subdivision size However the GBRS of 1500m2. strategically identifies Maiden Gully as a key Submissions growth area and the Panel were received agrees that removing the that both DDO10 for this area, supported and which is zoned GRZ and opposed the in close proximity to the removal of the town centre, to allow DDO10. subdivisions of less than 1,500 square metres will
PAGE 83 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Property/ Summary of Panel Comments Officer Comment Submitter Issue assist in delivering land supply and the ‘Compact City’ model. Huntly The GBRS Given the current land Consistent with (Bagshot indicates the supply in Huntly, the Price Council’s position Investigation land as being land should remain that it presented Area) identified as identified as Potential at the Panel having “potential Longer Term Growth. longer term growth”.
The submitter sought to have the land included within the UGB. Kangaroo Flat The GBRS does The Panel considers that, This land is not (Lockwood not support any in the long term, land needed to Road change to the within the Lockwood Road accommodate Investigation zoning of the Investigation Area has a residential Area) land or its role in Bendigo’s development in inclusion within settlement however this the 15 year the UGB. needs to be considered planning horizon. within the constraints of Review in 2024. The submitters the industrial use Therefore it is not sought to have neighbouring the site. The considered that the land included area should be reviewed there is a need to within the UGB in the context of ITLUS further review in and identified as implementation and the the context of having “potential Housing Strategy and no ITLUS longer term change is recommended implementation growth”. through this Amendment. and the Housing Strategy. Former The GBRS Given the proximity of the This land is not Eaglehawk Golf indicates the site to the UGB, it is not needed to Club Site, 255 land as being considered a ‘logical accommodate Golf Links identified as inclusion’ for the purpose residential Road, Maiden having “potential of this Amendment which development in Gully longer term is applying a short to the short to growth”. medium term UGB. medium term to Therefore the Panel does 2024. The submitter not recommend including sought to have the land within the UGB as This land is the land included part of this Amendment. considered as within the UGB. potentially However, having regard to suitable to meet the site characteristics and the post 2024 – in line with the conclusions 15 year land and recommendations in supply category Chapter 5 regarding as identified in
PAGE 84 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Property/ Summary of Panel Comments Officer Comment Submitter Issue planning for a long term the Bendigo UGB (beyond 2024), the Urban Area Panel encourages Council Residential to consider this site in Growth future strategic work and Framework Plan perhaps send a stronger Greater Bendigo message about it Land Use and development potential in Development subsequent planning. Strategy.
In the meantime the As an alternative designation of Potential it is Long Term Growth is recommended appropriate and provides that the enough direction for future Residential service planning to Growth commence. No change is Framework Plan recommended. be amended to identify the land as being part of a Future Growth Area Maiden Gully North West Structure Plan area, subject to a structure planning exercise which will be undertaken as part of the lead up to the next Residential Strategy review scheduled to be completed and adopted by 2024 and for it to be actively considered as part of the 2024 review of the strategy.
This approach doesn’t preclude the owners of the land undertaking their own assessment and
PAGE 85 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Property/ Summary of Panel Comments Officer Comment Submitter Issue background studies and drafting a structure plan and list of infrastructure they propose to fund. Maiden Gully The GBRS does The Panel has considered Consistent with (Wicks Road not support any the submissions and Council’s position Investigation change to the evidence from Tall Trees that it presented Area) zoning of the carefully, and at face at the Panel. land or its value considers that the inclusion within planning arguments for the UGB due to including the site within significant the UGB as put by Mr environmental Kusznirczuk are impacts persuasive. It is tempting to contemplate an The submitters extension of the UGB sought to have perhaps south along the land included Olympic Parade to within the UGB ‘straighten up’ the and identified as boundary. Having viewed having “potential the evidence in ecology longer term and fire, the Panel also growth”. accepts that the property could support some residential development, albeit with careful design to protect both vegetation and manage bushfire risk. However, the Panel on balance does not consider that this ‘could’ must translate to ‘should’ in this instance. The site remains heavily constrained and there is not in the Panel’s view a demonstrated imperative to extend the UGB into this environment at this time. Uptake of land within the UGB should continue to be the primary focus.
This is in contrast to Hermitage Road area in Maiden Gully outside the
PAGE 86 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Property/ Summary of Panel Comments Officer Comment Submitter Issue UGB where the Panel is supporting its inclusion due to its largely unconstrained nature. Development of the Wicks Road site would entail significant impact on a large remnant parcel of vegetation outside the UGB and require a highly finessed bushfire response. The Panel is not satisfied that, in a net community benefit sense, realising the development potential of the site outweighs the potential impact on the natural environment. Huntly (124 The GBRS does The Panel does not Consistent with Pasley Street, not support any recommend changes to Council’s position Huntly) change to the the zoning for 124 Pasley that it presented zoning of the Street, Huntly in this at the Panel. land. Amendment. However, having regard to its The submitter findings in Chapter 7, it sought to have recommends the zoning the land included regime in this area be with a General reviewed, whether through Residential the upcoming Housing Zone. Strategy or further strategic work.
8 Settlers The GBRS does With regard to 8 Settlers Consistent with Place, Maiden not support any Place, the Panel Council’s position Gully change to the understands why this area that it presented overlay controls was not included within at the Panel. that apply to the the Maiden Gully PSP land. area as it is substantially developed with a The submitter particular ‘bush suburban’ sought to have low density character. the DDO10 Given the development of (1500m2 lot size) the area, it is unlikely that removed. substantial additional yield would be realised. In this context the DDO10 should continue to apply to this area.
PAGE 87 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Property/ Summary of Panel Comments Officer Comment Submitter Issue
137-155 The GBRS does The Panel has inspected Consistent with Edwards Road, not support any this area and, having Council’s position Maiden Gully change to the reviewed the Planning that it presented zoning of the Scheme maps, notes that at the Panel. land. the properties in question are affected by a series of The submitter environmental overlays sought to have including the VPO, ESO the land included and BMO. The properties with a General are heavily vegetated and Residential are surrounded to the Zone. south and west by FZ.
Given the environmental constraints on the site, no changes to the zoning are recommended.
1108 The amendment The proposed LDRZ along Consistent with Wellington proposed to the front of the site will Council’s position Street, rezone the site to support the outcome that it presented Strathfieldsaye part General proposed under DPO26, at the Panel. Residential Zone as well as the VPO. The and part Low Panel supports the zoning Density of part GRZ and LDRZ as Residential Zone proposed under the consistent with Amendment. the Strathfieldsaye Township Zone.
The submitter sought to have the entire site zoned General Residential. 57 Walmer The amendment The rezoning does not Consistent with Street, proposed to require development of Council’s position Strathfieldsaye rezone the site to the land and vegetation that it presented a General issues can be addressed at the Panel. Residential as necessary if consistent with development were to the occur. Strathfieldsaye Township Plan. No change is recommended to the The submitter Amendment. sought to retain
PAGE 88 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Property/ Summary of Panel Comments Officer Comment Submitter Issue the Rural Living Zone 58 Mannes The amendment The Panel considers while Consistent with Lane, did not propose the Intensive Animal Council’s position Strathfieldsaye a change to Industry remains and is that it presented zoning of the active, an adequate buffer at the Panel. land. must be preserved and the zoning of the land The submitter should reflect this. Given sought to have Council’s response, it is the land included understood that within the discussions will continue. General In addition, having regard Residential to proper notification, Zone. rezoning should not occur in this Amendment. The Panel does not support rezoning in this Amendment.
14 Gray Street, The amendment Having regard to the Consistent with Huntly did not propose strategic intent of the Council’s position a change to GBRS, the Panel that it presented zoning of the considers this site is at the Panel. land. considerably isolated from the UGB and there is no The submitter strategic justification to sought to have rezone the property at 14 the land included Gray Street, Huntly under within the Rural this Amendment. Without Living Zone or determining the merit or Low Density otherwise, this matter Residential should instead be Zone. considered in the context of the Rural Communities Strategy.
Marong The submitter The Panel considers that, Consistent with was critical of the given the substantial Council’s position lack of structure growth experienced to that it presented planning for date and planned for at the Panel. Marong and Marong in the GBRS, provision of open structure planning, Preliminary work space. community planning and on the PSP has provision of open space commenced. infrastructure and community services in the town is urgent.
PAGE 89 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Property/ Summary of Panel Comments Officer Comment Submitter Issue The Panel is not in a position to recommend the location of the new recreation reserve but encourages Council to resolve this issue as part of the 2016 PSP.
Ascot The amendment The Panel finds that the Consistent with did not propose area does not have a Council’s position a change to distinct character worth that it presented zoning of the preserving, the defining at the Panel. land. element of character is that it has no discrete The submitter cohesive character. There sought to have is no strategic justification the area rezoned within this Amendment to to a Residential apply new controls which Character Zone limit residential development within the UGB.
Government These The Panel has reviewed Consistent with Agencies submissions the suggested minor Council’s position sought to have wording changes. The that it presented Various various changes Panel does not consider at the Panel. made to the any of these wording wording in the changes are substantive MSS. or determinative of the Amendment and is satisfied that Council can review them and make changes as appropriate.
Housing Strategy
The next stage in the implementation of the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy is to finalise the Housing Strategy. Whereas the GBRS considered residential development at a strategic level, it is the Housing Strategy that will consider in more detail planning scheme changes and the use of the new suite of residential zones.
The C215 Panel also raised a number of issues and sites that also need to be factored into the Housing Strategy.
It is anticipated that the draft Strategy will be presented to Council in April/May this year and then released for community comment.
PAGE 90 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Conclusion
The Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy (2014) has been through an exhaustive development process. This included engagement with the community, the development industry and other stakeholders.
Amendment C215 is proposing to implement the strategy into the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme. The amendment went through an extended exhibition period and attracted more than 70 submissions of which only 12 objected to the amendment.
The Independent Panel appointed to consider the amendment supported the strategy, in particular the proposed strengthening of the UGB and a Compact Bendigo. The Panel did raise some concerns with regard to land supply and as a result of this further investigations have been undertaken. It is now the view of Officers that there is more than enough land to satisfy the 15 year requirement in the State Planning Policy Framework and as such there is no need to include additional land with the UGB.
Options
Council has the option of: Adopting the Amendment in accordance with the above Officer Recommendations and sending to the Minister for Planning for Approval Adopting the Amendment in accordance with the Panel’s recommendations and sending to the Minister for Planning for Approval. Adopting the Amendment in part. Abandoning the Amendment under the Planning and Environment Act 1987. There is no right of review of a council's decision not to support the Amendment.
Resource Implications
Budget Allocation in the Current Financial Year: $90,000 Previous Council Support: There has been past financial support for the development of the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy but none for the subsequent Planning Scheme amendment. External Funding Sources: Funding was been received from Regional Development Victoria to develop the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy. No external funding has been received associated with the planning scheme amendment. Any known or anticipated variance to budget: None known Projected costs for future financial years: There will be costs associated with the next review of the strategy estimated to commence in 2022. Any ongoing recurrent expenditure required: None anticipated.
Attachments
Panel report
PAGE 91 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
RECOMMENDATION
That the Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to:
1. Confirm its commitment to a Compact Bendigo and that it has satisfied the requirements under State Planning Policy to accommodate the projected population growth over a 15 year period.
2. Adopt Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 with changes outlined in Table 1 of this report.
3. Forward the adopted Amendment to the Minister for Planning for Approval, together with the prescribed information pursuant to Section 31(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
PAGE 92 Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
3. PRESENTATION AND VIBRANCY
3.1 GREATER BENDIGO MUNICIPAL EARLY YEARS PLAN (2015-2018)
Document Information
Author Steven Abbott, Manager Community Partnerships David Williamson, Coordinator Young Communities
Responsible Pat Jess, Acting Director Community Wellbeing Director
Summary/Purpose
This report presents a summary of community feedback received during the period of Public Exhibition concerning the Greater Bendigo Municipal Early Years Plan – Creating the Best Future for our Children (2015 to 2018) and seeks Council endorsement to adopt the Greater Bendigo Municipal Early Years Plan and Action Plan including the proposed amendments.
Policy Context
Council Plan Reference:
Theme - Presentation and Vibrancy
Strategic Objective: Greater Bendigo is a child friendly city where people report improved health and wellbeing and they can feel safe.
3.6.2: Work to ensure that services are appropriate to meet the needs of children and young people including early years services and activities, implementation and monitoring of the Youth Strategy.
3.6.5: Support agreed actions that build and improve the physical and emotional wellbeing of children.
Strategy Reference:
The Greater Bendigo Public Health and Wellbeing Plan (2013 – 2017) identified objectives regarding the provision of services and programs to support all people to live in our community including to:
a) Prepare the Municipal Early Years Plan for the City of Greater Bendigo; and
b) Research the highest priority for children in the City of Greater Bendigo.
PAGE 93 Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Background Information
At its meeting on October 14, 2015 Council considered a report into the Greater Bendigo Municipal Early Years Plan (2015 to 2018) – Creating the Best Future for our Children (MEYP). Following consideration of the MEYP, Action Plan and Background Reports, Council resolved to:
a) Release the Draft Greater Bendigo MEYP and Action Plan (2015 – 2018) for a six week period of Public Exhibition and invite public submissions.
b) Receive a further report summarising community feedback and seeking endorsement of a final Greater Bendigo MEYP and Action Plan.
c) Hold a Key Stakeholder Public Forum on November 6, 2015, to discuss the Draft MEYP and Action Plan (2015 - 2018) during the period of Public Exhibition.
The MEYP is a four year plan focussed on responding to the needs of children aged from birth to eight years and their families and carers. The City of Greater Bendigo (the City) recognises that the early years of every child’s life are crucial for their healthy growth, wellbeing and development through life. Accordingly, the MEYP aims to continue to improve the health and wellbeing of children in this age range by establishing the MEYP as the strategic framework through which the City identifies priority needs, plans for future infrastructure and service requirements, facilitates multi-agency partnerships, advocates to other levels of government; and guides the allocation of resources.
There were a number of previous decisions, programs and partnerships which have guided the development of the MEYP including:
a) The recognition of Greater Bendigo as a United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) - Child Friendly City in 2007,
b) The City’s participation in the First Quarter Governance Partnership Group, its Early Years Coordination Sub-Group and the Communities for Children Partnership to facilitate collaborative multi-agency partnership responses to the priority needs of children and young people; and
c) The City’s Review of its role in Early Childhood Services.
Commencing in 2014, the City has undertaken a process to develop the MEYP in consultation with the community including children and families, early years agencies, private business and City services. The MEYP is a four year plan for the period 2015 to 2018 focussed on children aged from birth to eight years and their families and carers. It provides a comprehensive strategic framework to guide the role of the City in the planning and delivery of early years services in partnership with a broad range of early years agencies and local families and children.
The primary elements of this strategic framework are the early years Vision and the six priority themes which have been developed following extensive community consultation, analysis of Federal, State and City plans and policies, the City’s internal Review of its Role in Early Childhood Services; and the level of available resources.
PAGE 94 Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Vision and Themes
The MEYP (Attachment 1) provides a vision and six priority themes as a focus for the City’s role to plan, lead and advocate on behalf of children, families and the local early years sector over the next four years.
Vision:
All children aged from birth to eight years and their families are part of an active, healthy and safe child friendly community that promotes and provides real opportunities for learning and development.
Priority Themes:
1. Safety of Children: to develop a safe community for children and their families.
2. Environment and Facilities for Children: to plan for and develop quality and accessible child friendly spaces and supportive infrastructure.
3. Active and Healthy Children: to improve the health and wellbeing of children.
4. Education and Care: to ensure children have access to the best possible education and care.
5. Whole of Community Partnerships Benefitting Children: to strengthen early year’s partnerships to improve outcomes for children.
6. A Child Friendly City and Community: to ensure the creation of child friendly environments and enhance children’s participation in the decision making processes that impact on their lives.
The vision and priority themes have emerged directly from the analysis of the key stakeholder input, survey responses and children’s drawings that occurred as part of the community engagement and consultation process to develop the MEYP. The direction and relevance of each theme was then confirmed via the other key elements in the planning process to prepare the MEYP, these being: the Review of Existing Early Years Plans and Policies; and the data and trends found in the Greater Bendigo Demographic Profile for Early Years.
The Municipal Early Years Planning Process
The MEYP has been prepared following a significant planning process and the development of a comprehensive evidence base comprising four key elements, these being: a) Community Consultation and Engagement involving children, families and key stakeholder early year’s agencies in the community.
PAGE 95 Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
b) Demographic profiling for early years including collecting and analysing census data, research and services trends. This was used to establish an evidence base concerning the social, economic and population issues that impact on children, families and early year’s services in Greater Bendigo both now and in the long term. c) A review of plans and policies to identify and analyse major Federal, State, City and community reports, strategies, legislation and research findings in relation to the birth to 8 years of age bracket. d) The City’s Review of its Role in Early Childhood Services.
The summary analysis and findings associated with each of the key elements of the MEYP’s evidence base can be found in respective chapters of the MEYP.
The full details regarding each major element of the planning process can be found in the three Background Reports, these being:
Community Engagement and Consultation Report (Attachment 3). Greater Bendigo Demographic Profile for Early Years (Attachment 4); and Review of Early Years Plans and Policies (Attachment 5).
The Municipal Early Years Plan - Action Plan
The MEYP Action Plan (Action Plan) (Attachment 2) sets out specific actions to be undertaken, to respond to the priority themes identified by key stakeholders during the MEYP’s community engagement and consultation process.
The Action Plan acknowledges the important contributions of existing early years agencies in Greater Bendigo and the dedicated contributions of the broader community in their efforts to support children to have the opportunities to learn and grow in a caring and safe environment.
Thus, rather than taking a City centric view, the Action Plan recognises that as well as the City, many other agencies and services are willing and well placed to collaborate with the City to respond to the priority needs of local children and families identified in the MEYP. Accordingly, the Action Plan not only identifies actions to be undertaken by the City over the next four years, it also includes and supports actions that can be taken by local agencies, families and children to respond the MEYP’s six priority themes.
As well as preparing the Action Plan in consultation with responsible agencies and groups, the City has discussed the implementation of the MEYP and Action Plan with the First Quarter Governance Group and its Early Years Coordination Group. As a result of these discussions the City and key stakeholder agencies included in the Action Plan will sign a Joint Partnership Commitment to recognise the whole of community partnership approach being undertaken to respond to the vision, themes and priorities identified in the MEYP and Action Plan.
PAGE 96 Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Previous Council Decision(s) Date(s):
24 September 2015 – presentation to Councillor Forum on Draft MEYP and Action Plan and background reports including Demographic Profile, Community Engagement and Consultation Report and Review of Existing Policy and Programs Report research report background reports.
14 October 2015 – Council resolved to release the Draft MEYP and Action Plan for a six week period of Public Exhibition including holding a Key Stakeholder Public Forum.
Report
The six week period of Public Exhibition for the MEYP, Action Plan and Background Reports concluded on November 27, 2015.
During this time public submissions and feedback were received via three main sources, these being:
Written submissions from six representatives of local agencies,
Facilitated group discussions involving fifty participants at the Key Stakeholder Public Forum held on 6 November 2015; and
On-line surveys submitted by five respondents.
All submissions and feedback received were focused on the MEYP and Action Plan. No submissions were received concerning the three Background reports and it will be recommended these be adopted as are.
The detailed summary of submissions received via these sources including submitter details, summary of submission, the City’s response and recommended amendments to the MEYP and Action Plan can be found in parts 1, 2 and 3 of Attachment 6.
Summary of Public Responses in Attachment 6:
1. Formal submissions – Summary.
In general, the six submissions focused on clarifying, correcting and improving actions in the Action Plan and amendments have been recommended in Attachment 6 in response to points made by each submitter.
Further to recommended amendments to the Action Plan, Submission Five raised the need to include more references to access and inclusion for diverse groups in the community i.e. culturally and linguistically diverse groups and children with disabilities; and that the language of the MEYP could be more inclusive of diversity. This feedback was found to be important and has led to amendments to the MEYP which include incorporating additional references to ‘access’, ‘inclusion’ and ‘including children with different abilities and from diverse backgrounds’.
PAGE 97 Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Part 2 – Key Stakeholder Information Group Feedback
Approximately 50 attendees from a broad range of key stakeholder organisations and groups attended the Forum and participated in facilitated round table discussions concerning the MEYP Themes and priority actions. In summary, much of the feedback supported and/or reiterated the Themes and existing actions and on most occasions no amendments have been required. However, there were a small number of suggestions that have led to recommended amendments and these are articulated in Attachment 6.
Part 3 – Online Survey feedback
In general, feedback provided via the on-line surveys supported or reiterated the Themes in the MEYP and existing actions found in the Action Plan. One respondent’s feedback was directed toward the challenges facing small townships especially those rural communities experiencing high levels of disadvantage with vulnerable and at risk children. In response to this feedback a new action is recommended at 2.1.8 which responds to the challenges faced by disadvantaged small townships.
Part 4 - Summary of Internal Organisation Feedback and Required Amendments
Feedback was also received from various units across the organisation and amendments were recommended by the MEYP Project Control Group. In particular, this feedback identified completed, duplicated and incomplete actions in the Action Plan that needed to be removed; and new actions that covered the existing work of the City.
Priority/Importance:
Developing the MEYP is of high importance as it will enable the City to deliver upon actions from the Council Plan 2013-2017 (2015-2016 Update), specifically:
3.6.2: Work to ensure that services are appropriate to meet the needs of children and young people including early years services and activities, implementation and monitoring of the Youth Strategy; and
3.6.5: Support agreed actions that build and improve the physical and emotional wellbeing of children.
In addition, the Greater Bendigo Public Health and Wellbeing Plan (2013 – 2017) identified objectives regarding the provision of services and programs to support all people to live in our community including to:
Prepare the Municipal Early Years Plan for the City of Greater Bendigo; and Research the highest priority for children in the City of Greater Bendigo.
Timelines:
The MEYP is a four year plan for the period 2015 to 2018.
PAGE 98 Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Risk Analysis:
The MEYP is a major strategic framework and action plan which has garnered the participation and support of key stakeholder groups in the community including families and children, early year’s agencies and community groups. It will play a crucial role in representing Council’s commitment to children and early year’s services including how the City can support vulnerable and at risk children and children from diverse backgrounds. Key risks include:
Not working in ‘whole of community’ partnership approaches to help achieve the MEYP and its vision and priority themes.
Service gaps and unavailability of services due to insufficient planning for the future infrastructure and service needs of a growing population.
Not maximising the resources available from State and Federal government departments to ensure local children and communities continue to have access to appropriate services and infrastructure.
Not engaging children and families in helping to create solutions to local issues and running events and activities that involve their participation.
Failing to capitalise on existing strengths and resources available from other services and community members/groups.
There are a range of strategies that can be implemented to mitigate risks, including:
Work in partnership with the First Quarter Governance Group and its Early Years Coordination Group to provide an additional partnership governance mechanism and oversight for the implementation and review of the MEYP and Action Plan.
Hold annual public forums to present on key issues for the early years sector and report on progress in achieving the MEYP. Also, provide an updated Action Plan and Progress Report via the City’s Municipal Early Years Plan webpage.
Liaise with key State and Federal government departments to identify potential funding programs and submit grant applications to help respond to the future infrastructure and service needs of children and families.
Hold more neighbourhood based activities that involve local children, families and community groups to promote the City’s role in planning, leading and advocating on behalf of local children.
Consultation/Communication
The process to attract, analyse and respond to submissions and feedback during the period of Public Exhibition concluded on November 27, 2015 and comprised both internal and external agency liaison and consultations.
PAGE 99 Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Internal Consultation:
a) The MEYP Project Control Group considered an overall analysis of the submissions and feedback received and oversaw amendments to the MEYP and Action Plan and recommended changes.
b) Each member of the Organisation Leadership Team was provided with access to the MEYP and Action Plan and background reports.
c) Each responsible Manager was consulted to confirm their agreement to implement the action/s in the Action Plan relevant to their service unit.
External Consultation:
During the period of Public Exhibition, external submissions and feedback were received via:
Facilitated group discussions involving fifty participants in the Key Stakeholder Public Forum held on November 6, 2015,
Written submissions from six representatives of local agencies; and
On-line surveys completed by five respondents.
The overall summary of submissions received including submitter details, summary of submission, the City’s response; and recommended amendments to the MEYP and Action Plan can be found in Attachment 6.
Resource Implications
The City allocated $20,000 per annum in 2013/14 and 2014/15 to resource the development the MEYP. These funds were expended on engaging an external project consultant, preparing reports and community information and community engagement activities.
The ongoing implementation and review of the MEYP and Action Plan will be coordinated within existing resources by the Community Partnerships Unit. An amount of $20,000 was allocated in 2015/16 to promote, launch and implement the Greater Bendigo Municipal Early Years Plan (2015 – 2018) and Action Plan.
Conclusion
Developing Municipal Early Years Plans has been a key role for Victorian local governments since 2004. In particular, Municipal Early Years Plans focus on the provision of early year’s services and future priorities for children aged from birth to eight years and their families. The process to update the Greater Bendigo Municipal Early Years Plan (2015 to 2018) has included analysing demographic trends and infrastructure and service needs, connecting with existing City strategies and services and other plans and polices from the Federal, State and community levels; and consulting with key stakeholders including community groups, early years agencies and children themselves.
PAGE 100 Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
The MEYP provides a vision and six priority themes as a focus for the City’s role to plan, lead and advocate on behalf of children, families and the local early years sector over the next four years.
The Action Plan identifies specific actions to be undertaken which will respond to the priority themes identified by key stakeholders during the community engagement and consultation activities undertaken as part of the process to develop the MEYP.
Following a period of Public Exhibition the submissions and feedback received has been considered and analysed resulting in a range of proposed amendments to improve the accuracy and clarity of the MEYP and Action Plan.
Attachments
1. Greater Bendigo Municipal Early Years Plan (2015 - 2018) - Creating the Best Future for our Children.
2. The MEYP Action Plan.
3. Community Engagement and Consultation Report.
4. Greater Bendigo Demographic Profile for Early Years.
5. Review of Early Years' Plans and Policies.
6. Public Exhibition Feedback Summary.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council:
1. Adopt the Greater Bendigo Municipal Early Years Plan - Creating the Best Future for our Children (2015 – 2018) and Action Plan as amended following submissions and feedback received during the period of public exhibition.
2. Adopt the Background Reports comprising the: Community Consultation and Engagement Report, Demographic Profile for Early Years and Review of Early Years' Plans and Policies.
3. Work in a whole of community partnership to implement and review the progress of the Greater Bendigo Municipal Early Years Plan - Creating the Best Future for our Children (2015 – 2018) and Action Plan. Develop a Joint Partnership Agreement for signing by key stakeholders involved in the Action Plan.
4. Launch the Greater Bendigo Municipal Early Years Plan - Creating the Best Future for our Children (2015 – 2018) and Joint Partnership Agreement in collaboration with key stakeholder agencies.
PAGE 101 Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
3.2 PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE OUTDOOR DINING SYSTEM
Document Information
Author/Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning and Development Director
Summary/Purpose
Several hospitality businesses have contacted the City to enquire if revised arrangements for the establishment of outdoor dining areas could be considered to make the process more affordable and allow the businesses to better contribute to the vibrancy of the City.
This report recommends introducing temporary permits for a short period of expected high visitor numbers and changes to the infrastructure payment process for the future.
Policy Context
City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013 – 2017 (2015-2016 Update) Theme 1 - Leadership & Good Governance 1.6 Programs, projects and services are guided by best practice principles and delivered to respond to community needs. Theme 3 - Presentation & Vibrancy 3.1 Greater Bendigo has attractive and accessible parks, public places and streetscapes that are widely used and enable people to be healthy and active.
Bendigo CBD Plan 2005 The Bendigo CBD Plan 2005 is the guiding strategy for all projects in the Bendigo City Centre. The key aim of the Plan is to attract more people to the city centre for longer.
Economic Development Strategy 2014-2020 Encourage and support the development and promotion of lifestyle-enhancing restaurants, cafes and bars across central Bendigo and proactively work with this sector to encourage networking, marketing and product development.
Background Information
As a growing City that has seen substantial and continued growth in its population and major events, there has been an increase in street activity and vibrancy, a positive boost to the City's economy and new opportunities for hospitality and other retail businesses.
PAGE 102 Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
The Outdoor Dining and Street Trading Code of Practice (the Code) clearly articulates the application, design and decision making process, as well as ongoing management and maintenance expectations that aim to create vibrant, accessible and active street frontages.
Report
Over recent years the City has seen a significant increase in the amount of outdoor dining permits in the Bendigo CBD alone. It is important that the City responds appropriately to emerging trends and issues. Concern has been expressed that requiring businesses to pay the total cost of the required infrastructure works upfront is not affordable and is making the desired outcome of street vibrancy less achievable.
The objectives of the proposed changes to outdoor dining are to: 1. Build the vibrancy of the City. 2. Make it easier and more affordable for hospitality businesses to have outdoor dining on footpaths, in the long term. 3. Enable businesses to capture the opportunity of upcoming events and festivals and provide a better experience for people in the short term.
Infrastructure Process and Payment
Current Arrangements:
Businesses currently pay the total cost of required infrastructure, upfront. This includes: Sockets for barriers and umbrellas. Paving. Any incidentals if required - signage, relocation of services. Supply of the barriers, to the standards in the Code. Project management and liaison with contractors (who are engaged by the City).
Although the cost to create an on-footpath outdoor dining area is site specific, the average cost is approximately $8,000 - $10,000, although some sites can be as high as $18,000.
Proposed Arrangements:
It is proposed to introduce a staging of the payment of infrastructure costs to make it more affordable for new and smaller businesses: The business will pay the first instalment of 25% of the cost once the outdoor dining application has been assessed as appropriate and design and a cost estimate has been prepared. The business will pay the second instalment of 25% before paving works commence. The 50% balance will be paid in quarterly instalments (separate from the outdoor dining permit fee) over a 3 year period. In effect, it is a short term, interest free loan. The business will continue to provide the barriers, in a colour and style approved by the Code. The City will engage and supervise contractors undertaking the paving works.
PAGE 103 Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
The City will allocate an annual amount for its 50% upfront contribution and when it is spent, other applicants will have to wait until the following year. This is the same model as the Heritage Loan Fund.
The following table shows the approximate repayments over the 3 year period.
Approximate Annual Repayment Type of Business 50% Loan Total Cost for 3 Years Small - 10sqm $6,200 $3,100 $1,033 Medium - 18sqm $10,800 $5,400 $1,800 Large - 27sqm $16,000 $8,000 $2,666
The deferred payment option will only be available to businesses that have a record of prompt payment of all Council fees and charges. A clear policy, application form and assessment process for the loan has been developed.
If the final cost is slightly more or less than the estimate done at design stage, annual payments will be adjusted to accommodate the difference. Also, the outstanding debt will be linked to the outdoor dining permit so if a business is sold, the new owner need to agree to take on the debt.
Short-term Use of Temporary Permits
As some businesses want to establish an outdoor dining area immediately, to take advantage of increased visitors generated by upcoming events and festivals, it is proposed to introduce a temporary permit process for applications in the Bendigo CBD.
Temporary arrangements are necessary as the City does not want footpaths under construction in a time of high pedestrian traffic. Businesses in other areas can still apply for the loan, but there should be no need for temporary arrangements as permanent arrangements can be implemented.
The business will be required to lodge a formal application that meets the general requirements of the Code of Practice, accessibility and suitability. The site and proposed design will then be assessed. If approved, sockets, barriers and umbrellas can be installed. No paving works will commence until mid-July 2016.
Businesses that are given a temporary permit will follow the same infrastructure payment process as detailed above. An ongoing outdoor dining permit will be issued once the paving works are completed.
For this group, the 25% deposit that will be paid once the design is approved and will be non-refundable to provide assurance that businesses will proceed to complete the permanent works later in the year.
PAGE 104 Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Consultation/Communication
The payment scheme and temporary permit process have been developed internally by a working party comprising of the Director Planning & Development, Manager Environmental Health & Local Laws, Acting Manager Engineering & Public Space and Place Manager.
A sample of 3 businesses; small, medium and large; well established and new were consulted on this proposal.
They were very appreciative of the options being considered and so promptly. It was at their suggestion that the proposal include: The 25% up-front, 25% immediately before paving construction (rather than 50% up- front) and 50% over 3 years payment structure. Quarterly payment of the amount owing.
Resource Implications
For 2015/2016 there will only be a small amount of funding required as the majority of the works will not commence until the 2016/2017 year. It is proposed to reallocate unspent funds from the Heritage Loan Scheme for any works required this financial year.
There will be a maximum of $50,000 funding available for the 2016/2017 year. The $80,000 Heritage Loan Fund will be divided into $30,000 for Heritage and $50,000 for outdoor dining. This can be reviewed if the proportion of requests does not match this. This would allow about 10 businesses at the average cost to construct outdoor dining.
Conclusion
The vision of "Greater Bendigo - working together to be Australia's most liveable regional city" will be achieved by small steps as well as large. This proposed change to the way we establish new outdoor dining areas on footpaths is one of the smaller steps and will contribute to the economy and vibrancy of our City. It is also a pro-active response to a clearly stated need by local hospitality businesses.
RECOMMENDATION
That Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to approve: 1. The introduction of a staged payment structure for the required infrastructure works associated with outdoor dining. 2. The reallocation of funds from the Heritage Loan Scheme for any works required in the 2015/2016 financial year. 3. The use of temporary outdoor dining permits where necessary. 4. The reallocation of $50,000 from the Heritage Loan Scheme for 2016/2017 to establish the Outdoor Dining Loan Fund.
PAGE 105 Productivity - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
4. PRODUCTIVITY
Nil.
PAGE 106 Sustainability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
5. SUSTAINABILITY
5.1 PROPOSED KERBSIDE ORGANICS SERVICE FOR URBAN RESIDENTS OF BENDIGO AND MARONG
Document Information
Authors Bridgette McDougall, Organics Project Officer Darren Fuzzard, Director Presentation and Assets
Responsible Darren Fuzzard, Director Presentation and Assets Director
Summary/Purpose
This report explores options to deliver on Council’s commitment in the Waste & Resource Management Strategy 2014 to stop household organics from going to landfill. It recommends that Council introduces a fortnightly kerbside organics service for urban residents in Bendigo and Marong.
Policy Context
Council Plan Reference:
City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013-2017 (2015-2016 Update):
Theme: 1 Leadership and Good Governance Strategic Objective 1 Council demonstrates leadership in its decisions to meet future needs and challenges. Strategic Objective 4 Continuous improvement methods are used to ensure the standard of service delivery is excellent. Challenges and Council has a strategic leadership role in setting priorities Opportunities and making decisions that will enhance the wellbeing of our communities and enable effective planning for the future. Challenges and People increasingly want to take an active part in Opportunities consultation about each phase of the development of new Council initiatives, strategies, masterplans and service reviews. Theme: 5 Sustainability Challenges and Reducing waste to landfill has become a very important Opportunities priority because of the increasing costs and environmental obligations associated with waste disposal. Strategy 5.5 The level of waste to landfill is reduced and residual waste is managed responsibly, to deliver the adopted waste
PAGE 107 Sustainability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
management targets. Action 5.5.1 Implement the Waste Management Strategy including creating a solution to managing kerbside organics.
Strategy Reference (include weblink as applicable):
City of Greater Bendigo Waste & Resource Management Strategy
The development of a solution to stop household organics (food and green) from going to landfill is a key action in Council’s Waste and Resource Management Strategy 2014- 2019.
Background Information
In 2014 the Greater Bendigo City Council adopted its Waste and Resource Management Strategy (the strategy).
A major initiative of the strategy is the removal of household generated organic material (both food and green) from the waste stream. In doing so, the strategy recognised that the Greater Bendigo community was ranked 73 out of 79 Victorian Local Government Areas for its performance in recycling/reuse of kerbside waste from residents. This reflected a ‘diversion’ (from landfill) rate of 26% compared with a Statewide average of 44%.
The strategy identified that approximately 1/3 of the average residential waste bin is made up of food waste and between 17 and 36 percent (subject to seasonal variation) is green (garden) waste. Together these were estimated to total between 12,000 and 17,000 tonnes per year of organic material going to landfill.
The strategy identified that, in 2014 dollars, a kerbside solution could be introduced to remove and recycle organic material in our residential waste bins at an additional cost of around $70 per household.
Since Council’s adoption of the strategy, the State Government has adopted the Statewide Waste and Resource Recovery Infrastructure Plan 2015-44 (the plan). As its first goal, the plan states “landfills will only be for receiving and treating waste streams from which all materials that can be viably recovered have been extracted”.
The plan continues that within five years “material streams….will be diverted from landfills if it is economically viable and if it can improve community, environment and public health impacts”. The plan further indicates that “planning of new landfill airspace will be based on the volume of residual waste streams remaining after all materials that can be recovered viably have been extracted”.
According to the plan, “the major cause of greenhouse gas emissions from the waste and resource recovery sector arise from the breakdown of putrescible waste (ie. biodegradable material such as food, green waste and paper) in landfills. When these materials break down they generate by-products, one of which is methane. Methane gas is at least 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide and is estimated to account for around 86% of the total greenhouse gases from the waste sector”.
PAGE 108 Sustainability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
At Eaglehawk landfill, despite methane gas being extracted and converted to power, an estimated 24,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent gas was emitted in 2014/15. This represents more than half of the City’s total reported emissions.
Commencing in December 2014 and concluding in March 2015, Councillors participated in three workshops facilitated by City of Greater Bendigo staff to explore and analyse options for a residential kerbside organic collection service.
As part of the workshops, a series of research papers (the papers) were prepared by staff that identified 27 other Councils in South Australia and New South Wales where a kerbside organic service (including both food and green waste) had been introduced. In almost all instances, the organic service was being provided on a fortnightly basis and the residual waste on a weekly basis. The predominant reasons for doing this being:
Concerns about odour by changing the residual waste from a weekly to a fortnightly collection; particularly in relation to nappies; and
Making one service change at a time to allow the community the opportunity to first become comfortable with the new service.
The papers further identified that around 40 percent of the cost of providing a kerbside service relates to the bins being picked up by the truck. Hence, from an affordability perspective, it noted that the less frequent the service is, the cheaper it would be for residents. Specifically, the papers predicted an additional annual cost of around $35/household if a fortnightly residual waste/fortnightly organic bin service is provided and around $63/household/year extra if one of those services is undertaken on a weekly basis and the other fortnightly. These costs are based on an amortised cost of kitchen caddies and new wheelie bins, bin liners, kerbside collection, transport of material to the processing plant and processing of material. Due to the diversion and reduction of waste, it is predicted to save $23 in landfill levy costs if a weekly residual service remains, or $51 if a fortnightly service is adopted based on a reduction of the landfill levy and reduced collection costs.
The paper also referenced a trial undertaken in South Australia by 10 Councils which found that while a fortnightly residual waste service was problematic in some instances (due to odour), a higher diversion of organic material into the organic bin was achieved.
In consideration of the above, the majority of Councillors indicated a preference to pursue fortnightly kerbside collection services for residual waste and organic material. In doing so, Councillors endorsed the development of a large scale trial to test the appropriateness of such an approach before a decision would be made on the final service to be implemented.
Councillors also considered the merits of providing kitchen caddies, organic bin liners/bags, an exemption process, a dedicated project officer and an education package to support the initiative. All of these initiatives were requested to be included in the trial.
Prior to commencing the trial, it was considered important to verify that a genuine processor (recycler) of food and green organics existed and that it could cost-effectively service Greater Bendigo. Consequently, Councillors endorsed an expression of interest
PAGE 109 Sustainability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016 and tender process for the bulk transport and processing of organic material that led to Council awarding Contract CT000161 to Biomix in October 2015.
The contract was awarded on the basis of the transport and processing required for the proposed trial (only). Continuation of the contract thereafter is conditional upon Council’s decision to go to full implementation of the residential kerbside organic service. If the service proceeds, this contract will be in place for five years.
To establish an appropriate trial area that could readily be implemented an analysis of the demographic and land/building mix on current waste service routes was undertaken. A combination of the Thursday morning pickups in the Strathdale/Kennington and White Hills/East Bendigo/North Bendigo areas were found to best mimic the average mix of the whole city and resulted in a trial comprising 2,671 households. To assure the best possible understanding of the community response to such a service, participation in the trial was made mandatory.
In the lead up to the trial, participating households were provided with a 240L organics wheelie bin, a kitchen caddy and a roll of 150 compostable caddy liners. Education material outlining how to use these and an explanation for the trial was also included. Contact details of the support officer dedicated to assisting participants were provided and a major media launch was undertaken to promote this.
The trial commenced on 10 September 2015 and remains in place. As at early February 2016, there has been 12 organic collections with over 350 tonnes of organic material recovered. On a pro-rata basis, this would equate to a predicted recovery of more than 12,000 tonnes from almost 42,000 households.
Although the contamination rate of the organic material collected has varied over the 12 weeks, this rate has consistently remained within acceptable levels for the processor. The first collection had a contamination rate of 1.36% and contamination peaked at 4.65%. The most common contaminants have included plastic bags, bottles, food packaging, nappies and clothing.
Commencing on 27 November and closing on 11 December 2015, an extensive survey was mailed to 2,671 households within the trial area. In all, 1,198 responses were received and represented an unprecedented response rate of 45%.
‘Bin audits’ were conducted on 12 and 19 November 2015 at 50 randomly selected properties from each of the two service areas in the trial. These audits occurred in consecutive weeks on first the residual waste bins and then the organics bins.
The survey results and the bin audits have been made available to the public on the City of Greater Bendigo website at:- https://www.bendigo.vic.gov.au/Services/Rubbish_and_Recycling/Organics_collection#. VsFOSbfou70
All Councillors have been issued with an electronic copy of these results and a hard copy was placed in the Councillor’s Room.
PAGE 110 Sustainability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
In summary, the survey results indicated that 1,080 (or 92% of) respondents are using the organics bin. The remaining 96 (or 8% of) respondents indicated that they are not using the organics bin because they have home composting/worm farm/chickens, use a private contractor for their garden waste and/or feel that they do not have sufficient waste to warrant the use of the service. Other key findings of the survey were:
875 (or 78% of) respondents indicated that the fortnightly collection of the organics bin suits their household’s needs. 246 (or 22%) said that it did not.
772 (or 67% of) respondents indicated that the fortnightly collection of the residual waste bin suits their household’s needs. 378 (or 33%) said that it did not. Of those not satisfied by the fortnightly service, 161 referred to concerns about odour; particularly in relation to nappies and pet waste.
24 (or 2% of) respondents had on average an ‘overfull’ organics bin.
157 (or 14% of) respondents had on average an ‘overfull’ residual waste bin.
832 (or 75% of) respondents found the organics system very or extremely easy to use. 89 (or 8% of) respondents found it slightly or not at all easy to use.
Key findings of the bin audits were:
On average, the organics bin weighed 13.1kg and comprised 81.2% garden organics, 14.1% food organics and 4.7% residual waste (contaminants)
On average, the residual waste bin weighed 12kg and comprised 79.7% residual waste, 13.1% food organics and 7.2% garden organics.
Overall, on average, 83% of organic material was being diverted from landfill through the organics bin.
On average, food waste is being disposed of almost evenly between the organics and residual waste bins.
The initial 30 question survey of residents was conducted to obtain critical feedback about the suitability of the fortnightly kerbside organic and residual waste services. The survey purposely excluded reference to the cost of service at that time. To obtain an insight from participants about how they judge cost versus level of service (having experienced almost a full summer), a follow-up survey was conducted from 4 to 12 February 2016. At the time of writing this report, responses to the survey continue to be received and a media release encouraging further responses by 18 February 2016 was issued on 12 February 2016.
As at 22 February 2016, 717 responses have been received and the results are:
365 (or 51% of) respondents favour a fortnightly organic and fortnightly residual waste bin service at an additional cost of $35 per annum.
301 (or 42% of) respondents favour a fortnightly organic and weekly residual waste bin service at an additional cost of $63 per annum.
PAGE 111 Sustainability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
51 (or 7% of) respondents favour a weekly organic and fortnightly residual waste bin service at an additional cost of $63 per annum.
31 households in the trial area returned the survey and indicated that they do not support the introduction of any kerbside organic service.
A further bin audit was conducted on 4 and 11 February 2016. Key findings of this audit were:
Average 10.3kg of organics per household.
25% food organics in organics bin.
Average 11kg material in residual waste bin.
27% food organics in residual waste bin.
A further workshop was held with Councillors on 22 February 2016 to discuss the feedback from the two questionnaires and the data collected on the trial. At this workshop, an additional variation to the proposed services was raised being an optional fortnight collection of the residual waste rather than weekly collection.
Discussion
The trial of a fortnightly organics bin and fortnightly residual waste bin service to almost 2,700 households has been invaluable to testing and determining how a kerbside organics collection service could best be introduced to Greater Bendigo. In particular:
The need for an exemption process
As previously noted, the trial service was introduced to participants on a ‘mandatory’ basis. While feedback obtained from the survey indicates that some households were upset by this, it is considered that doing so has given the greatest opportunity for Council to understand the full range of attitudes toward an organics collection service.
During earlier workshops, Councillors expressed a strong view that an exemption process is required to allow households (within the final service area) to demonstrate that they do not need the kerbside organics service to sustainably manage their food and garden organics. This approach is reinforced by Council’s commitment in the Waste & Resource Management Strategy to encourage household level solutions such as worm farms and composting.
Of the 2,671 households involved in the trial, 16 requested and were granted an exemption for this reason. In doing so, they created the basis on which a proposed exemption process could be offered. See Attachment 1.
As has been experienced in the trial, it is critical to make clear to those seeking an exemption that their household level organics system must genuinely manage all organics and that it is an ongoing commitment.
PAGE 112 Sustainability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
The challenge for Council then becomes to what extent this effort is rewarded financially through an altered waste services fee.
Based on financial modelling, it is predicted that the gross annual cost of introducing the kerbside organic service on a fortnightly basis is $86 per household (in 2016 figures).
To ensure that any exemption granted is genuinely achieving diversion of organics from the kerbside waste stream requires an approval and monitoring process. The work required to maintain the exemption process would be accommodated in the education officer role that is recommended for the first two years of the service.
On balance, in recognition of Council’s objective in the Waste & Resource Recovery Strategy to support household–level solutions, it is considered that an exemption process with a fee reduction recognising the avoided direct cost of service nominated above is the most appropriate approach.
Council also wished to explore the option or need to provide an exemption for multi-unit developments. I.E. To permit residents in such circumstances to ‘share’ bins rather than each have their own. This need or desire was tested in the trial survey and of the 157 respondents living in units or flats, 80 percent indicated that they did not wish to share a bin. In the comments provided however, it was evident that some participants found storage of the additional 240L bin a challenge.
On balance, the most appropriate response to multi-unit development situations is considered to be to provide individual bins with an option to reduce these to 140L in size.
Provision of kitchen caddies and liners to support the service
As indicated to Councillors in earlier working papers, studies conducted internationally and in Australia suggest that the greatest recovery of organic waste occurs when a kitchen caddy and compostable bags are provided to residents.
On this basis, two caddy types and liners were trialled. Overall the survey results indicated that 873 (or 78% of) respondents found the kitchen caddy and liners easy to use.
Of the 245 (or 22% of) respondents who found the system not easy to use, common comments regarding the caddy included that it was too big or too small or was unsightly on the kitchen bench.
The caddy used in the Strathdale/Kennington area was found to be better liked than that in the White Hills/East Bendigo/North Bendigo area. The Strathdale/Kennington caddy was also half the cost of the other. It is proposed that the Strathdale/Kennington caddy would be rolled out in the full scale service.
A larger number of comments relate to the bags provided. Many of these comments suggest to the authors that more upfront education in how to use the bags effectively and then ongoing familiarity with them will assist over time. One structural change proposed is to increase the size of the bags so that they can be tied off effectively and a print will be added to indicate where and how to open them.
PAGE 113 Sustainability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
970 (or 91% of) respondents indicated that they occasionally or never experienced offensive odour with the use of the caddies in the house. Again, ongoing familiarity with using the system and larger bags that can be tied off is expected to improve this further.
The survey found that 921 (or 89% of) respondents used four or less compostable bags per week. Therefore, a roll of 150 compostable bags is likely to meet the needs of most residents per year. Again to assist in the successful rollout of the service, it is considered beneficial to provide each household with a roll of compostable bags and to make further rolls available on an as-needed basis throughout the year. Further, during the initial years of the new service at least, it is proposed that an annual allocation of bags to households occurs.
The Role of Education and Compliance Activities
Large scale behaviour change processes (such as stopping organic material going from our homes into landfill) is an immense task that takes considerable time and effort to achieve. The kerbside recycling service implemented by Council decades ago provides a highly relevant and strong example of this. Despite years of recycling promotion through many avenues, the Bendigo community continues to discard between 9 and 12 percent of ‘traditional’ recyclables in our household waste bins.
During early Councillor workshops, the need for and value of an education plan was discussed in detail and the attached communication and education plan which utilises a variety of media and communication mechanisms was developed. Refer Attachment 2.
As part of the trial, many of the activities nominated in the plan were implemented and tested. 770 (or 65% of) survey respondents indicated that they were aware the trial was taking place before their bin arrived. 660 (or 74% of) respondents indicated that they learnt this from the introductory letter sent to their home and 314 (or 35% of) respondents saw it advertised in the newspaper.
797 (or 68% of) respondents found the educational material provided with the bin very or extremely informative. 99 (or 8.5% of) respondents found it either slightly or not at all informative. In a separate question 1,056 (or 91% of) respondents indicated that they did not find any part of the educational material confusing.
While overall the communication and education material offered appears to have been well received and effective, comments provided will enable this to be further improved as part of the broader rollout. Results of the bin audits also suggest that ongoing investment in education about the purpose of each bin and the importance of using these correctly will be needed.
Survey responses also suggest that the following improvements to information provided could be made:
A magnetised collection calendar.
A sticker listing what can go in the organics bin be placed on top of the kitchen caddy.
Advice regarding how to obtain a new roll of caddy liners.
PAGE 114 Sustainability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Better guidance on where animal droppings and cat litter go.
Clarify which cardboard can go in the organics bin and which should go in the recycling bin.
Clarify which bin old clothing and material should be placed in.
Greater assurance that items such as bones and fruit seeds are acceptable to put in the organics bin.
An update on the communication plan and education material in consideration of the feedback and experience during the trial will be provided to Council as part of rolling out the broader service.
While positive and long lasting behaviour change is recognised by leading authors such as Daniel Goleman to be most effectively influenced by adopting a positive and constructive approach, it is also acknowledged that in some instances stronger measures are needed.
On 1 October 2014, Council adopted its updated approach to compliance and enforcement. See Attachment 3.
This policy supports the three step approach of educate, inform and then enforce if necessary.
Consistency with the adopted approach in regard to the organics initiative is considered appropriate.
Frequency of service and cost
Based on feedback in the first survey of participants about the service standard offered in the trial, three options appeared to warrant further participant feedback:
1. A fortnightly organic and fortnightly residual waste service at an annual additional cost per household (in 2016 dollars) of $35.
2. A weekly residual waste service and fortnightly organic service at an annual additional cost per household (in 2016 dollars) of $63.
3. A weekly organic service and fortnightly residual waste service at an annual additional cost per household (in 2016 dollars) of $63.
As at 22 February, 2016 feedback from the second survey conducted in February indicated that, when offered the opportunity to consider both level of service and associated price together, 42% of respondents would prefer the residual waste service to remain weekly compared with 33% in the initial survey (where only level of service was considered).
PAGE 115 Sustainability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Each option offers different benefits and creates different challenges for people in different circumstances in our community. The challenge for Council is determining which option best meets the majority of community needs while giving fair consideration to the ability of all households to pay. At the same time the evidence shows that leadership is needed if we are to improve our collective environmental performance and to reduce the long term cost of our household waste.
A further and critical consideration must be the need to ensure that the option chosen will engender a strong and enduring positive commitment from the vast majority of the community toward our ultimate objectives. To do this, the proposal must be widely seen as a practical, fair and logical step. Sustainability Victoria’s short term horizon for change (nominated in the Statewide Waste & Resource Recovery Infrastructure Plan) of five years and full realisation of its objectives at 30 years is instructional.
In this regard, while 67% of trial respondents initially indicated that fortnightly residual waste collections have been meeting their household needs, support for this option dropped to 51% in the second survey when participants were provided information on the cost of each service. At full rollout, this could translate to around 20,000 households being dissatisfied with the service and still be made to pay $35 more than they currently do.
Again, change management most effectively occurs when a positive attitude toward the change is created and then builds momentum.
It is considered that, as has been found in many other Local Government areas, changing the residual waste collection frequency from a weekly to a fortnightly service is a significant challenge in itself and the second survey has indicated that 50% of residents are prepared to pay more to retain a weekly service. Hence, introducing a new fortnightly organic service at the same time creates the potential for considerable resistance to be developed against both initiatives.
While acknowledging that retaining the current weekly residual waste service (and adding a fortnightly organics bin) would mean an annual increase of $63 to households, doing so would ensure that all households continue to have a primary service that meets their needs while they become positively engaged in removing organic waste from our landfills.
In addition, by retaining a weekly residual waste bin, the risk of contamination in the organics bin with residual waste is substantially reduced. In turn this will reduce the risk of paying higher processing fees due to excess contamination.
That said, it is recognised that the first two options do not create the encouragement to divert organics from landfill the way that the third option (with a weekly organic service and fortnightly residual waste service) would. Again however, the third option suffers from a similar risk of the broad resistance noted for the first option. Added to this, is an even higher cost than option one which in turn is likely to further elevate the level of dissatisfaction. The significant lack of support for this option demonstrated by the second survey of trial participants clearly suggests that this option is not currently appropriate to pursue in Greater Bendigo.
PAGE 116 Sustainability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Across urban areas of Greater Bendigo, 2,539 businesses currently utilise the weekly ‘household’ waste service. These businesses sit outside the ‘CBD’ service (where dedicated trucks make it possible to provide an individually ‘catered’ service at a higher fee) and therefore any change to the existing weekly service would impact on these businesses.
On balance, it is therefore considered that retention of the existing weekly kerbside residual waste service and the addition of a fortnightly organics service, offers the best overall next step in our collective progress toward minimising the resource that currently goes to landfill as waste.
Further to this, the suggestion at the 22 February 2016 Councillor workshop to consider introducing an ‘option’ to have a fortnightly residual waste service (in lieu of the current and proposed weekly service) has been assessed and is not recommended.
The maximum saving predicted of moving all 42,000 urban households from a weekly to fortnightly residual waste collection service is $28 per year per household. However, when this is done on an ‘optional’ basis the predicted savings are reduced considerably due to the systems and processes required to ensure that households only receive the service that they are paying for. At its simplest this would involve the additional cost of individual identification of each bin’s level of paid service and assessment by the waste truck driver of whether each bin is due to be picked up. In doing so, the efficiency of each truck is reduced (compared to the current approach where no such assessment is required).
Further, in such a scenario the need to continue to drive every street every week is not diminished and, given that 40 percent of the total service cost relates to this activity, the savings able to be passed on become very small.
It is suggested that the current option to allow households the choice to downsize their bin is a more suitable approach from an overall service efficiency perspective and hence offers better value to all ratepayers.
In the February 2016 workshop, Councillors also expressed a strong desire to ensure that the opportunity to build on this initial step is not hampered by long term contractual commitments for the collection service. In doing so, Council asked that any proposed contract for collection of organics allow for a review of the adopted kerbside collection frequencies within two years of the service being introduced. Accordingly, should Council adopt the recommendation, the collection service advertised will seek prices to enable an assessment of costs associated with both a two year and (traditional) 7 year contract period.
Service Area
During workshop discussions, Councillors expressed a desire to roll out the organics service to as great a number of households as possible within ‘urban’ areas. Council indicated that this should include urban areas in Bendigo and Marong initially, with a further stage to roll out the service to Heathcote and other small towns. This would equate to around 40,600 households as part of the initial roll out in 2016/17 and a further 1,500 households in 17/18. A map detailing the proposed limits of the organics service for the initial rollout is included as Attachment 4.
PAGE 117 Sustainability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Timelines
The time required to implement a new service is dependent upon the service option that Council determines. However, it is suggested that the key time for the service to be operational is at the start of the 2016 Spring season. While some options will result in longer lead times than others, it is predicted that all options can be ready to commence at the start of Spring.
Risk Analysis
The major risk associated with the introduction of any new service and/or change to an existing service is its acceptance by the broader community. The trial of fortnightly kerbside collection services in almost 2,700 households during the hotter months of the year has provided an immense amount of information to better understand this risk. The conclusions and recommendations in this report have been strongly influenced by this information together with research on the experiences of other Councils who have sought such changes.
Other Implications
As Council is aware, private contractor Greenaway currently provides a fortnightly kerbside green organics collection service to approximately 2,500 households in Greater Bendigo.
Introduction of the proposed compulsory (with exemptions) kerbside organics service can be anticipated to impact on this existing business in two ways. Should Council elect to introduce a fortnightly/fortnightly combination of collection services, then (as has been the case in the trial area) this can be accommodated by the City’s existing collection resources. Households wishing to remain with Greenaway could do so but would be required to demonstrate through the exemption process that all organic material is being managed.
Alternatively, should Council retain the existing weekly residual waste collection service and introduce a fortnightly organics service, the organics collection would be competitively tendered. This would then create the opportunity for Greenaway and others to win a contract to service around 40,000 households. Should Greenaway not be successful in this process, households would again retain the ability to seek an exemption and remain with Greenaway.
Consultation/Communication
External Consultation:
Community consultation on the organics initiative began with the development of the Waste and Resource Management Strategy that was adopted in 2014. As the most significant change initiative in the strategy, it received considerable media attention and promotion. Extensive consultation occurred in the development of the strategy. This was overseen by a reference committee chaired by a Councillor and made up predominantly of community members.
PAGE 118 Sustainability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Following Council’s decision to conduct an organics trial, the position of Organics Project Officer was created.
Four listening posts were held prior to the commencement of the trial at Lake Weeroona, White Hills shopping precinct, IGA Strath Village and Coles McIvor Highway.
A launch of the trial occurred through all local media outlets and the City’s own communication mechanisms in August 2015.
Contact details of the Organics Project Officer were provided to all participating households for enquiries. To date, 191 calls have been received. The City’s customer service team has also logged 45 requests on behalf of residents from within and outside of the trial area.
Ongoing media releases and the City’s website are being used to keep the general public informed of findings during the trial.
The Organics Project Officer gave a presentation to Strathdale Probus Club in August 2015 and to the Rotary Club of Bendigo Sandhurst in December 2015.
An extensive survey of 2,671 participants in the trial areas was mailed out in November 2015. The survey was also available in an online version. A response rate of 45% was achieved and has significantly contributed to the recommendations of this report.
A kerbside waste audit was undertaken by Wastemin over two weeks in November to assess the contents of the general waste, recycling and organics bins in the trial areas. A follow up audit was conducted in February 2016.
A second survey of participants was undertaken in February 2016.
Resource Implications
In line with State Government policy, Greater Bendigo City Council attempts to ensure that the cost of waste management services are fully funded by the waste-related fees and charges adopted each year in the budget.
The previously described costs associated with the three options for introducing a kerbside organic service to the residual waste service represent the net additional annual charges that would be applied to household waste fees if adopted. The following full year fees for individual services would apply (as adjusted on a pro-rata basis for timing to introduce organics service) subject to the service option adopted by Council:
PAGE 119 Sustainability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Service Frequency Full Year Gross Full Year Gross Cost (2015/16) Cost (2016/17) Urban Organics Fortnightly n/a 86 140L or 240L Urban Residual Fortnightly n/a 91 Waste 140L Urban Residual Weekly 138 119 Waste 140L Urban Residual Fortnightly n/a 194 Waste 240L Urban Residual Weekly 238 222 Waste 240L Rural Residual Weekly 138 142 Waste 140L Rural Residual Weekly 238 245 Waste 240L Recycling Fortnightly 64.50 66.50 All Service Areas
Notes: ‘Urban’ refers to the areas nominated to receive a mandatory kerbside organics service in this report. ‘Rural’ refers to all other areas in Greater Bendigo including smaller townships not nominated in the ‘Urban’ areas. The figures in 2016/17 have been increased by 3 percent to reflect normal price increases due to wage, plant operating and contractual costs.
Budget Allocation in the Current Financial Year:
The trial is funded from the 2015/16 operating budget at an estimated cost of $65,000. A capital works budget provision has also been made to purchase the required infrastructure for full implementation.
External Funding Sources:
A $500,000 grant from Sustainability Victoria has been received for the implementation of a kerbside organics collection service.
Conclusion
Following adoption of Council’s Waste and Resource Management Strategy in 2014, extensive work has occurred to determine what an appropriate kerbside organic (food and garden waste) collection service for urban households would be.
Finding a balance between what level of service the community expects and what it is prepared to pay is challenging. So too, considerable leadership is required to raise our collective performance on diversion from landfill and to position us well for the strategic direction of the State Government with respect to managing organic material.
PAGE 120 Sustainability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
On balance, the best option to respond to these challenges is considered to be the introduction of a mandatory fortnightly organic collection service in nominated urban areas in addition to the existing weekly residual waste collection service.
That said, there is a clear desire of Councillors to consider further steps to remove organics from the kerbside waste collection through expansion of the organics collection service to Heathcote and other small towns, along with a further review of the frequency of kerbside services within two years of the full service being rolled out.
Attachments
1. Kerbside Organics Exemption Policy 2. Compliance Policy 3. Proposed Service Area
RECOMMENDATION
That the Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to:
1. Introduce in 2016/17 a compulsory fortnightly kerbside organic collection service to all households in urban Bendigo and Marong as generally described in this report and at a net additional annual cost (in 2016 figures) of $63 to these households.
2. Include an exemption process for those properties where it can be demonstrated that all organic material is being managed within the property and waive the annual organic collection fee of $86 (based on full year charge for 2016/17) for such properties.
3. Support the ongoing funding of activities nominated in the attached communication and education plan (updated from time to time) including funding for a further two years (from commencement of the full roll out) the position of Organics Project Officer.
4. Where necessary, support undertaking compliance activities in accordance with Council’s adopted compliance policy to eliminate organics from the kerbside residual waste stream.
5. Acknowledge the significant role that the residents in the trial areas have played in shaping this major initiative for Greater Bendigo’s waste services.
PAGE 121 Sustainability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
KERBSIDE ORGANICS EXEMPTION POLICY
Approval Date:
Review Date:
Author Bridgette McDougall, Organics Project Officer
Responsible Director: Darren Fuzzard, Presentation & Assets
1. PURPOSE
This policy provides a rationale and framework for an equitable, transparent and consistent approach to exemptions from the Kerbside Organics Collection Service undertaken by the City of Greater Bendigo ('City'), so the community can be assured that standards are met.
2. SCOPE
This policy applies to those residents within the City of Greater Bendigo organics collection zone.
3. INTRODUCTION
Council Vision
‘Greater Bendigo – Working together to be Australia’s most liveable regional city.’
Council Values
‘Council wants the community to have reason to be proud of the city and will do this through:
Transparency – Information about Council decisions is readily available and easily understood;
City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2014-2017:-
Theme 1: Leadership and Good Governance Strategic Objectives:
1. Council demonstrates leadership in its decisions and uses good governance principles to guide decision-making. 4. Continuous improvement methods are used to ensure the standard of service delivery is excellent.
Theme 5: Sustainability
PAGE 122 Sustainability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Strategic Objective:
5. The level of waste to landfill is reduced and residual waste is managed responsibly, to deliver the adopted waste management targets.
4. POLICY
Key Principles
This policy and procedure recognises that whilst the Kerbside Organics Collection Service will be rolled out as a mandatory service to all residential properties who receive a kerbside collection in the nominated areas, an exemption process is required to cater for residents who can suitably manage all organic material on-site.
Kerbside Organics Collection Exemption
An exemption from the kerbside organics collection service may be granted in the following circumstance:
Residents, from the time of the collection service being implemented and continuing thereafter, demonstrating that all organic material is effectively managed on the property.
Procedure
The following outlines the process in which an exemption must be made and considered:-
1. An application must be made using the appropriate form and attaching supporting documentation. Note: Applications must be made by the resident or by a person acting on behalf of the resident, where the resident is unable to make an application for medical reasons.
2. The application must be submitted to the City of Greater Bendigo - Waste Services Unit for consideration.
3. A City of Greater Bendigo representative will assess the application and make a time to visit the property to assess onsite the property process for dealing with food organics and garden organics waste.
4. Determination of whether an exemption will be granted. This will be based on the applicant demonstrating that they have current and on-going alternative arrangements for the treatment of food organics and garden organics waste.
5. Notification to property owner in writing.
6. Notification to the Rating & Valuation Services Unit.
Note:- Routine audits of receptacles of exempted properties will be conducted periodically.
PAGE 123 Sustainability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
COMPLIANCE POLICY
Approval Date: 1 October 2014
Review Date: 1 October 2017
Caroline Grylls, Coordinator Public Health & Author Environment
Responsible Director: Prue Mansfield, Planning & Development
1. Purpose This policy provides a rationale and framework for an equitable, transparent and consistent approach to compliance activities undertaken by the City of Greater Bendigo (“City”), so the community can be assured that standards are met.
2. Scope This policy applies to all employees undertaking compliance activities on behalf of the City of Greater Bendigo.
3. Introduction
Council Vision
‘Greater Bendigo – Working together to be Australia’s most liveable regional city.’
Council Values
‘Council wants the community to have reason to be proud of the city and will do this through:
Transparency – Information about Council decisions is readily available and easily understood;
City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013-2017
Theme 1: Leadership and Good Governance - Strategic Objective
PAGE 124 Sustainability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
1. Council demonstrates leadership in its decisions and uses good governance principles to guide decision-making.
Regulation and associated compliance activities play a critical role in maintaining minimum standards of civic behaviour particularly at the points where the behaviour and actions of individuals intersects with, and impacts with others and the environment.
To be able to achieve minimum standards of civic behaviour, ensure public health and safety and provide for the protection of the environment, compliance activities are a legislated and necessary function of Local Government. Frequently Local Governments are required by legislation to enforce acts and regulations established by State Government. The City’s own Local Laws form a minor proportion of the total requirement of assurance and enforcement activities.
In the absence of policy, compliance activities may be seen to be inconsistent and open to influence. To satisfy the City of Greater Bendigo’s regulatory compliance requirements in an equitable, transparent and consistent way this policy has been developed to assist all employees involved in compliance activities; and to advise community members of the approach that will be taken.
The current compliance and enforcement policy was adopted by Council in March 2012. Regular review of the policy is essential to ensure that it reflects contemporary views and supports the equitable, transparent and consistent approach to compliance activities that is its purpose.
4. Policy
Key Principles All compliance activities undertaken by the City of Greater Bendigo will: be outcome based rather than punitive; i.e. fix the problem rather than issue a fine; where appropriate, provide opportunity for timely and appropriate corrective action to be taken; The City of Greater Bendigo will act in the following order - inform, educate and provide warnings before undertaking enforcement.
Compliance Priorities
Compliance activities can be classified as either proactive or reactive.
Proactive Compliance Proactive compliance activities are usually a consequence of programmed inspections, scheduled audits or experience.
PAGE 125 Sustainability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Reactive Compliance Reactive compliance activities are usually a consequence of a complaint raised by a resident, employee observations, or a Councillor on behalf of a resident.
While the origins of compliance priorities may vary, it is intended that the risk assessment process will be applied consistently, without regard of the source.
Response
All compliance enforcement activities (i.e. prosecution or a fine) initiated by the City of Greater Bendigo must be appropriately considered and be based on the key principles.
Only where it can be demonstrated that insufficient or untimely corrective action has been taken by an offender will the City of Greater Bendigo initiate compliance enforcement activities.
Compliance enforcement activities will generally not be initiated unless:
all other means of achieving compliance have been exhausted; there is sufficient evidence available to achieve successful prosecution; legislation, regulation or risk requires enforcement activity be initiated The City of Greater Bendigo will follow up or monitor the outcome.
Exemptions
A number of exemptions have been provided that allow for the City of Greater Bendigo to initiate the most serious of compliance enforcement activities immediately. This includes, but is not limited to:
immediate or likely life threatening situations; permanent or irreversible damage to the natural or build environment; immediate risk to public health, safety or wellbeing; persons where a pattern/repeated instances of behaviour and failure to adequately fix the problem, has been established; parking infringements (which has its own policy for appeal and review); debt collection (which has its own policy for appeal and review).
PAGE 126 Sustainability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 127 Sustainability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
5.2 POTENTIAL DISPOSAL OF LOT 1 RAGLAN PLACE WEST, AXEDALE
Document Information
Author Naomi Fountain, Strategic Property Analyst
Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning and Development Director
Summary/Purpose
Lot 1 Raglan Place West, Axedale has been identified as potentially surplus.
This report documents the feedback provided by community members during public engagement and makes recommendations as to the future of the property.
Policy Context
Council Plan 2013-2017 (2014-2015 Update) Theme 5: Sustainability 5.1 Resources and assets are used wisely to reduce the environmental footprint. 5.1.5 Implement the Surplus Land Disposal Plan.
Community Engagement Policy (December 2011) 10 Year Financial Plan Building Asset Management Plan (Draft) Statutory and Discretionary Reserve Policy (November 2012) Local Government Act 1989 (VIC)
Background Information
Local Context
The City of Greater Bendigo’s Building and Property Services Unit manages a portfolio of about 750 buildings and 100 structures. The land and buildings are valued in excess of $302M.
PAGE 128 Sustainability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
As part of the City’s Building Asset Management Plan, properties that may not meet the current or future needs of the City are being investigated as potentially surplus. Not all land identified as surplus needs to be sold. “The options for disposal include alternative use, rental, sale, or sale and lease-back…”1. Ongoing consultation and communication will inform which method of disposal is recommended, on a case by case basis, informed by community feedback.
Previous Council Decision Date:
4 November 2015: That Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to commence public engagement to seek the view of the community in relation to the potential disposal of 1 Raglan Place West, Axedale.
Report
Lot 1 Raglan Place West, Axedale was identified as potentially suitable for disposal in the short term because it does not meet the City’s current or future needs. It is not subject to the Council Plan, any Strategies, Township Structure Plans, Place Based Plan or Reports.
Further particulars of the subject property:
Size: 10.48Ha Zone: Rural Living Zone Use: Not used as a public space. It is currently being used for grazing by a private individual who is holding over on a grazing licence.
Council resolved to seek the community’s views both on the property and its potential future use and possible disposal.
1 The Asset Management Principles Part 1 1995, Victorian Department of Treasury and Finance
PAGE 129 Sustainability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
The following public engagement has been undertaken in relation to this property: November 2015 - 25 owners and occupiers of the adjoining and surrounding properties along Raglan Place West, High Street, Shadforth Street and Axedale- Goornong Road were written to individually and notified of Council’s wish to seek their views on the future use of the property. December 2015 - A listening post was undertaken. Cr Leach and Naomi Fountain (Strategic Property Analyst) met with residents to seek and record their views. Other conversations were also held with residents and their views recorded.
PAGE 130 Sustainability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
February 2015 – A letter was sent to each respondent listing the views that were documented and providing an opportunity to amend any information that was missed or misinterpreted. No responses were received in relation to this letter.
In total, face to face and/or telephone conversations were conducted with 11 local residents. The views presented by the community are documented in the table below:
Lot 1 Raglan Place West, Axedale - Community Views Regarding Possible Future Use Community Feedback Officer Response The zoning on the property has been The zoning on this property has always been changed. consistent with the surrounding properties. There has been no change of zoning. The property is zoned Rural Living Zone. The property was a “mineral reserve”. The property was purchased by the City of The army used to quarry stone which Bendigo in May 1925 (91 years ago) from a was transported by the railway before it private owner. A “Mineral Reserve” is a term closed. The quarry ceased operations at that could be used in relation to “Crown Land” the end of WW2 and the army withdrew and since this property has been in private from the site. The army may not have ownership for at least 92 years, it is not cleaned up the site. Crown Land and could not have been “reserved” for any purpose. The Department of Defence has been contacted and have no records of ever having any dealings with this property. The book titled “Accent on Axedale”2 page 25 states Riley, Brazier and Nelson opened a quarry on O’Neill’s property in about 1905 (this is the quarry on the subject property)…. In 1925 H. Trench of Melbourne bought out the Riley, Brazier and Nelson. Then also in 1925 Bendigo City Council took over the quarry and put in a plant at Axedale Railway Station (i.e. there was never a processing plant on the subject property). The quarry closed with the coming of the Depression of 1930. It is suggested that at the time of the Great Depression nothing of value would have been left behind. Environmental consultants advise that TNT was a common explosive used in the late 1800s and early 1900s and that the chance of any still being present in the soil is very low
2 Accent on Axedale published by the Centenary and Back to Axedale Committee in 1970 and reprinted in 2011 written by Ian G. W. Smith
PAGE 131 Sustainability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Lot 1 Raglan Place West, Axedale - Community Views Regarding Possible Future Use Community Feedback Officer Response given that the explosion would have likely destroyed the chemical or the chemical would have been removed with the material blasted. Aerial photography from Land Victoria’s Aerial Photography Register has also been searched and there is no change to the shape of the disused quarry. The land has the same contours now as it did in in 1945 and in 1961. There was also no evidence of any structural improvements upon the land in any of the historic imagery. The property, together with other Feedback noted. privately owned properties to the north of the town, provides a strategic fire break for the town. The property has been under grazing Feedback noted. licence (not public use) for at least 50 years. The Council has no good reason to hold Feedback noted. onto the land. How will Council guarantee the There is no requirement for the Council to connection of power and other services make any guarantees. However, it is noted to the property if it is sold? that power could be connected by any future users of the site. All the stone worth taking has been Feedback noted. taken and there is nothing left to quarry. Can the property be sold to a mining It is possible for any land to be mined, subject company like Fosterville Gold Mine Pty to the appropriate approvals. This property Ltd, and could the land become an was quarried for bluestone between 1905 and active mine site? 1930 and not mined for minerals or gold.
PAGE 132 Sustainability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Lot 1 Raglan Place West, Axedale - Community Views Regarding Possible Future Use Community Feedback Officer Response Could there be linkages between Lot 1 The Axedale Township Structure Plan does Raglan Place West and the land not identify this as a future need or aspiration purchased for the future Public Open of the town. Space across from the school? The land purchased for the future Public Open Space (across from the school) is 3.9 hectares, in comparison Barrack Reserve in Heathcote is 4.8 hectares in size. There is an ample supply of Open Space within Axedale, for example, the land used as for tennis courts and as a golf course (42 hectares) and the land along the river corridor. If the property is sold can the proceeds Council will decide where funds are allocated. be used to improve the Public Open Space across from the school? Part of the boundary fence was paid for Internal records (previous correspondence) by the adjoining owner. indicate that the City offered to pay half for the boundary fence. However, there is no record available to show whether or not the adjoining owner claimed or was paid for half cost fencing. (Financial records are only kept for 7 years). This property would not be useable for Feedback noted. the township, the township already has public open space in use and set aside for future use. The road access is unmade. Feedback noted.
The aerial below shows where Lot 1 Raglan Place West sits in relation to the main township of Axedale. The subject property is less than 150 metres from the future recreation reserve at 1 Raglan Street, the north western intersection of Raglan Street and Mitchell Street, Axedale. The Council purchased 1 Raglan Street in August 2008 in direct response to the local community’s “Axedale Township Structure Plan” that was completed in 2008.
PAGE 133 Sustainability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Lot 1 Raglan Place West and 1 Raglan Street, Axedale
This property is zoned appropriately and could be sold immediately as a rural living site, without power connected. The following process would be required: Proceed to formal Public Notice, consultation period and feedback opportunities in relation to the sale of the land. If no submissions are received: o Exit the licensee from the property; o Develop a legal road connection to the property from Raglan Place West.
Resource Implications
Cost to construct formal access to the property is approximately $10,000.
Balance of funds from any sale will be subject to Council decision, however, is likely to go to the Land and Building Reserve.
Conclusion
Public engagement revealed a range of opinions. Of the residents who responded, some suggested that it could be used as Public Open Space, but conceded that the land has not been used for this purpose as the property has a locked gate to exclude all but the current grazing licensee. A number of respondents suggested that the Council has no reason to keep the property.
This property is less than 150 metres from 1 Raglan Street, Axedale that has been purchased specifically to provide for the future Open Space needs of the township.
Options
1. The Council could retain the property; or 2. The Council could sell the property.
PAGE 134 Sustainability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
RECOMMENDATION
1. That Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to sell Lot 1 Raglan Place West, Axedale subject to Section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989; (a) That Council authorise public notice of its intention to sell the above property in accordance with Section 189 of the Act, and advise engaged residents; (b) That Council nominate three Ward Councillors to hear any submissions in relation to the sale of the above property;
2. If no submissions are received in relation to the proposed sale of Lot 1 Raglan Place West, Axedale that Council resolve to: (a) Connect the property to Raglan Place West via the unmade road; (b) The above property be sold and that the Council authorise the Chief Executive Officer to sign and seal all relevant sale documents; and (c) Any funds from the sale to be deposited into the Land and Building Reserve.
PAGE 135 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
6. LEADERSHIP AND GOOD GOVERNANCE
6.1 COUNCIL PLAN 2015-2016: SECOND QUARTER REPORT, DECEMBER 2015
Document Information
Author Dr Lyn Talbot Corporate and Community Planner
Responsible Prue Mansfield, Planning and Development Director
Summary/Purpose
The purpose of this report is to provide a second quarter report on the 2015-2016 year of the City of Greater Bendigo 2013-2017 Council Plan.
Policy Context
The Council Plan 2013-2017 was adopted by Council on 19 June 2013.
The basic structure of the 2013-2017 Council Plan (2015-2016 update) has remained the same. The review process and activities to develop the 2015-2016 Plan have resulted in refinements to the higher level statements, but no change in the core concepts.
The Council Plan identifies the key issues to be pursued by Council over the period 2013-2017 to address the community’s needs and aspirations and its own organisational activities. The measurable commitments set out in the actions in the Council Plan are based on the 2015-2016 year.
The Council Plan is based around five broad themes, each with a number of Strategic Objectives and Strategies. Each Strategy has Actions that are relevant for the current year. The five themes are: 1: Leadership and Good Governance 2. Planning for Growth 3: Presentation and Vibrancy 4. Productivity 5: Sustainability
Background Information
In accordance with Section 125 of the Local Government Act 1989 regular reporting about service delivery and performance is an obligation to Council and community members.
PAGE 136 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Conclusion
This second quarter report for the 2015-2016 financial year provides details of many new projects and activities that are significantly progressed and others that have recently commenced. A small of other initiatives outlined in the Council Plan have also yet to be commenced, and a small number will not proceed because of budgetary constraints or for other identified reasons.
Attachments
1. Interplan report for the period 1 October 2015 to 31 December 2015.
RECOMMENDATION
That Greater Bendigo City Council acknowledges progress against the actions set out in the 2015-2016 City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan.
PAGE 137 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 138 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 139 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 140 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 141 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 142 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 143 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 144 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 145 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 146 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 147 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 148 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 149 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 150 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 151 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 152 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 153 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 154 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 155 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 156 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 157 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 158 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 159 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 160 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 161 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 162 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 163 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 164 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 165 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 166 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 167 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 168 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 169 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 170 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 171 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 172 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 173 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 174 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 175 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 176 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 177 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 178 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 179 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 180 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 181 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 182 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
6.2 RECORD OF ASSEMBLIES
Document Information
Author Peter Davies, Manager Executive Services
Responsible Darren Fuzzard, A/Chief Executive Officer Officer
Summary/Purpose
The purpose of this report is to provide the record of any assembly of Councillors, which has been held since the last Council Meeting, so that it can be recorded in the Minutes of the formal Council Meeting.
Policy Context
Council demonstrates leadership in its decisions to meet future needs and challenges.
Background Information
The Local Government Act provides a definition of an assembly of Councillors where conflicts of interest must be disclosed.
A meeting will be an assembly of Councillors if it considers matters that are likely to be the subject of a Council decision, or, the exercise of a Council delegation and the meeting is:
1. A planned or scheduled meeting that includes at least half the Councillors (5) and a member of Council staff; or 2. an advisory committee of the Council where one or more Councillors are present.
The requirement for reporting provides increased transparency and the opportunity for Councillors to check the record, particularly the declarations of conflict of interest.
PAGE 183 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Report
Meeting Information Meeting Residential Strategy Workshop Name/Type Meeting Date 27 January 2016 Matters discussed 1. Residential Strategy
Attendees/Apologies Councillors Cr Rod Fyffe Cr Peter Cox Cr Rod Campbell Cr Helen Leach Cr Barry Lyons Cr Mark Weragoda Cr James Williams Apologies: Cr Elise Chapman Cr Lisa Ruffell Staff/ Ms Prue Mansfield Community Mr Trevor Budge Representatives Mr Andrew Cockerall Mrs Alison Campbell
Conflict of Interest disclosures Matter Councillor/officer making disclosure Councillor/officer left No. meeting Nil
PAGE 184 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Meeting Information Meeting Councillors' Forum Name/Type Meeting Date 27 January 2016 Matters discussed 1. Footpath standards in various locations 2. Tree management 3. Epsom Primary School 4. Security of playgrounds 5. Car parking on natures strips 6. Climate change 7. Policy on tree removal under powerlines and in-between planting 8. Designated road reserve for the Allies Road to Huntly link 9. Australia Day events 10. Heathcote playground 11. Roundabout planting 12. Drug and alcohol forum 13. Tannery Lane bridge funding 14. Health Service Information Centre 15. Williamson Street reconstruction 16. Skate park 17. Mackenzie Street 18. Parks and fitness groups 19. Blackspot funding 20. Bus shelter in the Mall 21. Organics Waste Workshop 22. Greenaway 23. High Court Appeal 24. Minutes of previous meeting
Attendees/Apologies Councillors Cr Rod Fyffe Cr Peter Cox Cr Rod Campbell Cr Helen Leach Cr Barry Lyons Cr Lisa Ruffell Cr Mark Weragoda Cr James Williams Apology: Cr Elise Chapman Staff/ Mr Craig Niemann Community Ms Rachelle Quattrocchi Representatives Ms Kerryn Ellis Ms Prue Mansfield Ms Pauline Gordon Mr Peter Davies Mrs Alison Campbell Apology: Mr Darren Fuzzard
PAGE 185 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Conflict of Interest disclosures Matter Councillor/officer making disclosure Councillor/officer left No. meeting Nil
Meeting Information Meeting Governance Meeting Name/Type Meeting Date 27 January 2016 Matters discussed 1. Breach of confidentiality 2. Recruitment 3. Superannuation 4. Participation in Local Government sessions 5. Succession Planning 6. Hopley recycling
Attendees/Apologies Councillors Cr Rod Fyffe Cr Peter Cox Cr Rod Campbell Cr Helen Leach Cr Barry Lyons Cr Lisa Ruffell Cr Mark Weragoda Cr James Williams Apology: Cr Elise Chapman Staff/ Mr Craig Niemann Community Ms Kerryn Ellis Representatives Mr Peter Davies Mrs Alison Campbell
Conflict of Interest disclosures Matter Councillor/officer making disclosure Councillor/officer left No. meeting Nil
PAGE 186 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Meeting Information Meeting Council Plan and Budget Workshop Name/Type Meeting Date 2 February 2016 Matters discussed 1. Council Plan 2. Budget overview 3. Key financial factors 4. Operating budget review by Directorate
Attendees/Apologies Councillors Cr Rod Fyffe Cr Peter Cox Cr Rod Campbell Cr Elise Chapman Cr Helen Leach Cr Barry Lyons Cr Lisa Ruffell Cr James Williams Apology: Cr Mark Weragoda Staff/ Mr Craig Niemann Community Mr Darren Fuzzard Representatives Ms Kerryn Ellis Ms Prue Mansfield Ms Pauline Gordon Mr Travis Harling Mr Richard Morrison Mr Scott Evans Mr Peter Davies Mrs Alison Campbell
Conflict of Interest disclosures Matter Councillor/officer making disclosure Councillor/officer left No. meeting Nil
PAGE 187 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Meeting Information Meeting Councillors' Forum Name/Type Meeting Date 3 February 2016 Matters discussed 1. Planning matters and draft Ordinary Agenda review 2. Canterbury Park Social Pavilion 3. Potential disposal of property 4. Citizen's Panel 5. Budget 6. Marilyn Exhibition 7. Drug and alcohol forum 8. Sign writing permits 9. Future Employment Opportunities 10. Groundwater forum 11. Street dining 12. Health Services Information Centre 13. Road safety
Attendees/Apologies Councillors Cr Rod Fyffe Cr Peter Cox Cr Helen Leach Cr Barry Lyons Cr Mark Weragoda Apologies: Cr Rod Campbell Cr Elise Chapman Cr Lisa Ruffell Cr James Williams Staff/ Mr Craig Niemann Community Mr Darren Fuzzard Representatives Ms Kerryn Ellis Ms Prue Mansfield Ms Pauline Gordon Mr Richard Morrison Mr Scott Evans Mr Andy Walker Mr Peter Davies
Conflict of Interest disclosures Matter Councillor/officer making disclosure Councillor/officer left No. meeting Nil
PAGE 188 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Meeting Information Meeting Capital Works / Budget Workshop Name/Type Meeting Date 10 February 2016 Matters discussed 1. Budget update 2. Renewal program 3. Capital Works program 4. Borrowing
Attendees/Apologies Councillors Cr Rod Fyffe Cr Peter Cox Cr Rod Campbell Cr Helen Leach Cr Barry Lyons Cr Lisa Ruffell Cr Mark Weragoda Cr James Williams Apology: Cr Elise Chapman Staff/ Mr Craig Niemann Community Mr Darren Fuzzard Representatives Ms Kerryn Ellis Ms Prue Mansfield Mr Pat Jess Mr Travis Harling Mr Richard Morrison Mr Andy Walker Mr Peter Davies Mrs Alison Campbell
Conflict of Interest disclosures Matter Councillor/officer making disclosure Councillor/officer left No. meeting Nil
RECOMMENDATION
That Council endorse the record of assemblies of Councillors as outlined in this report.
PAGE 189 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
6.3 CONTRACTS AWARDED UNDER DELEGATION
Document Information
Author Lee Taig, Contract Support Administrator, Contract & Project Coordination Unit
Responsible Kerryn Ellis, Director Organisation Support Director
Summary/Purpose
The purpose of this report is to provide information on contracts recently awarded under delegation.
Policy Context
Delivery of programs, projects and services that respond to community needs.
Report
Value Delegated Contract No Project Successful Contractor Date Signed (GST Excl) Officer
Capital Contracts
Supply and delivery one CT000236 (1) side loading Bendigo Truck Centre $336,401.01 Darren Fuzzard 23/12/2015 compactor Supply of Native Coliban Region Water CT000215 $385,000.00 Stan Liacos 13/01/2016 Vegetation Credits Authority
Service Contracts
Receival and Schedule of Processing of Kerbside Biomix Pty Ltd Craig Niemann 13/01/2016 Rates CT000161 Organic Waste Material Current annual Council Budget for the goods/services contracted via this schedule of rates is $615,000.00 Maintenance & Servicing of Essential Chubb Fire & Schedule of Prue Mansfield 21/01/2016 Safety Measures Fire & Security Pty Ltd Rates CT000221 Access Services Current annual Council Budget for the goods/services contracted via this schedule of rates is $240,000.00
PAGE 190 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Maintenance & Servicing of Essential Chubb Fire & Schedule of Prue Mansfield 21/01/2016 Safety Measures Security Pty Ltd Rates CT000222 Electrical Services Current annual Council Budget for the goods/services contracted via this schedule of rates is $240,000.00
RECOMMENDATION
That the contracts awarded under delegation, as outlined in this report, be acknowledged by Council.
PAGE 191 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
6.4 ELECTION PERIOD POLICY
Document Information
Author Peter Davies, Manager, Executive Services
Responsible Darren Fuzzard, A/Chief Executive Officer Officer
Summary/Purpose
The purpose of this report is to ask Council to adopt the attached draft Election Period Policy.
Policy Context
Council Plan Reference: Council demonstrates good governance and leadership.
Background Information
Councils must comply with special arrangements during the election period in the lead- up to a general election. Although not referred to in the Local Government Act 1989 (“Act”), this period is commonly known as the “caretaker period” and is observed by all three tiers of government, although in relation to local government the caretaker conventions were codified in 2008.
The provisions in the Act are intended to ensure that councils do not interfere with the integrity or probity of the election process and also ensure that the Council does not take action that will bind an incoming council.
Section 93B(1) of the Act requires the Council to prepare, adopt and maintain an election period policy in relation to procedures to be applied by Council during the election period for a general election.
Subsection (2) states that this must be done by 31 March 2016.
Report
The attached policy has been prepared in accordance with section 93B(1), (2) and (3) of the Act which requires a council to prepare, adopt and maintain an election period policy in relation to procedures to be applied by a council during the election period for a general election by 31 March 2016 and, following the general election on 22 October 2016, continue to maintain the election period policy by reviewing and, if required, amending the policy not later than 12 months before the commencement of each subsequent general election period.
PAGE 192 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
The “election period” in relation to a general election means the period that starts on the last day on which nominations for that election can be received and ends at 6p.m. on election day.
The Election Period Policy applies to the Council, a special committee established by the Council, and the Chief Executive Officer.
The Act, as reflected in the attached policy, regulates council activity in two ways: first, it prohibits the Council from making certain types of decisions; and second, it requires that materials produced by the Council must not contain matter that will affect voting at the election.
The draft policy, therefore, includes the following-
(a) procedures intended to prevent the Council from making inappropriate decisions or using resources inappropriately during the election period before a general election;
(b) limits on public consultation and the scheduling of Council events; and
(c) procedures to ensure that access to information held by Council is made equally available and accessible to candidates during the election as required by subsection (3).
A copy of the Election Period Policy must be available for inspection by the public at the Council office and any district office after it is adopted and also be published on the Council’s website: subsection (4).
Resource Implications
There are no resource implications in Council adopting the draft Election Period Policy.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council adopts the attached draft Election Period Policy in accordance with section 93B(1) of the Local Government Act 1989.
PAGE 193 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
ELECTION PERIOD POLICY
Approval Date: February 2016
Not later than 12 months before the commencement of Review Date: each subsequent general election period. Author: Executive Services
Responsible Officer: Chief Executive
Relevant Local Government Act 1989 Legislation/Authority
Background information about this document
This policy has been prepared in accordance with section 93B(1),(2) and (3) of the Local
Government Act 1989 which requires a council to prepare, adopt and maintain an election
period policy in relation to procedures to be applied by a council during the election period for st nd a general election by March 31 2016 and, following the general election on October 22 2016, continue to maintain the election period policy by reviewing and, if required, amending the policy not later than 12 months before the commencement of each subsequent general election period.
POLICY
Definitions
The following key words are used in this policy-
Act Local Government Act 1989
Council Greater Bendigo City Council
election period in relation to a general election means the period that starts on the last day on which nominations for that election can be received and ends at 6p.m. on election day
major policy means any decision- decision (a) relating to the employment or remuneration of the Chief Executive Officer under section 94 of the Act, other than a decision to appoint an acting Chief Executive Officer; (b) to terminate the appointment of the Chief Executive Officer under section 94 of the Act; (c) to enter into a contract the total value of which exceeds whichever is the greater of- (i) $100,000 or such higher amount as may be fixed by Order
PAGE 194 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
in Council under section 186(1) of the Act; or (ii) 1% of the Council’s revenue from rates and charges levied under section 158 in the preceding financial year; (d) to exercise any power under section 193 of the Act if the sum assessed under section 193(5A) of the Act in respect of the proposal exceeds whichever is greater of $100,000 or 1% of the Council’s revenue from rates and charges levied under section 158 in the preceding financial year.
inappropriate means decisions made by the Council during an election period including decisions any of the following- (a) decisions that would affect voting in an election; and (b) decisions that could reasonably be made after the election
PURPOSE OF THIS POLICY
The purpose of this policy is to specify procedures intended to prevent the Council from making inappropriate decisions or using resources inappropriately during the election period before a general election; the limits on public consultation and the scheduling of Council events; and procedures to ensure that access to information held by the Council is made equally available to candidates during the election as required by section 93B(3) of the Act.
SCOPE
This Election Period Policy applies to the Council, a special committee established by the Council, and the Chief Executive Officer.
INTRODUCTION
Councils must comply with special arrangements during the election period in the lead-up to a general election. Although not referred to in the Act, this period is commonly known as the “caretaker period” and is observed by all three tiers of government, although in relation to local government the conventions were codified in 2008.
The provisions in the Act are intended to ensure that councils do not interfere with the integrity or probity of the election process and also ensure that the authority of an incoming council is not fettered by decisions made in respect of which it may find itself unreasonably bound and unable to change. The latter can especially be an issue in relation to significant contractual matters.
The Act, therefore, regulates council activity in two ways: first, it prohibits councils from making certain types of decisions; and second, it requires that materials produced by councils must not contain matter that will affect voting at the election.
The election (or “caretaker”) period commences 32 days before an election. The business of the Council continues throughout this period. This policy seeks to ensure that the Council does not take action that will bind a future council.
COUNCIL ACTIVITIES
The Council, a special committee of the Council, or a person acting under delegation given by the Council, must not make a major policy decision during the election period for a general election.
A major policy decision made during the election period in contravention of this statutory prohibition is invalid.
PAGE 195 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
If the Council considers that there are extraordinary circumstances which require the making of a major policy decision during the election period, the Council may apply in writing to the Minister for an exemption from the application of this prohibition to the major policy decision specified in the application.
During the election period, reports for the consideration of Council will be referred to the Chief Executive Officer for approval before inclusion on the meeting agenda.
COMMUNICATIONS
During the election period before a general election, the City of Greater Bendigo must not print, publish or distribute any advertisement, handbill pamphlet or notice, including electronic media, unless it has been certified, in writing, by the Chief Executive Officer.
The certification from the Chief Executive Officer cannot be delegated to another person.
The Chief Executive Officer must not intentionally or recklessly certify an electoral advertisement, handbill pamphlet or notice during the election period unless such information is confined to the electoral process itself.
During the election period, a councillor or City employee must not intentionally or recklessly print, publish or distribute or cause, permit or authorise to be printed, published or distributed an electoral advertisement, handbill pamphlet or notice on behalf of, or in the name of, the Council or on behalf of, or in the name of, a councillor using Council resources if the electoral advertisement, handbill, pamphlet or notice has not been certified by the Chief Executive Officer.
The City must not at any time print, publish or distribute an advertisement, handbill, pamphlet or notice containing “electoral matter” unless the name and address of the person who authorised it appears at its end.
For the above purposes, “electoral matter” is defined as matter which is intended or likely to affect voting in an election by containing an express or implicit reference to, or comment on-
The election A candidate in the election An issue submitted to or otherwise before voters in connection with the election
Material is considered electoral matter if, for example, it-
Publicises the strengths or weaknesses of a candidate Advocates the policies of the Council or a candidate Responds to claims made by a candidate; and Publicises the achievement of the Council
The type of material subject to the certification process –“advertisement, handbill pamphlet or notice”- is interpreted broadly for the purposes of this policy as documents produced for communicating with people in the community, including:
City newsletters, including e-newsletters City website Advertisements and notices Media releases Leaflets and brochures Mail-outs to multiple addresses Social media postings
PAGE 196 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
The City website may retain material placed on the website before the commencement of the election period.
At the commencement of the election period, the Council should review the material published or distributed on bulletin boards, the internet and email systems to ensure that it could not be seen as promoting candidate-related content or singularise the achievement or views of an individual councillor standing for re-election.
This policy affirms the application of the Councillor Code of Conduct and the Councillor Media Policy in relation to the use of media, including social media, during the election period.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND SCHEDULING OF COUNCIL EVENTS
Unless the subject of public consultation or a Council event relates to a matter constituting a major policy decision, public consultation and Council events, including ordinary meetings of the Council, will be scheduled during the election period.
ACCESS TO INFORMATION
All candidates should have equal access to support and information during the election period. Sitting councillors, therefore, who stand for re-election cannot use their current position to gain access to information or resources that would not be available to a non-sitting candidate. To do so would constitute a misuse of position. The procedure for handling complaints about a councillor will apply here in the first instance.
REVIEW
This policy must be reviewed and, if required, amended not later than 12 months before the commencement of each general election period after the 2016 general election.
RELATED POLICIES OR PROCEDURES
Councillor Media Policy Councillor Code of Conduct
PAGE 197 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
6.5 FINANCE REPORT AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2015 AND MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW 2015-2016
Document Information
Author Travis Harling, Manager Finance
Responsible Kerryn Ellis, Director Organisation Support Director
Summary/Purpose
To provide Council with: 1. An analysis of the financial position of the City of Greater Bendigo (CoGB) for the financial year to 31 December 2015. 2. A review of the forecast financial position as at 30 June 2016.
Policy Context
City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013-2017 (2015/16 Update): Theme: 1 Leadership and good governance Strategic Objective: 1 Council demonstrates leadership in its decisions to meet future needs and challenges Strategy 1.1 Good governance principles are used to guide strategic decision-making
Background Information
In accordance with Section 138 of the Local Government Act 1989:
“At least every 3 months, the Chief Executive Officer must ensure that a statement comparing the budgeted revenue and expenditure for the financial year with the actual revenue and expenditure to date is presented to the Council at a Council meeting which is open to the public.”
A review of the 31 December 2015 result and 30 June 2016 forecast was undertaken by CoGB’s Finance Committee on 17 February 2016.
Report
This report provides an update on the financial performance in comparison to the adopted budget for the 2015/16 financial year. The report also provides a financial forecast to 30 June 2016, together with an analysis and recommendations.
PAGE 198 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
1. Actual Year to Date Financial Performance (01/07/2015 - 31/12/2015) CoGB's operating result for the first half of the financial year is $6,968,665 unfavourable to budget as at 31 December 2015.
Operating Result - YTD Actual vs YTD Budget The Operating Result is a measure for accounting for an organisation's profit or loss for a given period. An Operating Result recognises all revenue and operating expenditure; it includes non-cash expenditure such as depreciation and non-cash revenue of donated assets.
YTD Budget YTD Actual Variance 31/12/2015 31/12/2015 $57,226,253 $50,257,588 $6,968,665 Unfavourable
The Income Statement for the period 01/07/2015 – 31/12/2015 is presented below: Operating Income Statement - City of Greater Bendigo As at 31 December 2015
Actual 30 Annual YTD YTD June Budget Budget Actual YTD Variance 2015 2016 2016 2016 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 % REVENUE Rates and Charges 93,611 99,421 99,069 99,642 573 1% User Charges, Fees and Fines 27,439 26,851 13,392 14,620 1,228 9% Contributions - Cash 9,550 7,336 3,943 2,631 (1,311) -33% Contributions - Non Monetary Assets 15,958 11,391 - - - 0% Reimbursements 439 1,349 84 21 (63) -75% Government Grants - Operating 41,790 25,255 15,951 8,909 (7,042) -44% Government Grants - Capital and Major 3,530 14,171 3,975 3,383 (592) -15% Interest on Investments 1,883 1,534 612 572 (41) -7% Other Revenue (Inc. Internals) 3 - 11,874 12,151 277 2% Share of Other Comprehensive Income of 91 (113) - - - 0% Associates Accounted for by the Equity Method Total Revenue 194,294 187,195 148,900 141,929 (6,972) -5% EXPENSES Employee Benefits 55,108 56,938 28,667 28,579 88 0% Contract Payments, Materials and Services 80,369 61,022 30,960 31,124 (165) -1% Plant and Equipment Operating Expenses 5,742 4,287 3,224 4,400 (1,176) -36% Depreciation / Amortisation 28,504 29,743 14,872 14,915 (43) 0% Borrowing Costs 1,639 1,735 897 882 15 2% Net Loss on Disposal of Property, Plant, 11,928 3,000 1,500 20 1,480 99% Infrastructure and Assets Held for Sale Other Expenses (incl Internals) 312 - 11,523 11,711 (188) -2% Bad Debts 194 130 32 39 (7) -22% Total Expenses 183,796 156,855 91,674 91,670 4 0%
Operating Result 10,498 30,340 57,226 50,258 (6,968) -12%
Other Comprehensive Income Net asset revaluation increments 35,601 - - - - 0%
Comprehensive Result 46,099 30,340 57,226 50,258 (6,968) -12%
PAGE 199 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Major variances that contribute to the unfavourable result include: Area Fav / (Unfav) Main Contributing Factors $ Government Unfavourable Timing in receiving grants (7,400,000) Grants commission funding of $7.4M. Operating Budgeted for in 2016-17 but received in advance in the 2015-16 financial year. Contributions Unfavourable The timing for receiving capital (1,773,000) – Cash contributions of $722,190 for the Street Lighting Upgrade Project and $1.5M for the Bendigo Stadium (both received in 2015-16). This unfavourable variance is partially offset by receiving unbudgeted blackspot funding. User Favourable Higher childcare utilisation rates and 1,228,000 Charges, higher utilisation of the Ulumbarra Fees and Theatre than included in the budget. Fines
Cash Result - YTD Actual vs YTD Budget CoGB's cash result for the first half of the financial year is $751,456 unfavourable to budget as at 31 December 2015. The Cash Result takes the Operating Result and removes non cash transactions. It also includes Capital Works expenditure, loan repayments, new loan drawdowns and Reserve transfer movements.
YTD Budget YTD Actual Variance 31/12/2015 31/12/2015 $58,460,349 $57,708,893 $751,456 unfavourable
Major Variances that reduce the operating deficit of $6,968,665 to the above cash result include: Area Fav / (Unfav) Details $ Cost of Asset Unfavourable Timing in processing asset write (1,499,402) Write offs offs compared to budget, historically undertaken later in the financial year. Capital Works Favourable Timing of works completed is less 877,082 than the year to date budget. Reserve Favourable Net Reserve transfers are 6,747,189 Transfers favourable, linked directly to timing of receiving Grants Commission funding, recognised above in Government Grant Operating explanation.
PAGE 200 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
2. Forecast Performance (01/07/2015 – 31/12/2015) The mid-year forecast for 31 December 2015, is reported in the same format as the year to date actual comparison to budget, operating and rate results.
Operating Result - Forecast v Annual Budget
Annual Budget Forecast Variance 30/06/2016 30/06/2016 Surplus Surplus $30,340,291 $36,186,614 $5,821,323 Favourable
Major variances that contribute to the forecast favourable operating result include: Area Fav / (Unfav) Details $ Government Unfavourable Timing in receiving Grants (7,400,000) Grants Commission funding of $7.4M. Operating Budgeted for in 2016-17 but received in advance in the 2015-16 financial year.
Major Projects Favourable Received unbudgeted grant and 1,656,215 Revenue interest $2.7M for the Ulumbarra Theatre, partially offset by major capital expenditure Capital Grant Favourable Expecting to receive $5M 5,611,335 State unbudgeted funding for the Greater Government Bendigo Indoor Aquatic Leisure and Wellbeing Centre. Capital Grant Favourable Additional $1.36M roads to 1,857,455 Commonwealth recovery funding. Government Contributions Favourable Unbudgeted funding for the 3,179,817 Capital Works blackspot program.
Cash Result - Forecast v Annual Budget
Annual Budget Forecast Result Variance 30/06/2016 30/06/2016 Surplus Surplus
$118,572 $2,226,237 $2,082,665 Favourable
PAGE 201 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Major variances that contribute to the favourable result include: Area Fav / (Unfav) Details $ Capital Unfavourable Includes 2014-15 Carried Forward (4,560,528) Works $6M. Blackspot $3.5M and Roads to Recovery $1.3M which is offset by $8.2M of works being carried forward to 2016-17 for completion. Reserve Favourable Grants Commission funding received in 1,157,507 Transfer 2014-15 has been transferred back from reserves. Transfer of $4.6M to reserve for the unbudgeted grant received for the Greater Bendigo Indoor Aquatic Leisure and Wellbeing Centre.
3. Progressive Cash Surplus/Deficit Summary The cash result must be managed on an ongoing basis rather than annually, as the impact from previous year's results, will affect the following year's budget. With this in mind the table below shows: Annual Budget Forecast Result Surplus/(Deficit) Surplus/(Deficit) Accumulated Surplus Carried Forward $3,756,115 $3,756,115 30/06/15 Carried Forward Capital Work Projects ($3,955,843) - from 2014-15 Grants received in 2014-15 not spent at ($1,695,003) - 30 June 2015, that relate directly to projects in 2014-15 2016 Cash Result $118,572 $2,226,237 Capital Projects identified at 31/12/15 as - ($3,856,271) requiring Carry Forward into 2016-17 Grants Received in 2015-16 relating to - ($260,000) 2016-17
Forecast Accumulated Surplus/(Deficit) ($1,776,159) $1,866,081 Carried Forward 30/06/16
The Forecast Cash Result reports a $1,866,081 surplus by year end.
PAGE 202 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
4. Mid-Year Budget Requests The following requests for additional funds have been received and are presented for Council consideration: Project Details $ Community Access and Current program of initiatives is being Inclusion Program implemented through the State Government Rural Access Program. No additional funds required in 2015-16. Ironbark Gully Trail Progressing planning of the Ironbark (11,000) Gully Trail. Total cost is $20,000 with a $9,000 contribution from RENEW. Bendigo Spirit Additional funds for Bendigo Spirit so that (25,000) they may meet their annual operating costs more adequately and ensure the financial viability of the club. Bendigo Athletics centre Assessment being undertaken with final Track report expected in May 2016. No additional funds required in 2015-16. Relocation of Bendigo Costs for removal and relocation of the 0 Early Learning Centre Bendigo Early Learning Centre – $25,000 transfer from Reserve. Bendigo Creek Levee Funds committed by Council to progress (50,000) investigation flood management investigation in cost sharing arrangement with DELWP. Proactive tree Additional funds to effectively manage the (280,000) maintenance urban tree population. Citizens Jury Provision for an independent jury process (30,000) for the 2017-2021 Council Plan. Swimming Pool renewal Additional funds due to unforeseen works (150,000) works associated with toddlers’ pool at the Bendigo Aquatic Centre. Marong Business Park Additional funds to cover legal costs (90,000) legal costs associated with the Marong Business Park. Building and Property Additional funds to maintain facilities and (180,000) maintenance increase in Services contracts and Essential Safety Measures. Water for grading Additional funds for water due to drought (200,000) unsealed roads conditions and lack of water availability. Northern Victorian Funding to support Project Manager’s role (10,063) Emergency as support from the Senior Reference Management Cluster Group (five participating councils project providing funding).
PAGE 203 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
The Finance Committee at its meeting on 17 February, 2016 reviewed the Financial Forecast and mid-year budget requests. The Finance Committee recommends that Council: Allocate $11,000 to progress planning of the Ironbark Gully Trail Allocate $25,000 for the Bendigo Spirit Approve the transfer of funds ($25,000) from the Land and Buildings Reserve, and expenditure of same, for the relocation of the Bendigo Early Learning Centre Allocate $50,000 as the City’s contribution to the Bendigo Creek Levee flood management investigation Allocate $280,000 for proactive tree maintenance Allocate $30,000 for the establishment of a citizens jury Allocate $150,000 for swimming pool renewal works Allocate $90,000 for legal costs associated with the Marong Business Park Allocate $180,000 for building and property maintenance Allocate $200,000 for water for the grading of unsealed roads Allocate $10,063 for the Northern Victorian Emergency Management Cluster Project Manager
The recommendation of the Finance Committee, results in the following adjusted Forecast Cash Surplus of $810,018: Annual Budget Forecast Result Surplus/(Deficit) Surplus/(Deficit) Forecast Accum. Deficit 30/06/16 ($1,776,159) $1,866,081 prior to Mid-Year Review Inclusion of Mid-Year Requests - Ironbark Gully Trail planning (11,000) - Bendigo Spirit (25,000) - BELC Relocation – Reserve transfer (25,000) - Bendigo Creek Levee investigation (50,000) - Proactive Tree Maintenance (280,000) - Citizens Jury (30,000) - Outdoor Dining (5,000) - Swimming pool renewal work (150,000) - Marong Business Park legal costs (90,000) - Building & Property maintenance (180,000) - Water for grading unsealed roads (200,000) - Northern Victorian emergency (10,063) management cluster project Forecast Accum. Surplus 30/06/16 $822,743 $810,018
Conclusion
The Finance Committee has reviewed the Statement comparing Budgeted and Actual Revenues and Expenses to 31 December 2015, and the Financial forecast for 2015/16. Having undertaken the review, the Finance Committee recommends that Council approve changes to the budget to fund the mid-year budget requests as listed.
PAGE 204 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
RECOMMENDATION
That the Greater Bendigo City Council:
1. Receive the Statement comparing Budgeted and Actual Revenues and Expenses to 31 December 2015, in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act.
2. Endorse the recommendation of the Finance Committee at its meeting on 17 February, 2016 to allocate $90,000 for legal costs associated with the Marong Business.
3. Endorse the recommendation of the Finance Committee at its meeting on 17 February, 2016 to: a. Allocate $11,000 to progress planning of the Ironbark Gully Trail b. Allocate $25,000 for the Bendigo Spirit c. Approve the transfer of funds ($25,000) from the Land and Buildings Reserve, and expenditure of same, for the relocation of the Bendigo Early Learning Centre d. Allocate $50,000 as the City’s contribution to the Bendigo Creek Levee flood management investigation e. Allocate $280,000 for proactive tree maintenance f. Allocate $30,000 for the establishment of a citizens jury g. Allocate $150,000 for swimming pool renewal works h. Allocate $180,000 for building and property maintenance i. Allocate $200,000 for water for the grading of unsealed roads j. Allocate $10,063 for the Northern Victorian Emergency Management Cluster Project Manager.
PAGE 205 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
6.6 PROPOSED CITIZENS JURY AS THE FIRST STEP TO THE COUNCIL PLAN FOR THE NEW COUNCIL
Document Information
Author and Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning and Development Director
Summary/Purpose
This report recommends undertaking an independent Citizens' Jury process during 2016 to provide independent community input into: The development of the next Council Plan. Understanding better what the community as a whole wants to see as the key focus and priorities for the City in the period 2017-2021 and have evidence for Council, the community and Essential Services Commission that we understand community priorities.
Policy Context
Council Plan 2013-2017 (2015-2016 Update)
Council set two priorities for the 2013-2017 chapter in Greater Bendigo's history, one of which is: Completing detailed planning in important areas including transport, residential and economic development, in preparation for the continued increase in population.
Theme 1 - Leadership & Good Governance 1.1 Good governance principles are used to guide strategic decision-making: 1.1.4 Plan for the 2016 Council elections and the induction and training of Councillors following the election. 1.4 Community engagement strategies and methods are adapted and updated to improve how the community can receive information in an accessible form and provide feedback to Council.
Background
The new Council Plan must be submitted by 30 June 2017. If the Council Plan development doesn't start until after the election, allowing enough time for the work of committed engagement and listening by June 2017 will be as challenging for the incoming Council as it was for the current Council.
In developing the community engagement guidelines, the Council sets out to use new, contemporary methods of community engagement. A "Citizens' Jury" is one such model.
PAGE 206 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
Using this technique during 2016 will provide clear and considered advice to the incoming Council as it deliberates on setting priorities for its term of office.
In addition, if the new Council want to propose a rate increase above the cap, it will need to demonstrate it has sought the community's view and considered it. This Citizens' Jury process would meet that requirement.
Report
Citizens' juries are a reasonably new model of engagement in Australia.
The goal is for more people to have more confidence in more decisions of Council into the future, because "people who look like me and are not part of the establishment" have made these recommendations.
This goal is achieved by the way the panel is established and the process conducted.
The process is run independently. newDemocracy is a foundation that has considerable experience in this field, who would be engaged to run the process. City staff provide logistic, event and administrative support to the process. newDemocracy finalise the details independently, but the key features include: Invitations are sent to a large, randomly selected group of people, explaining the task, commitment and process to them. People are invited to express interest in being involved. From those that express interest, random selection of about 26 people is made (based on population size) and aligned with the demographic profile, (because of the nature of our municipality, 15% of places would be reserved for people who live outside the Bendigo urban area). Jury members are provided with the background information (briefing book) required. Submissions are sought from other interested people. These are provided as part of the briefing book. Jury members come together for 6 days over about 10 weeks to deliberate. These days are run by an independent facilitator. The Jury can seek specialist advice or information from whoever they agree to. Most juries agree an issue needs "super-majority" - 80%, for any recommendation to be supported. The Jury provides a final report to the Council. The whole process takes about 6 to allow for the selection process and for the community members involved to receive, absorb and deliberate on the question.
As Councillors will recall from their discussion in developing the community engagement policy and guidelines, two of the most important steps are: 1. What is the question for which Council is seeking an answer? 2. What does the Council commit to do with that answer?
The advice from newDemocracy is that for a Citzens' Jury to be effective, the question needs to be something that the Council and community is grappling with, a hard question and reasonably specific. In discussion with them, the proposed question could be:
PAGE 207 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
"Can we accommodate the growth of our City without increasing the rates beyond the rate cap?" Or "Is Council spending your money on the right things?"
If Council proceeds with this proposal, the question would be finalised in discussion with newDemocracy.
Some would question whether it is effective to conduct this process now as the current Council cannot commit to implementing the outcomes.
Given: In most elections, some Councillors are returned so there is continuity; It will provide very useful information and input to the new Council; Given the timing of the election and Christmas, if the Jury was not started until after the election, it would have to run from about February to July. This is too late for the recommendations to be used by the new Council in adopting the new 4 year Council Plan; it is recommended the process be conducted from March to August 2016.
In this circumstance, the following commitments of the current Council are recommended: That the full report is made available for their information; That the full report is made publically available when received; The Jury is invited to present its findings to the current Council; That the full report is made available to the incoming Council.
It will be recommended that the incoming Council: Invites the Jury to present their recommendations as part of their induction. Provides a formal response to the Jury and the general community on its acceptance (or otherwise) of each of the recommendations.
Input from Others to the Jury Process
Once the question has been settled and the process started, input is invited from the broader community through inviting submissions, online comments, media and Greater Bendigo News.
In addition, anyone can attend the sessions when the jury is deliberating, as observers. Any questions or comments from the observers are recorded for the jury to consider.
Resource Implications
In-house resources required are estimated to be: 3.0EFT for 4 weeks, peaking at the beginning of the process, but spread over the duration of the project; Provision of venues Graphic design of invitations.
PAGE 208 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
It is estimated that approximately $89,000 would be required for:
Independent facilitator(s) Per day rate for participants Research fee to newDemocracy Other support.
As there is no budget allocation for this project, it would be an over-expenditure of $30,000 in this financial year (included in the mid-year budget review) and approximately $58,000 in the 2016/2017 financial year (which is included in draft budget).
Conclusion
An independently facilitated Citizens' Jury process is an innovative approach to involving our community in the future direction of the City. It will make a significant contribution to the vision of "Greater Bendigo - working together to be Australia's most liveable regional city" by building confidence that Councillors are listening to the views of a broad range of our residents.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Greater Bendigo City Council resolve: 1. To undertake an independent Citizens' Jury process, to commence as soon as practical; 2. That the full report is made available to the current Council for their information; 3. That the full report is made publically available when received; 4. That the Jury will be invited to present its findings to the current Council; 5. That the full report is made available to the incoming Council.
PAGE 209 Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
7. URGENT BUSINESS
Nil.
PAGE 210 Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
8. NOTICES OF MOTION
8.1 NOTICE OF MOTION: HOPLEY RECYCLING
CR ELISE CHAPMAN
That Council will allow Hopley Recycling to occupy the former White Hills Landfill site until it makes a decision on the future long term use of the site, on the following conditions.
1. That Hopley Recycling reduce its stock piles as per the relocation plan provided by Hopley Recycling, this is not to go to landfill.
2. If Council decide the future use is not compatible with Hopley Recycling's current use then Hopley Recycling must be off the site by 31 August 2016.
3. That Councillors and staff meet with representatives of EPA and DEPI to discuss the future use and potential sub-lease of the former White Hills landfill site.
Officer comment (Darren Fuzzard, A/Chief Executive Officer)
Council is advised that the testing required for the Hydrological Assessment and Landfill Gas Risk Assessment is expected to conclude earlier than originally planned due to favourable conditions for monitoring. This will allow the consultant to collate and review the entire data set and prepare the written report in early April. The reports will then be reviewed by our lawyer under 'Legal Privilege' before (and after) being forwarded for assessment by our EPA approved Environmental Auditor (expected 4 week process). The final reports will then be submitted to the EPA by 31 May 2016.
A confidential briefing from our Lawyer can be arranged for mid to late April to advise Councillors on the results and recommendations contained within the reports prior to being submitted to the EPA. It is expected that after consideration of reports, the EPA will advise if satisfied to sign off on the proposed rehabilitation plan or require the City to undertake further works.
PAGE 211 Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
PAGE 212 Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
9. COUNCILLORS' REPORTS
10. MAYOR'S REPORT
11. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT
12. CONFIDENTIAL (SECTION 89) REPORTS
Nil.
PAGE 213