MINUTES Ordinary Meeting of Council

MINUTES

Ordinary Meeting of Council

6 .00pm Wednesday 10 August 2016

*** Broadcast live on Phoenix FM 106.7 ***

VENUE: Reception Room, Bendigo Town Hall, Hargreaves Street, Bendigo

NEXT MEETING: Wednesday 31 August 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

This Council Meeting is conducted in accordance with Local Law No. 8. It is an offence for any person to engage in improper or disorderly conduct at the meeting.

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 10 AUGUST 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 6

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS 6

DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST 7

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 8

1. PETITIONS AND JOINT LETTERS 22

1.1 PETITION: REQUEST FOR SEALING OF MYRTLE CREEK 22 ROAD, AXE CREEK

2. PLANNING FOR GROWTH 25

2.1 PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C221 - BENDIGO 25 URBAN FLOOD STUDY - CONSIDER SUBMISSIONS AND REFER TO PANEL

2.2 MINISTERIAL PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT GC49 - 41 HOSPITAL HELICOPTER FLIGHT PATH PROTECTION- FOR INFORMATION AND SUPPORT

2.3 1/93 GARSED STREET, BENDIGO - PARTIAL DEMOLITION 49 (ROOF TRUSSES AND REAR WALL)

2.4 440 SEDGWICK ROAD, SEDGWICK - THE SUBDIVISION 58 OF LAND INTO 2 LOTS

2.5 REVIEW OF PLANNING FEES - SUBMISSION BY THE CITY 67 OF GREATER BENDIGO

3. PRESENTATION AND VIBRANCY 72

3.1 FUTURE USE OF CROWN LAND AT VICTORIA STREET, 72 EAGLEHAWK

PAGE 3

3.2 KAMAROOKA AND DISTRICT COMMUNITY PLAN 83

3.3 BARRACK RESERVE REDEVELOPMENT 87

4. PRODUCTIVITY 93

5. SUSTAINABILITY 93

6. LEADERSHIP AND GOOD GOVERNANCE 94

6.1 REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT ARBITER 94

6.2 REVIEW OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT - 97 DIRECTIONS PAPER SUBMISSION - JULY 2016

6.3 CHANGE TO BUSHFIRE PLACE OF LAST RESORT - 104 NEIGHBOURHOOD SAFER PLACE AT CANTERBURY PARK, EAGLEHAWK

6.4 RECORD OF ASSEMBLIES 109

6.5 CONTRACTS AWARDED UNDER DELEGATION 114

7. URGENT BUSINESS 115

8. NOTICES OF MOTION 115

9. COUNCILLORS' REPORTS 115

10. MAYOR'S REPORT 116

11. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT 117

12. CONFIDENTIAL (SECTION 89) REPORTS 118

12.1 Confidential Report in accordance with Section 89(2)(a) 118 and (d) of the Local Government Act 1989, relating to a personnel and contractual matter.

12.2 Confidential Report in accordance with Section 89(2)d) of 118 the Local Government Act 1989, relating to a contractual matter.

12.3 Confidential Attachment in accordance with Section 118 89(2)(a) and (h) of the Local Government Act 1989, relating to a personnel matter and any other matter which the Council or special committee considers would prejudice the Council or any person.

______CRAIG NIEMANN CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PAGE 4 Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

PRAYER

PRESENT

Cr Rod Fyffe Cr Rod Campbell Cr Peter Cox Cr Elise Chapman Cr Helen Leach Cr Barry Lyons Cr Lisa Ruffell (part) Cr Mark Weragoda Cr James Williams Mr Craig Niemann (Chief Executive Officer) Ms Prue Mansfield (Director, Planning and Development) Mr Michael Smyth (A/Director, Community Wellbeing) Mr Terry Karamaloudis (A/Director, City Futures) Ms Kerryn Ellis (Director, Organisation Support) Mr Ian Couper (Interim Director, Presentation and Assets) Mr Peter Davies (Manager, Executive Services) Mrs Alison Campbell

APOLOGIES

Cr Lisa Ruffell (arrived 6:35pm)

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

That Standing Orders be suspended to allow the conduct of Public Question Time.

RESOLUTION

Moved Cr Weragoda, seconded Cr Lyons.

That Standing Orders be suspended to allow the conduct of Public Question Time.

CARRIED

PAGE 5 Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS

That Standing Orders be resumed.

RESOLUTION

Moved Cr Weragoda, seconded Cr Leach.

That Standing Orders be resumed.

CARRIED

CR CAMPBELL'S REPORT

Cr Campbell reported on his attendance at the following meeting and events:

Attended the workshop relating to the Local Government Act Directions Paper; participated in a Phoenix FM radio interview; attended the opening of Marist Brothers College at Maiden Gully; attended the Ward meeting at Axedale and attended a meeting of the Fosterville Gold Environmental Review Committee.

PAGE 6 Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 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 minutes; 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.

Cr Rod Fyffe declared a conflict of interest relating to item 3.1. Cr Fyffe has an indirect interest because of conflicting duties as he is a member of the Cemetery Trust Board.

Cr Lisa Ruffell declared a conflict of interest relating to item 3.1. Cr Ruffell has an indirect interest because of conflicting duties as she is a member of the Cemetery Trust Board.

PAGE 7 Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Wednesday 20 July 2016.

The following items were considered at the Ordinary Council meeting held on Wednesday 20 July 2016 at 6:00pm.

 Implementation of Connecting Greater Bendigo Integrated Transport and Land Use Strategy (ITLUS) - Planning Scheme Amendment C227  Planning Scheme Amendment C223 - White Hills and East Bendigo Heritage Study Stage 2 - Consider Authorisation Request  1096 Calder Alternative Highway, Lockwood - Development of 2 Sheds and Their Use for the Purpose of a Store (Caravan Storage)  1, 2, 35 and 42 Irontree Close, Kangaroo Flat - 8 Lot Subdivision  51 Hannans Road, Mandurang South - Refusal of Development Plan and Subdivide Land into 2 Lots  2015/16 Annual Report - Road Management Plan Version 2.0  Domestic Animal Management Plan 2016 - 2021  Adoption of New Animal Keeping Local Law No. 2 and Minor Amendment to Administrative Local Law No. 10  Greater Bendigo Wellbeing Survey 2015  Cultural Diversity and Inclusion Plan  Renaming of Vahland Street in North Bendigo  Positive Ageing Advisory Committee  Smart Cities Plan - Submission by the City of Greater Bendigo  Record of Assemblies  Notice of Motion: Waste to Energy

The unconfirmed minutes have also been posted on the City of Greater Bendigo website pending confirmation at this meeting.

RECOMMENDATION

MOTION

Moved Cr Lyons, seconded Cr Cox.

1. That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on Wednesday 20 July 2016, as circulated, be taken as read and confirmed

CARRIED

PAGE 8 Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

MOTION

Moved Cr Leach, seconded Cr Chapman.

2. That Council approve the addition of the following conditions to the Minutes as outlined below associated with the Planning for Growth Report No. 2.3 (1096 Calder Alternative Highway, Lockwood 3551 - Development of 2 Sheds and Their Use for the Purpose of a Store [Caravan Storage] that was presented to the Council Meeting on 20 July 2016):

1. PLAN REQUIRED Before the use and development start(s), plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and VicRoads 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 two copies must be provided. The plans must show: (a) Details of proposed access in accordance with Condition 10.

2. NO ALTERATION TO PLAN The development and/or use(s) permitted by this permit as shown on the endorsed plan(s) 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.

3. SPECIFIED OPERATOR This permit allows the use of the land only by C L Bassler and L J Bassler. If C L Bassler and L J Bassler cease to use the land for the approved purpose, the permit will expire.

4. ACCESS TO THE SITE Access to the site for the proposed use must only occur between:  Monday – Friday 8.00 am to 6.00 pm  Saturday – Sunday 9.00 am to 3.00 pm

5. EXTERNAL CLADDING All external cladding and trim of the proposed building(s) (including the roof) must be of a non-reflective nature.

6. DRAINAGE The proposed building(s) and works must be drained to the satisfaction of the City of Greater Bendigo as the responsible drainage authority.

7. NEAT AND TIDY SITE The subject land must be kept neat and tidy at all times and its appearance must not, in the opinion of the responsible authority, adversely affect the amenity of the locality.

8. GENERAL AMENITY The use permitted by this permit must not, in the opinion of the responsible authority, adversely affect the amenity of the locality.

PAGE 9 Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

9. BAFFLED LIGHTING Outdoor lighting, where provided, must be designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the responsible authority such that no direct light is emitted outside the boundaries of the subject land.

10. VICROADS (a) Prior to the development coming into use hereby approved: i. The existing unsealed crossover must be upgraded to be constructed in accordance with the Truck Access to Rural Properties, Type A, SD2064. ii. The access lane, driveway, crossover and associated works must be provided and available for use and be:  Formed to such levels and drained so can be used in accordance with the plan; and  Treated with an all-weather seal or some other durable surface. (b) The driveway and crossover must be maintained in a fit and proper state so as not to compromise the ability of vehicles to enter and exit the site in a safe manner or compromise operational efficiency of the road or public safety (e.g. by spilling gravel onto the roadway). (c) All works must be completed to the satisfaction of and at no cost to the Roads Corporation.

11. COMPLY WITH STATE NOISE POLICY N-1 Noise emissions must comply with State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No. N-1.

Environmental Health Notes:  The outbuildings approved by this permit must not be used for habitation.  No sanitary fixtures or fittings shall be installed within the outbuilding.

VicRoads Note: Standard Drawing 2064 can be found on the VicRoads website by going to the below link: https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/~/media/files/technicaldocuments/standard- drawings/standard-drawing-2064a--truck-access-to-rural-properties--type-a.ashx The proposed development requires the re-construction of a crossover on the arterial road reserve. Separate approval under the Road Management Act for this activity may be required from VicRoads (the Roads Corporation). Please contact VicRoads prior to commencing any works.

CARRIED

PAGE 10 Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Attachment (previous report to Council on 20 July 2016)

2.3 Ordinary Meeting

Document Information

Author Kahlia Reid, Planner

Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning & Development Director

Summary/Purpose Application details: Development of 2 sheds and their use for the purpose of a store (caravan storage). Application No: DG/791/2015 Applicant: Craig and Leonie Bassler Land: 1096 Calder Alternative Highway, LOCKWOOD 3551 Zoning: Rural Living Zone Overlays: There are no overlays applying to the site. No. of objections: 4 Consultation meeting: A consultation meeting was not undertaken at the applicant's request. Key considerations: Is the proposed use appropriate under the zone? Is the proposed development appropriate in the area? Will there be adverse amenity impacts? Conclusion: The proposed use of land for a store (caravan storage) is prohibited under the Rural Living Zone as it is not in association with the occupation of a resident of a dwelling on the property.

To quote Victorian Government – Using Victoria’s Planning Scheme “if the applicant insists on the application for a prohibited use or development being considered, the responsible authority (Council) must do so. The only decision the authority can validly make in such a case where the use or development is prohibited is to refuse to grant a permit.

In this instance the applicant has insisted a decision be made on the proposal.

Policy Context City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013 – 2017 (2016-2017 Update) Planning for Growth  Planning ensures residents have access to diverse, affordable and sustainable housing choices. Sustainability  The built and natural qualities that make Greater Bendigo an attractive and appealing place are valued and conserved.

PAGE 11 Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Background Information Application History A summary of the application history is provided as follows:  Application received on 19 October 2015 for Use and Development of Two Sheds (associated with existing dwelling).  Advertising was completed on 1 December 2015 – no objections received.  Request to amend application received on 22 January 2016 to include Use of Two Sheds as a Store (caravans).  Ongoing discussion and correspondence with applicant through February and March about proposal.  New advertising occurred due to change in proposal, completed 18 May 2016.  Four objections received following advertising.

Report Subject Site and Surrounds The site is a rectangular shaped allotment located on the eastern side of the Calder Alternative Highway approximately 180 metres north of the Lockwood Road / Bendigo – Maryborough Road intersection.

The site has a frontage to the highway of 95.55 metres, a depth of 251.46 metres and has a total area 2.403 hectare.

A dwelling and associated outbuildings are located in the eastern half of the site.

One of the outbuildings is utilised by the owner as a business known as Tuff Covers which produces canvas and synthetic fabric products (i.e. boat covers).

Access to the site is provided via an unsealed driveway which extends along the northern boundary from the Calder Alternative Highway.

A dam is located towards the northern boundary approximately 35 metres north west of the dwelling.

Fill has been placed at the front of the site.

Scattered native vegetation is evident.

PAGE 12 Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Figure 1 View of site from Calder Alternative Highway

The site is located within an area zoned Rural Living which extends north to Wiegards Road. Land to the north of Wiegards Road is zoned Farming (refer to Figure 2).

Figure 2 Zone Map

Nearby properties generally contain dwellings and associated outbuildings and are utilised for lifestyle purposes. There are also a number of businesses approved to operate in the area including (but not limited to):  1090 Calder Alternative Highway (adjoining application site to the south) – Planning Permit 130/2006 Dog Training  792 Lockwood Road (adjoining application site to the east) – Planning Permit 167/2000 Landscaping Supplies  CA 8 Calder Alternative Highway – Planning Permit 637/2011 Use and Development of Dwelling, Animal Keeping (Cattery), Creation of Access and Advertising Signage

PAGE 13 Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

 1161 Calder Alternative Highway - Planning Permit 790/2013 Use of Land for Trade Supplies and Industry on land zoned Farming

These land uses are permissible under their relevant zonings.

The Calder Alternative Highway is a Category 1 Road managed by VicRoads.

Figure 3 Location map showing subject site. Objector’s properties marked with a star.

Proposal The application seeks planning approval for the development of two sheds and their use for the purpose of a store (caravan storage).

The sheds are proposed to be located south of the existing dam.

One shed is proposed to run parallel to the southern boundary, while the other will run in a north western direction, forming an “L” like shape.

A minimum offset of 4.8 metres will be provided from the southern boundary.

The sheds are proposed to be 30 metres long and 9 metres wide, with a maximum wall height of 3.6 metres.

There was discussion about reducing the size of the sheds, however, no formal amendment was received.

PAGE 14 Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Figure 4 Proposed site plan

While initially the application was to utilise these sheds solely for domestic purposes it was subsequently amended for the use of a store, with the intention to store other people’s caravans.

The caravan storage is a business proposition where external parties will bring their caravans to the site and subsequently collect when required.

Figure 5 Proposed location of one shed

PAGE 15 Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Figure 6 Proposed location of second shed

Planning Controls - Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme The following clauses are relevant in the consideration of this proposal:

State Planning Policy Framework  Clause 11.05-1 Regional Settlement Networks  Clause 11.12 Loddon Mallee South Regional Growth  Clause 16.02-1 Rural Residential Development

Municipal Strategic Statement  Clause 21.05 Settlement

Other Provisions  Clause 35.03 Rural Living Zone  Clause 52.29 Land Adjacent to a Road Zone, Category 1  Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

Consultation/Communication Referrals

The following authorities and internal departments have been consulted on the proposal:

Referral Comment

VicRoads No objection subject to conditions

Traffic No objection

Environmental Health No objection

PAGE 16 Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

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, four objections were received, with the grounds of objection being:  Proposed business not in keeping with the zoning of land;  Would set a precedent for operations of this nature in rural living area;  Traffic flow along unsealed driveway next to adjoining dwelling;  Noise impacts;  Movement of traffic from Calder Alternative Highway;  Extent of dirt (fill) on site;  Property devaluation;

The objections are discussed below.

Planning Assessment Site and Zoning Context

The site and immediately surrounding land is identified as being within the Rural Living Zone.

The purposes of the Rural Living Zone include:  To provide for residential use in a rural environment.  To provide for agricultural land uses which do not adversely affect the amenity of surrounding land uses.  To protect and enhance the natural resources, biodiversity and landscape and heritage values of the area.  To encourage use and development of land based on comprehensive and sustainable land management practices and infrastructure provision.

The City of Greater Bendigo is committed to protecting and providing opportunity for rural residential development in the municipality which is encouraged through Clause 21.05 Settlement. Objectives of Clause 21.05 Settlement include to provide alternative residential options to those offered in the urban areas of Bendigo and to recognise that rural living patterns of settlement are a legitimate and important aspect of settlement in the municipality.

The purpose of the zone does not include the encouragement of commercial enterprises.

While it is permissible for some commercial operations (i.e. community market, plant nursery, primary produce sales etc.) to occur under the Rural Living Zone (subject to planning approval) the use of land for a store in the manner proposed by this application is not allowed (prohibited).

Land Use

The application proposes to use the sheds as a store (caravan storage).

Under the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme the use of land for a store is defined as land used to store goods, machinery or vehicles.

The Rural Living Zone identifies the use of land for a store is a Section 2 Use (permit required) subject to satisfying the following condition must be in a building, not a dwelling, and used to store equipment, goods, or motor vehicles used in conjunction with the occupation of a resident of a dwelling on the lot.

PAGE 17 Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Lindsay Pty Ltd v Benalla Rural CC [2005] VCAT 708 (11 April 2005) stated “because a use is a Section 2 does not imply that a permit should or will be granted. The responsible authority must decide whether the proposal will produce acceptable outcomes in terms of the State Planning Policy Framework, Local Planning Policy Framework, the purpose and decision guidelines of the zone and any other decision guidelines in Clause 65.”

Based on the information provided the proposal does not satisfy the condition of the zone, as the store is not associated within the occupation of a resident of the dwelling.

Manningham CC v Treefern Nominees Pty Ltd (Beasleys) [2008] VCAT 1105 (17 June 2008) supports this conclusion in paragraph 81 which states “Furthermore, the second part of the condition requires goods being stored to be used in conjunction with the occupation of a resident of a dwelling on the lot. Thirty to thirty-five caravans owned by other people and accommodated on the land, whether gratis or for payment hardly meet that requirement.”

The City of Greater Bendigo therefore has determined this use of the land is prohibited and therefore an application must be refused.

In addition, the proposal is not considered to be in keeping with the purposes of the zone which have previously been discussed in this report.

A number of objectors have also raised concern about the proposed use in regards to amenity impacts.

These potential impacts are acknowledged, however, given that the use is prohibited for the above reasons no further discussion regarding these matters is necessary.

The applicant did undertake discussions about amending the proposal for a third time back to domestic purposes, however, no formal amendment was received and there was no evidence the sheds would be utilised in this manner. The applicant has confirmed in writing it is their intention to operate the business from the property.

Development

Two sheds are proposed to be constructed on the site near the southern boundary.

There are already a number of sheds established on the property and therefore it is questionable about the need for an additional two sheds of this size and scale.

The applicant was prepared to reduce the size of the sheds and indicated there were domestic items (i.e. tractor, horse float) that were intended to be stored.

The siting of the sheds is generally considered acceptable.

No objections were received to the development of the sheds.

As the application is a combined use and development proposal the application needs to be considered as a whole.

Although it may be reasonable for additional shedding to be provided on the site for domestic purposes, based on evidence available there is concern that additional shedding would not be utilised in this manner.

PAGE 18 Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Other Matters

Two trees have been removed from the application site where the two sheds were proposed to be located (refer to Figures 3, 4, 5 and 6).

Having inspected the site and noting the scattered native vegetation which is evident it is considered possible these two trees were native and therefore would have required planning approval for removal. As the vegetation was removed prior to an onsite inspection no further action is proposed to be taken regarding this matter as it cannot be proven the vegetation was native.

Conclusion The decision to be made is not a consideration of the specific detail of the application nor what has occurred in the area historically.

This is an application where the use is prohibited due to the proposal not satisfying a condition in the Rural Living Zone which requires the use of land for a store to be in conjunction with the occupation of a resident of the dwelling.

Therefore no planning permit can be granted.

The applicant may elect to appeal this position at VCAT.

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.

In order to justify granting a permit, Council would need to be satisfied that the use is not prohibited. The question of whether the use is prohibited is a matter of judgement having regard to the relevant facts. The opinion expressed in this report is that the use is clearly prohibited and that no permit should be granted.

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 development of two sheds and their use for the purpose of a store (caravan storage) at 1096 Calder Alternative Highway, LOCKWOOD 3551 for the following reasons:

1. The use of the land for a store (caravan storage) is prohibited under the Rural Living Zone.

2. The proposal is inconsistent with the purposes of the zone.

MOTION

Moved Cr Leach, seconded Cr Chapman.

That Council issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for the development of two sheds and their use for the purpose of a store (caravan storage) at 1096 Calder Alternative Highway, LOCKWOOD subject to conditions.

CARRIED

PAGE 19 Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

(Note: conditions were developed following the meeting as below:)

4. ACCESS TO THE SITE Access to the site for the proposed use must only occur between:  Monday – Friday 8.00 am to 6.00 pm  Saturday – Sunday 9.00 am to 3.00 pm

5. EXTERNAL CLADDING All external cladding and trim of the proposed building(s) (including the roof) must be of a non- reflective nature.

6. DRAINAGE The proposed building(s) and works must be drained to the satisfaction of the City of Greater Bendigo as the responsible drainage authority.

7. NEAT AND TIDY SITE The subject land must be kept neat and tidy at all times and its appearance must not, in the opinion of the responsible authority, adversely affect the amenity of the locality.

8. GENERAL AMENITY The use permitted by this permit must not, in the opinion of the responsible authority, adversely affect the amenity of the locality.

PAGE 20 Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

compromise the ability of vehicles to enter and exit the site in a safe manner or compromise operational efficiency of the road or public safety (e.g. by spilling gravel onto the roadway). (c) All works must be completed to the satisfaction of and at no cost to the Roads Corporation.

11. COMPLY WITH STATE NOISE POLICY N-1 Noise emissions must comply with State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No. N-1.

Environmental Health Notes:  The outbuildings approved by this permit must not be used for habitation.  No sanitary fixtures or fittings shall be installed within the outbuilding.

VicRoads Note: Standard Drawing 2064 can be found on the VicRoads website by going to the below link: https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/~/media/files/technicaldocuments/standard-drawings/standard- drawing-2064a--truck-access-to-rural-properties--type-a.ashx The proposed development requires the re-construction of a crossover on the arterial road reserve. Separate approval under the Road Management Act for this activity may be required from VicRoads (the Roads Corporation). Please contact VicRoads prior to commencing any works.

PAGE 21 Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

1. PETITIONS AND JOINT LETTERS

1.1 PETITION: REQUEST FOR SEALING OF MYRTLE CREEK ROAD, AXE CREEK

Document Information

Author Brett Martini, Manager Engineering and Public Space

Responsible Ian Couper, Interim Director Presentation and Assets Director

[Petitions and joint letters with ten (10) or more signatures are included in the agenda or tabled at the meeting, unless there is a separate legal process for considering the petition or joint letter, as there is for planning submissions or submissions following public notices (Section 223 LGA)].

A petition has been received from concerned residents in the area of Myrtle Creek Road, Axe Creek, as outlined below:

"We, the undersigned, petition Council to seal the section of Myrtle Creek Road from the intersection of Axe Creek Road and Emu Creek Road to Sims Road, which measures approximately 2.6 kilometres in length. The sealing surface required is bitumen. Please read the attached letter referring to ongoing maintenance and how this request supports the overall objective of Asset Management in the City of Greater Bendigo's Road Management Plan."

Signatures - 32

Officer Comment - (Brett Martini, Manager Engineering & Public Space):

The City of Greater Bendigo's (CoGB) Road Management Plan V 2.0 ("the Plan") was adopted by Council in June 2014. In accordance with Section 50 the Road Management Act 2004, the Plan's purpose is to establish a management system for the management of roads, based on policy and operational objectives and available resources. The Plan also recognises the linkage between effective management of road assets and the achievement of maintenance standards.

The CoGB currently manages 3,099 kilometres of roads throughout the municipality, 1,626 kilometres of which are unsealed. In line with Council's Asset Management Strategy, the overall objective of managing these assets against the Plan is to ensure that Council road infrastructure continues to provide sustainable, safe and economic services to the community.

PAGE 22 Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

The 2.58 kilometre section of Myrtle Creek Road between Axe Creek Road/Emu Creek Road and Sims Road, Axe Creek has a 12 month inspection frequency and is currently on a targeted three month grading cycle.

Customer request and inspection history show that this section of road has only received five maintenance requests over the past five years, with no major defects identified under the Plan, and that the surfacing stands up well compared to other gravel roads around the municipality.

A proposal for this section to be sealed has previously been assessed as part of the CoGB's Capital Works Program. These types of road projects listed for construction and sealing are subjected to an initial objective analysis, followed by an annual review, of factors including construction and future maintenance costs for both sealed and unsealed roads, vehicle operation costs, expected accident savings, traffic volume, commercial vehicle density and bus routes, traffic growth, traffic speed, residential density, age of dwellings, setback of dwellings and environmental issues. This rating then assists in prioritisation of the vast number of projects that are requested throughout the City.

In regard to traffic data and subsequent maintenance, a traffic count on this section of Myrtle Creek Road was undertaken in 2009 which showed 82 vehicles per day (vpd). A previous count in 1992 recorded 66 vpd. With no major changes in land use/development or traffic generators since 2009, a similar growth in traffic since the 2009 count would place current traffic volumes in the vicinity of 90 vpd. To put this in context, the recently sealed Watson Street and Bowles Road had 170 and 210 vpd respectively, prior to sealing.

Whilst generally roads with less than 150 vehicles per day are most cost effective as gravel roads, it's important that traffic data is not viewed in isolation as there can be other contributing factors towards why a road should be sealed. In respect to Myrtle Creek Road, it is an identified school bus route and has a traffic volume higher than some. These factors combined with an estimated project cost of $975,000 see the project's cost benefit ratio above many of the projects listed in the Capital Works Program, rating it 30 out of the 314 road construction projects with a total value of $217 million. It is noted that an updated traffic count would be unlikely to significantly change the priority of this project.

Consequently, when compared to other road construction projects across the municipality this project is not considered amongst the highest rated projects and is unlikely to be under Council Budget consideration for sealing in the short term.

Cr Ruffell arrived at the meeting at 6:35pm

PAGE 23 Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

RECOMMENDATION

That Greater Bendigo Council, having considered the petition/joint letter:

1. Support the assessment and prioritisation of further works along the section of Myrtle Creek Road between Axe Creek Road/Emu Creek Road and Sims Lane, through the City of Greater Bendigo's Capital Works Program.

2. Notify the submitters of the petition of the evaluation process for the construction and sealing of roads, and the priority rating for the above project.

RESOLUTION

Moved Cr Campbell, Seconded Cr Weragoda.

That the recommendation be adopted.

CARRIED

PAGE 24 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

2. PLANNING FOR GROWTH

2.1 PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C221 - BENDIGO URBAN FLOOD STUDY - CONSIDER SUBMISSIONS AND REFER TO PANEL

Document Information

Author Emma Bryant, Co-ordinator Amendments & Heritage

Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning & Development Director

Summary/Purpose

Amendment details: This amendment implements the Bendigo Urban Flood Study 2013, which was commissioned by the North Central Catchment Management Authority and the City. It is one of the largest and most comprehensive urban flood studies ever undertaken and its implementation will provide a consistent set of flooding planning controls across the Bendigo urban area for the first time

The amendment will apply flooding controls to a number of properties to ensure that flooding is considered in development proposals. It will also reduce planning permit requirements when certain conditions are met and introduce guidelines for development within flood prone areas. Proponent: City of Greater Bendigo and North Central Catchment Management Authority No. of submissions: 52 (including 4 support, 48 requesting a change, 5 late) Key issues:  Update the flood controls to support land use planning and development decisions to minimise the risks to the Bendigo community from flooding.  Accuracy of modelling and mapping.  Undertake creek maintenance to reduce flooding.  Undertake mitigation works to reduce flooding.  Amend overlays to account for recent planning permits and filling.  Relocatable buildings requiring a permit.  Ability to provide more detailed site specific information with applications. Recommendation: That Council adopt the recommendations detailed for each of the submissions in this report and request the Minister for Planning to appoint an Independent Panel to consider the

PAGE 25 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

outstanding submission/s.

Policy Context

City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013 – 2017 (2016-2017 Update) Sustainability  Complete the planning scheme amendment for the Bendigo Flood Study.

Background Information

The key steps in the Amendment process are summarised below:

Previous Council Decisions

16 December 2015 – Council resolved to: 1. Adopt the Bendigo Urban Flood Study 2013.

PAGE 26 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

2. Request the Minister for Planning to authorise Council to prepare Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme. 3. When Authorised by the Minister, exhibit Amendment C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme giving notification as required for six weeks.

Report

An Explanatory Report is attached and details the purpose, effect of the Amendment and provides the strategic justification for the Amendment as required. Key issues identified in the Explanatory Report are summarised below.

What the Amendment does

 Amend Clause 21.08 Environment of the Municipal Strategic Statement to refer to the importance of flood management and planning.  Rezone 16 Rosemundy Road from Urban Floodway Zone to Farming Zone.  Apply the Land subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO) to approximately 5,074 properties.  Remove the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay from approximately 682 properties.  Introduce Clause 44.05 Special Building Overlay schedule to the scheme.  Apply the Special Building Overlay schedules 1 and 2 to approximately 776 properties.  Remove the Environmental Significance Overlay schedule 1 from approximately 2,000 properties.  Amend the schedule to Clause 44.04 Land Subject to Inundation Overlay to reduce planning permit requirements and to include a Local Floodplain Development Plan.  Amend Clause 81 to include the Bendigo Local Floodplain Development Plan (2015) as an incorporated document in the planning scheme.

The Amendment affects approximately 5,500 properties across the Municipality by either adding or removing an overlay.

Consultation/Communication

Exhibition Procedures

The Amendment was exhibited for 6 weeks from 19 May 2016 to 30 June 2016.

Notice was provided in the following manner:  Individual notices to owners and occupiers of land affected by the Amendment.  Notices to prescribed Ministers under Section 19(1)(c) of the Planning and Environment Act.  Notices to all authorities materially affected under Section 19(1)(a) of the Act.  Public notice of the Amendment in the Bendigo Advertiser on 18 May 2016 and 21 May 2016.

PAGE 27 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

 Publication of the notice of the Amendment in the Government Gazette on 19 May 2016.  Access on-line with a separate Bendigo urban Flood Study web page.  3 public drop in information sessions attended by approximately 200 people.

Submissions

The amendment received 52 submissions in total including 4 of full support and 48 requesting a change. Four of these submissions were received after the close of exhibition and are considered late submissions.

Of the 48 requesting a change, 6 can be completely accommodated therefore it is recommended that 41 be referred to the independent panel.

Most of the objecting submissions question the extent of the flood mapping. These submissions and the relevant mapping have been reviewed by the North Central Catchment Management Authority and where the request is reasonable and supported by facts it has been recommended that the mapping be changed (6 submissions). In other cases it is recommended that the submission be referred to the independent panel (42 submissions).

Other issues raised include quality of the base data and modelling, maintenance of the creeks and other mitigation works, permit requirements such as the ability to provide more detailed information and the need for permits for relocatable buildings, and valuation and insurance concerns.

Negotiations will continue to occur with objectors until the panel hearing, scheduled for late October, to try and resolve further issues.

Table 1: Submissions received to Amendment C221 & officer recommendations

Submitter 1: Clive and Bev Arnold, 183 Maiden Gully Road, Maiden Gully Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Flooding overlay should not be LSIO just touching property edge, not on property. going into property. Map will be modified so not affecting property. Change to amendment as requested. Submitter 2: Bruce and Dianne Beasley, 5 Irene Court, Kangaroo Flat Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Storm water and flooding works Works already considered in modelling. undertaken therefore flooding overlay Will run the model again with Crusoe should be removed. reservoir as a mitigation option (see later discussion) which may reduce flooding extent but not remove entirely. Refer to Panel

PAGE 28 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Submitter 3: Paul Comer, 165 Sullivans Road, Strathfieldsaye Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. LSIO in small corner not flood LSIO over a very small area with no prone and should be removed. planning implications. Remove overlay. Change to amendment as requested. Submitter 4: Anthony Egan, 33 Grace Street, Bendigo Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Questioning LSIO extent. LSIO has already been reduced from existing overlay. Reviewed current extent. No change to amendment. Refer to Panel Submitter 5: Lance Morrison, 31 Orchard Drive, Strathfieldsaye Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Wants LSIO removed/reduced No reason to change mapping provided and inspection. or available. Refer to panel Submitter 6: Colin Pavletich, 5659 Calder Highway, Big Hill Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Only small section floods where Only small area in front of property old dam that will be filled in. classed as flood prone. Mapping checked, minor changes can be made but property still in overlay. Refer to panel Submitter 7: Peter and Meaghan Holmes, 131 Heinz Street, East Bendigo Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. LSIO and LSIO2 extent not Levee bank considered in the model. No correct, levee bank nearby. change to amendment. Refer to Panel Submitter 8: John Tate, 71 Monsants Road, Maiden Gully Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. LSIO extent incorrect, should be Building envelope area can be increased bigger area for building and neighbour by reducing flood extent but overlay will constructed an illegal levee that causes still apply. Compliance officer has asked flooding. neighbour to put breaks in levee to release water. Refer to panel

PAGE 29 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Submitter 9: VicRoads Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Supports. No issues No change to amendment required. Submitter 10: Nola Punton, 26 Crusoe Road, Kangaroo Flat Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Incorrect flood mapping, creek Creek cleaning will not affect flood. needs cleaning out. Mapping extent cannot be changed. Refer to panel Submitter 11: Judith Lock, 23 Grantham Terrace, Kangaroo Flat. Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Flood extent incorrect. The Catchment Management Authority has agreed that the mapping is incorrect will change as requested. Change amendment as requested Submitter 12: Megan and Daniel Kreutzer, 4 Chifley Avenue, Kangaroo Flat Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Flood extent. CMA has reviewed and land still flood prone. Illegal fill being placed on adjoining land that needs to be removed (compliance action occurring). In future the overlay may be able to be removed if permit issued and fill placed on adjoining land. No change to amendment. Refer to panel Submitter 13: Environment Protection Authority Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Supports No change to amendment. Submitter 14: Peter Young, 19 Wingoon Drive, California Gully Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Flooding caused by drainage on Culvert being upgraded but will not Averys Rd which should be fixed. Also a change flooding extent. levy would help. Refer to Panel

PAGE 30 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Submitter 15: Margaret and Noel Bruhn, 21 Morsehead Court, White Hills Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Doesn’t believe their land Flood extent cannot be changed. floods. Refer to panel Submitter 16: Leigh Osborne, 635 Strathfieldsaye Road, Strathfieldsaye Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. LSIO extent overstated Mapping reviewed and no changes recommended. Refer to panel Submitter 17: Stacey Murtagh and Aaron Fuller, 3 Page Court, Kangaroo Flat Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. LSIO2 not correct. Mapping reviewed, slight change can be made as requested. Change to amendment as requested Submitter 18: Gavan Conroy, 126-128 High Street, Kangaroo Flat Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Opposed to LSIO extent Mapping reviewed. Cannot be removed. Refer to panel Submitter 19: Lindsay Sargeant, Sargeants Road, Epsom Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Flooding in Leans Road not Mapping reviewed and some minor correct. modifications can be made but cannot be completely resolved. Refer to panel Submitter 20: Karyn Broad, 50 Bakers Lane, Strathfieldsaye Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Opposed to LSIO. Mapping reviewed and cannot be changed. Refer to panel

PAGE 31 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Submitter 21: Currie Brown on behalf of Arbour Estates, 277 Howard Street and 162 and 184 Jobs Gully Road, Jackass Flat Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Wants changes to LSIO to Maps will be changed. consider recent filling. Change to amendment as requested Submitter 22: Currie Brown on behalf of Bendigo Properties, 244 Edwards Road, Maiden Gully Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Wants changes to LSIO to Maps will be changed. consider recent filling. Change to amendment as requested Submitter 23: Coliban Water Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Supports No change requested Submitter 24: J.E.Beaumont, 628 Strathfieldsaye Rd, Strathfieldsaye Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Affect on subdivision potential Mapping reviewed. No change and property values. Doesn’t believe it recommended. floods, been there for 82 years. Refer to panel Submitter 25: Nicole and Craig Wilson, 27 Burns Street, Spring Gully and 32-34 Kendall Street, Spring Gully Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Doesn’t want the Significant SLO1 not being removed in this Landscape Overlay schedule 1 (SLO1) amendment. ESO1 being removed as no removed. creek there. Have explained this to submitter but they do not want to withdraw their objection. Refer to panel. Submitter 26: Daniel and Rosemary Ruedin, 187 Midland Highway, Epsom Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Road kerb and channelling Explained that this is VicRoads affecting flooding and should be fixed. responsibility. Fixing unlikely to change flood mapping. No change to amendment. Refer to panel

PAGE 32 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Submitter 27: Daniel and Rosemary Ruedin, 2-10 Howard Street, Epsom Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Concerned about no No change to amendment proposed. development recommended within 50m Refer to panel of levee bank. Submitter 28: Epsom Huntly Drainage Committee, Ron Bergmeier and Bill Knight, 244 Midland Highway, Epsom Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Concerned with accuracy of It is acknowledged that Bendigo flood modelling and data. study had limited historical data as had not been collected. As much data used as possible and modelling. Concern that new developments not All new developments were included in included in modelling. modelling up to when the model was run. Climate change not considered, more Climate change was considered by frequent and extreme events possible. modelling the 1 in 200 event, which is a larger event. This information can be used for future planning. Refer to panel Submitter 29: G Power, 33 Havelock Street, Bendigo Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Wants mitigation works to be Mitigation may occur in future, many undertaken projects to undertake. Mapping will not change. Refer to panel Submitter 30: QOD, 680 and 708 Calder Highway, Maiden Gully Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Has other flood data ready for No permit submitted or approved. planning application. Premature to change mapping. Wants overlays to be amended as works Refer to panel done.

PAGE 33 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Submitter 31: Charles Cornish, 89 Sargeants Road, Epsom Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Concerned that in applying the The Catchment Management Authority SBO2 behind the levee bank that the considers the mapping to be correct. modelling did not consider the mitigation Channel considered in model. effects of the Ascot channel. Questions extent of LSIO and believes DELWP appointed an independent panel there should be an independent review of of independent professionals and the Study. Says that study says the academics which checked methodology mapping was reviewed by an and assumptions and outcomes. It is not independent technical panel, therefore a report or public document. requests a copy of this review. Believes that LSIO1 should not apply to Land also affected by Racecourse Creek his property as only stormwater entering flood waters. as a result of inadequately sized culvert in Sargeants Road. If anything it should be an SBO1. Requests that this culvert be upgraded. Also questions whether pipes and Pipes and channels considered. channels around Sargeants road have No change to mapping recommended. been considered in the mapping. Refer to panel Submitter 32: Harold and Wanda Hall, 50 Leans Road, Huntly Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Remove LSIO and SBO2 Mapping reviewed and no changes recommended. Refer to panel Submitter 33: Robyn Lewis, 10 Farrington Street, Kennington Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Flooding caused by Abbot street No bridges to be changed in short to and McIvor Rd Bridges. Any plans to medium term, very expensive. No change? change to mapping recommended. Can overlay be changed as land will be Refer to panel built up?

PAGE 34 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Submitter 34: Robert Scheuffele, 239-245 Midland Hwy and 247-265 Midland Hwy, Epsom Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Disagrees with mapping Mapping reviewed and no changes recommended. Refer to panel Submitter 35: Philip Trewartha, 169, 171 and 173 High Street, Bendigo Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Some non-flood related Mine will not take water. Mapping concerns and concern re flooding. Asks reviewed and not recommended to be whether central Deborah mine can take changed. Development difficult. water and be considered in mapping. Refer to panel Wants to do development but CMA says it is flood prone and can’t be filled. Submitter 36: Currie Brown on behalf of Bendigo Properties Pty Ltd, 147-155 Victa Road, East Bendigo Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Drainage plans done but not Planning permit expired, site flood study implemented, done a site flood too old, new information will be needed. assessment, request LSIO change. No change to mapping recommended. Refer to panel Submitter 37: Rohit Kumar, 32 Thunder Street, Bendigo North Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Wants ESO1 removed as not Not included in amendment and not necessary (current ESO1 and proposed recommended for removal. LSIO1). Refer to panel Submitter 38: Andrea Metcalfe, 45 Strickland Road, Ascot 73 Howard Street, Epsom, Butts street, Eaglehawk Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Disagrees with extent of LSIO. LSIO not recommended for changes. Refers to previous VCAT decisions. Modelling correct. Refer to panel

PAGE 35 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Submitter 39: Colin Johnston, Gold Nugget Tourist Park Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects to relocatable buildings requiring Needs to be consistent for all caravan a permit under LSIO1 and SBO2 parks. May require conditions. Refer to panel Submitter 40: Andrea Tomkinson on behalf of UDIA Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Support Council’s intentions to Although the mapping is far more provide greater certainty to landowners, accurate than our current planning however believe there are some issues scheme mapping, it does not map each including: individual house and fence. The  Mapping accuracy, (individual houses submission does not provide any further and fences not considered) technical information or specific examples and therefore the mapping should not be changed.  Ability to provide more detailed More detailed flood information can be modelling with a permit provided in questioning the amendment or with an application.

 Effect on property values Some property values will be affected if they are significantly flood prone and therefore development potential is reduced.  Possible increases in insurance Potential impacts on insurance premiums premiums and criticism that insurance were provided during exhibition: in the issues weren’t discussed in community bulletin, on line and at the information material community information nights. No change to amendment proposed. Refer to panel Submitter 41: Department of Environment Land Water and Planning, Forest, Fire and Regions Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Supports. No change to amendment.

PAGE 36 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Submitter 42: Damien Cranage, Total Property Developments Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Wants changes made to flood These sites have been reviewed by the mapping to reflect approved CMA with the following responses. permits/developments as per sites below: Requests can be supported depending on status and extent of filling: 21 Plumridge Street, White Hills Yes, current permit (DS/575/2013) 8,9 and 11 Carrington Close, White Hills Yes, current permit (DS/493/2011) 11A Arrawalli Avenue, Ascot Yes, current permit 58 Victoria St, Eaglehawk Yes, permit near completion 340A High Street, Kangaroo Flat Yes, current permit 200-202 Midland Highway, Epsom, No, current permit raised floor levels but (AM/706/2009) no filling and surrounded by flood overlay. Refer 200-202 Midland Highway to panel Submitter 43: Tony Knox (1), 42 Rohs Road, East Bendigo Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Amend LSIO due to proposed Recommend no change to mapping at filling near creek. this stage. Refer to panel Submitter 44: Tony Knox (2), 49 Regent Street, Strathfieldsaye Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Amend LSIO as land no longer The Catchment Management Authority prone to flooding and future works will has responded that part of the land is still reduce flooding. flood prone and therefore the request should not be supported. Refer to panel Submitter 45: Tony Knox (3), 1 Red Tank Rod, Strathfieldsaye Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Council drainage works remove The Catchment management authority the need for the LSIO. says that the land is still flood prone and don’t support a change. Refer to panel

PAGE 37 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Submitter 46: Goulburn Murray Water Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Supports. Requests that the requirement Support requested change. As it will be for new lots in a subdivision to be set making a change to the Plan, back 30m from waterways in the Local recommend that it be forwarded to panel Floodplain Development Plan for for consideration. residential zone be extended to all Res Refer to panel including Low Density Residential and Rural Living Zone. Submitter 47: Kevin and Margaret McDonald, 37 Creek Street, South, Bendigo Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Disagree with site being flood CMA has reviewed mapping and area is prone, insurance premiums have flood prone. Insurance premiums increased based on incorrect information. increased after 2011 flood events and before study. Insurance companies do not have new flood data yet. Refer to panel Submitter 48: Thomas Byrne, 21 Allen Street, Epsom Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. Disagree with flood mapping. CMA has reviewed mapping and area is flood prone. Refer to panel Submitter 49: William Kane, no address provided Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation General concerns, clean out creek, Cleaning out creek doesn’t affect extent housing has been approved in creeks, of the 1% Average Exceedance want real drainage, clean drains Probability (a 1 in 100 year type flood). Past approvals were based on available information. Council is undertaking drainage projects. Refer to panel Submitter 50: CFA Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Supports. No change requested.

PAGE 38 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Submitter 51: Spiire, 746 McIvor Highway, Junortoun/trotting terrace Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Lots filled for building envelopes, request CMA has reviewed mapping and part of that LSIO be removed. the area is still flood prone. The CMA does not support removing the LSIO from just the building envelopes as it will leave small ‘holes’ within the overlay. Refer to panel Submitter 52: Mrs Laurel Lubeck, 9 Grantham Terrace, Kangaroo Flat Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Wants creek cleaned and rock wall to Cleaning out creek doesn’t affect extent divert flood waters of the 1% Average Exceedance Engineering can investigate minor mitigation options. Refer to panel

Conclusion

It is recommended that Council support the officer recommendations for the submissions received and request the Minister for Planning to appoint an independent panel to hear outstanding submissions.

Options

Section 23(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 requires that in consideration of submissions received in relation to an Amendment, the Council must either:  Change the Amendment in the manner requested by the submitters and adopt the Amendment with changes; or  Refer the submission(s) to an Independent Panel appointed by the Minister; or  Abandon the Amendment, or part of the Amendment.

Section 22(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 advises that Council has the option of accepting late submissions, but must do so if requested by the Minister for Planning.

It is recommended that the late submissions be accepted and a panel requested to hear submissions that are outstanding.

Resource Implications

The City is responsible for payment of statutory fees and costs incurred in the processing of the Amendment. This will include additional estimated costs of $40,000 in association with holding a panel including expert witnesses and panel fees. These costs have been budgeted for this financial year. The North Central Catchment Management Authority will pay for half of the costs of the expert witness who prepared the study.

PAGE 39 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Attachments

 Copy of submissions (52)  Explanatory report

RECOMMENDATION

That the Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to:

1. Accept all late submissions

2. Adopt the recommendations detailed for each of the submissions attached to this report; and

3. Request the Minster for Planning to appoint an Independent Panel to consider all outstanding submissions.

MOTION

Moved Cr Williams, Seconded Cr Campbell.

That the Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to:

1. Accept all late submissions

2. Adopt the recommendations detailed for each of the submissions attached to this report; and

3. Request the Minster for Planning to appoint an Independent Panel to consider all outstanding submissions.

4. Request a panel to consist of members who have experience in flood management and that the panel hearing be held in Bendigo.

CARRIED

PAGE 40 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

2.2 MINISTERIAL PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT GC49 - HOSPITAL HELICOPTER FLIGHT PATH PROTECTION- FOR INFORMATION AND SUPPORT

Document Information -

Author Frank Casimir - Statutory Planner

Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning & Development Director

Summary/Purpose

Amendment details: This amendment is being prepared by the Minister for Planning at the request of the Department of Health and Human Services.

It proposes to apply the Design and Development Overlay Schedules 25 (DDO25) and 26 (DDO26) to land located within the emergency services helicopter flight paths around the Bendigo and Heathcote hospitals to make sure the ability for helicopters to land at these two hospitals is not compromised in the long term.

The Amendment is before Council to request its support before the final approval by the Minister for Planning. Proponent: The Department of Health and Human Services. Key issues:  No change to the existing uses of the affected land.  Long term protection to the existing emergency services helicopter flight paths against inappropriate developments.  Planning permit required for some new developments.  Potential height restriction to some buildings and works. Recommendation: That Council supports the preparation and approval of Ministerial Amendment GC49 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme.

Policy Context

City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013 – 2017 (2016-2017 Update) Leadership and good governance  Maintain strong and positive relationships with the Federal and State Government and relevant departments and agencies and advocate to ensure that the required

PAGE 41 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

infrastructure, key projects, policies and services are in place as our community grows.

Planning for growth  Greater Bendigo plans for the needs of our growing population through the preparation of long-term strategies and the development of ‘major new assets’ and supporting infrastructure.

Background Information

On 1 April 2016, the City received a letter from the Department of Health and Human Services advising that it had requested the Minister for Planning to prepare Amendment GC49, which affects the Planning Schemes of 13 municipalities in regional Victoria including Greater Bendigo.

The Amendment affects land around public hospitals, including Bendigo and Heathcote and would protect emergency helicopter flight paths. A similar ministerial Amendment has already been approved and gazetted for public hospitals in the Melbourne metropolitan area.

The Amendment is of State significance because it seeks to protect emergency services helicopter flight paths at public hospitals in Victoria. The Amendment is required as the Civil Aviation and Safety Authority (CASA) does not have the regulatory powers to protect emergency services flight paths.

The Hospital Precinct Structure Plan (2014) supports protection of the flight path and includes the following:

"The services of the Hospital include air ambulance helicopter transportation which must be able to operate safely to and from the Hospital helipad (refer to Strategy A-06). A Design and Development Overlay is likely to be required to apply height restrictions to new development. The boundaries are yet to be determined. Any overlay changes related to the air ambulance flight path will be subject to a separate amendment to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme."

Previous Council Decisions

16 December 2015 - Adoption Hospital Precinct Structure Plan

Report

The Explanatory Report details the purpose and effect of the Amendment and provides the strategic justification for the Amendment. Key issues identified in the Explanatory Report are discussed below.

PAGE 42 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Land affected by the Amendment

The amendment affects land located in the emergency services helicopter flight paths to and from the Bendigo and Heathcote hospitals. The flight paths have been mapped according to the provisions of the Department of Health and Human Services Guidelines for Helicopter Medical Transport Landing Sites (2014) and are specific to each site and their characteristics.

The land affected by the amendment in respect to both hospitals is shown on the maps below.

Figure 1: The affected land around the Bendigo Hospital helipad

PAGE 43 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Figure 2: The affected land around the Heathcote Hospital helipad

What the Amendment does

The Amendment proposes to:

 Apply the Design and Development Overlay Schedules 25 and 26 to the flight paths of Helicopter Emergency Medical Services helipads at public hospitals to protect operational airspaces of helicopters.

 Introduce schedules 25 and 26 to the Design and Development Overlay in the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme.

 Introduce the requirement for a planning permit and referral of some development applications to the Department of Health and Human Services for assessment.

The proposed schedule 25 to the DDO “Inner DDO” applies to land within 240 metres of the hospital helipads or 460 metres along the flight paths. The land to be affected by the “Inner DDO” is shown in red in Figure 1 and 2 above. The proposed schedule 26 “Outer DDO” applies to land between 460 metres and 1,130 metres from the helipads along the flight paths and is shown in blue.

Planning permit requirements

Schedule 25 or the “Inner DDO”, requires a planning permit for buildings, works or plumes that are either higher or of the same height as the helipads. In the “Outer DDO” a planning permit would be required for future buildings, works or plumes which are 10 metres above the helipads. All heights are measured in Australian Height Datum (AHD).

PAGE 44 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

The height of the Bendigo Hospital helipad has recently been confirmed to be 235.9 metres (AHD). It is proposed to be located on the roof of one of the hospital buildings which would accommodate the conference centre, café, supermarket and multi-level carpark (Refer to attached Plan). Any future building, works or plumes within the “Inner DDO” as shown in red in Figure 1 above, will need a planning permit if their heights are either 235.9 metres (same height as the helipad) or higher (AHD).

For instance, the land at 113 Lucan Street on the corner of Arnold Street Bendigo to the south-east of the helipad is located within the “Inner DDO”. According to the City geographical information system (Exponare), the height of this land is approximately 211.5 metres AHD or 24.4 metres lower than the Bendigo Hospital helipad AHD which equates to approximately 8 storeys. This means that no planning permit would be required for buildings, works or plumes less than 24.4 metres AHD in height. The proposed build heights in the Bendigo Hospital Precinct Structure Plan are below the flights paths.

The existing Heathcote Hospital helipad is at ground level and its height is estimated to be 245.9 metres (AHD) but this is yet to be confirmed by the Department of Health and Human Services. If the height of the helipad is confirmed to be 245.9 metres (AHD), then any future buildings, works or plumes in the “Inner DDO” as shown in red in Figure 2 above, will require a planning permit if their heights are 245.9 metres or higher (AHD). As the Heathcote Hospital helipad is on slightly higher ground, planning permit requirements is also expected to be minimal. Most new dwellings and modifications to existing dwellings would be exempt from a planning permit because of their height (AHD) in relation to the helipad.

In the “Outer DDO” shown in blue in Figures 1 and 2 above, a planning permit will be required for buildings, works or plumes if they are 10 metres or more higher than the helipads. This would not be likely to occur.

Both schedules provide for a number of permit exemptions including to extend an existing dwelling or to subdivide land (see attached schedules). An application for a planning permit under any of these two DDOs is also exempt from notice and review rights.

The planning permits application process

City planning officers would be able to advise when a planning permit is required under the new DDOs and also about the level of information required for an application. Information requirements would include elevation drawings with elevations measured to AHD.

After the application is lodged, it will follow the normal process as any other application except that it will be referred to the Department of Health and Human Services under Section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for an assessment. If the Department of Health and Human Services determines the proposal would have no effect on the operational airspace and safety of helicopter operations, the City's Planning Department would then proceed to make a decision on the application.

PAGE 45 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

According to the Department of Health and Human Services, there are currently 17 hospitals in metropolitan and regional Victoria with DDOs that protect helicopter flights paths. In these areas, there have been relatively few applications that have been referred and only a negligible number of these applications have been refused.

It is therefore anticipated that the proposed DDOs will have little to no impact on the built form outcomes in the vicinity of both Bendigo and Heathcote hospitals.

Strategic Justification

State Planning Policies

Clause 11.12-4 (Infrastructure) has as objective to improve infrastructure. One of the strategies set to achieve this is to minimise the impact of urban development on the current and future operation of major infrastructure of national, state and regional significance, including highways, railways, airports, communication networks and energy generation and distribution system. The Amendment is consistent with this clause.

Local Planning Policies

Clause 21.09-2 (Infrastructure) has among other objectives, to ensure the appropriate provision of infrastructure that meets Council and community expectations. One of the strategies to achieve this is to ensure that existing services and facilities in small towns are protected. The Amendment is consistent with this clause because it would ensure the long term protection to the existing helicopter flight paths to both hospitals.

Hospital Precinct Structure Plan Strategy: Ensure ongoing safety and efficiency of helicopter operations by appropriately restricting the height of new development within the flight path.

Consultation/Communication

Exhibition Procedures

The Amendment was exhibited by the Department of Health and Human Services for approximately one month and the closing date for submissions was Friday 13 May 2016.

Notice was provided in the following manner:  Individual notices to owners and occupiers of land affected by the Amendment on 7 April 2016.  Public notice of the Amendment in the Bendigo Advertiser on Wednesday 6 April 2016.  Access online at City of Greater Bendigo web page and on the Department of Health and Human Services.  Two drop-in information sessions were held by the Department of Health and Human Services as follows: .At the Heathcote Hospital on 18 April 2016 from 12.00pm to 1.00pm. .At the Monash University School of Rural Health at the Bendigo Hospital on 18 April 2016 from 2.30pm–3.30pm.

PAGE 46 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Submissions

In a report dated 8 June 2016 the Department of Health and Human Services advised that 8 written submissions were received. None of the opposing submissions to the Amendment were from the municipality of Greater Bendigo. Four of the submissions raised no issues with the amendment and this included one from the City of Greater Bendigo Property Department.

A response has been provided to all opposing submissions by the Department of Health and Human Services and none will be referred to an independent Panel because the Amendment is of State significance.

Conclusion

In summary, the Amendment will have no significant impact on the development potential of the land that it affects. No opposing submissions were received to the amendment from this municipality.

It is recommended that Council supports the proposed amendment to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme.

Options

Council has the option of:  Requesting the Department of Health and Human Services to make changes to the Amendment before its final approval by the Minister for Planning.  Supporting the Amendment in its current form.

Resource Implications

There will be minimal impact on the future resources of the Council as planning permit activity will not significantly change.

Attachments

 Explanatory report.  Technical Heliport Flight Reports for the Bendigo Hospital  Technical Heliport Flight Reports for the Heathcote Hospital  Design and Development Overlay Schedules 25 and 26  Location plan of the Bendigo Hospital helipad

PAGE 47 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

RECOMMENDATION

That the Greater Bendigo City Council resolves to:

1. Support Amendment GC49 in its current form.

2. Write to the Department for Health and Human Services to advise that Council supports the proposed Ministerial Planning Scheme Amendment GC49 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme.

RESOLUTION

Moved Cr Campbell, Seconded Cr Williams.

That the recommendation be adopted.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

PAGE 48 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

2.3 1/93 GARSED STREET, BENDIGO - PARTIAL DEMOLITION (ROOF TRUSSES AND REAR WALL)

Document Information

Author Lachlan Forsyth, Statutory Planner

Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning & Development Director

Summary/Purpose

Application details: Partial demolition (roof trusses and rear wall) Application No: DC/126/2016 Applicant: Spiire Australia Pty Ltd Land: 1/93 Garsed Street, BENDIGO Zoning: Commercial 1 Zone Overlays: Design and Development Overlay 13 Environmental Audit Overlay Heritage Overlay 863 Parking Overlay 1 No. of objections: Nil Key considerations: Would the proposed demolition have an adverse impact on the significance and appearance of the heritage place? Conclusion: The proposed demolition of contributory heritage fabric is an unacceptable heritage outcome which is at odds with Council’s Heritage Policy (Clause 22.06) and the Heritage Overlay (Clause 43.01). No permit should be issued.

Policy Context

City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013 – 2017 (2016-2017 Update) Planning for Growth  Planning ensures residents have access to diverse, affordable and sustainable housing choices. Presentation & Vibrancy  Greater Bendigo is a community that values its heritage, arts facilities and major events and supports arts and cultural experiences.

PAGE 49 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Sustainability  The built and natural qualities that make Greater Bendigo an attractive and appealing place are valued and conserved.

Background Information

Planning Permit DC/244/2015 was issued on 8 May 2015. This permit applied to the subject land and allowed removal of the asbestos sheet roof and replacement with a galvanised corrugated iron roof.

Removal of the roof was undertaken sometime between 8 May and 9 June 2015. The replacement roof cladding is still yet to be installed.

Following removal of the roof cladding, the land owner commissioned an engineer (Osborne Consulting Group Pty Ltd) to investigate the condition of the building.

This report assessed the building as being in poor condition (particularly the roof structure) and recommended it be programmed for decommissioning and removal.

In response to this assessment, Council commissioned an independent engineer (Mark Hodkinson Pty Ltd) to assess the building’s condition and to provide a peer review of the Osborne Consulting Group report.

The Mark Hodkinson report generally agreed with the Osborne Consulting Group findings that the building’s roof structure was in a poor state of repair and that the walls have leant outwards to varying degrees.

The Mark Hodkinson report did not concur with the Osborne Consulting Group’s recommendation for the building to be programmed for decommissioning and removal however.

Instead, the Hodkinson report made the following recommendations: 1. Either replace the existing timber roof structure with a steel structure, or otherwise install steel beams below all of the existing trusses and support the top chords of the trusses as necessary. Replace, repair or augment the deficient timbers and connect the new or existing roof structure to the walls. 2. Install a steel “trussed” horizontal bracing system at the level of the truss bottom chords and fix the bracing system to the walls in order to restrain them. Note that the above works would be carried out in conjunction with any remedial works to the footings.

Report

Subject Site and Surrounds

The subject site is a rectangular shaped lot which is located on the southern corner of Garsed and Arthur Streets in the Bendigo CBD.

PAGE 50 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

The property has a 20.6m wide frontage to Garsed Street, a 40.0m side abuttal to Arthur Street and a total area of 824m².

A red brick warehouse building with an industrial styled saw-tooth roof exists on the site. The building occupies the entire site, with its walls built to the lot boundaries.

Figure 1: Location map showing subject site.

The building is currently vacant and is not used for any purpose. As discussed in the background section of this report, the building’s roof cladding has been removed and is yet to be replaced.

The subject building forms part of the Gillies Complex & Crystal Ice precinct which sits between Arthur Street and Myrtle Street, south-east of Garsed Street. The remaining former industrial buildings of this precinct have been recognised as being of local historical and aesthetic significance. This is evidenced by the site specific Heritage Overlay applying to the land (Schedule 863, applied in 2013).

Surrounding land uses are varied in nature and include:  North: Dwellings and commercial.  South: Car park and Bendigo-Melbourne railway line.  East: Dwellings and Bendigo Market Place Shopping centre  West: Warehouses and vacant former industrial land.

PAGE 51 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Figure 2: View of building from Arthur Street. Note: rear wall proposed for demolition located to left.

Figure 3: View of building from corner of Garsed and Arthur Streets.

Proposal

The applicant proposes to demolish the existing roof trusses and the rear wall of the building (south-east elevation).

No replacement wall or roof structures are proposed.

The applicant also proposes to construct propping structures to provide stability to the external walls. Construction of these ‘props’ does not require planning approval as they are internal works (exempt under Cl. 43.01-1 and 62.02-2).

PAGE 52 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Figure 4: Demolition plan showing location of wall and roof trusses proposed to be removed.

Planning Controls - Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme

The following clauses are relevant in the consideration of this proposal:

State Planning Policy Framework  15.03 Heritage

Municipal Strategic Statement  21.08-3 Strategies (Heritage)

Local Planning Policies  22.06 Heritage Policy

Overlays  43.01 Heritage Overlay

Other Provisions  65 Decision guidelines  81.01 Incorporated documents (Heritage Design Guidelines, August 2015)

Permit trigger  Clause 43.01 Heritage Overlay: Demolition of a building.

PAGE 53 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Overview of relevant policy

Clause 15.03 (Heritage) of the Planning Scheme seeks to ensure the conservation of places of heritage significance. Key strategies to achieve this include:  Provide for the conservation and enhancement of those places which are of, aesthetic, archaeological, architectural, cultural, scientific, or social significance, or otherwise of special cultural value.  Retain those elements that contribute to the importance of the heritage place.

Clause 22.06 (Heritage Policy) builds on the MSS’s recognition of the importance of heritage to the wider community and the need for policy guidance on demolition and development of heritage sites. The most relevant objective of the policy is:  To encourage the preservation, maintenance, restoration and where appropriate, reconstruction of heritage places.

Specific policy guidance has been developed for demolition, with the following most relevant for this case:  Encourage the retention of a significant or contributory heritage building or place unless it is structurally unsound and beyond repair.  Encourage the retention of original elements that contribute to the significance of a heritage place including but not limited to windows, doors, chimneys, verandahs, shopfronts, fences, outbuildings and trees.

The purpose of Clause 43.01 Heritage Overlay, relevant to this proposal is:  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.

The decision guidelines of the Heritage Overlay reflect this, with the most relevant being the following:

 Whether the demolition, removal or external alteration will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place.

Consultation/Communication

Referrals

The following internal department has been consulted on the proposal:

Referral Comment City of Greater Bendigo Heritage Advisor Demolition not supported.

Public Notification

Notification of the application was given by erecting notice boards on the Garsed and Arthur Street frontages and by sending letters to adjoining and opposite owners and occupiers.

PAGE 54 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

As a result of advertising, no objections were received.

Planning Assessment

Would the proposed demolition have an adverse impact on the significance and appearance of the heritage place?

The major question with this application is whether removal of the saw-tooth roof structure and rear wall would negatively affect the significance and appearance of the heritage place.

As identified earlier in this report, there is strong policy support in the Planning Scheme to conserve heritage buildings and to generally discourage demolition of heritage fabric.

Council’s Heritage Policy includes the following statement for applications of this nature:  Encourage the retention of the three dimensional form when considering any application for the partial removal of a building; retention of the façade only is not supported. [emphasis added]

In the case at hand, it is agreed that the roof structure is in poor condition and in need of significant repair works.

The proposal to simply remove the roof rather than to repair or replace it, is not consistent with the purpose or decision guidelines of the Heritage Overlay. This is also at odds with the policy objectives of Clause 15.03 and 22.06.

The City’s Heritage Design Guidelines 2015 also discourage standalone demolition applications. The guidelines state that all demolition applications must be submitted with replacement designs. Again it is noted that no replacement designs have been submitted in support of this application.

The City’s Heritage Advisor agrees with this position and has recommended that the demolition should not be supported. The following except taken from the Heritage Advisor’s report:

"The critical question is, does the saw-tooth roof need to be retained as a significant contributory feature of the building. There can be no doubt that the saw-tooth roof form is an instantly recognisable evocation of the industrial purpose of the building and makes a powerful contribution to the industrial aesthetic of the precinct. It is the ‘main architectural style’ of the building and needs to be retained in a three dimensional form. The retention of all or part of the saw-tooth roof, which currently means the structural framing and not just the outline in the wall plane, is critical to the significance of the building and must be protected."

The most appropriate outcome would be to carry out structural repair or replacement of the roof trusses and then to re-clad the roof as originally approved under planning permit DC/244/2015.

It is understood that the owner does not want to pursue these remedial works due to the cost involved and the uncertainty over how the site will be developed in the future.

PAGE 55 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

With consideration to the relevant policy outlined above and the purpose and decision guidelines of the Heritage Overlay, the proposal is not supported.

Conclusion

Although the structural condition of the roof is poor, complete removal without replacement is not supported by policy and is at odds with the purpose and decision guidelines of the Heritage Overlay. The proposal is likely to have an adverse impact on the significance and appearance of the heritage place. Given this, it is recommended that the application be refused.

Options

Council, acting as the responsible authority for administering the Planning Scheme, may resolve to: refuse to grant a permit, grant a permit or grant a permit with conditions.

Attachments

 City of Greater Bendigo Heritage Advisor report  Osborne Consulting Group Pty Ltd engineering report  Mark Hodkinson Pty Ltd engineering report.  Sandhurst Geotech Pty Ltd geotechnical investigation report.

RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to section 61 of the Planning and Environment Act (1987), Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to issue a Notice of Refusal to Grant a Permit for partial demolition (roof trusses and rear wall) at 1/93 Garsed Street, BENDIGO 3550 on the following grounds:

1. The proposal is contrary to Clause 15.03, Clause 22.06 and the purpose and decision guidelines of Clause 43.01 (Heritage Overlay) of the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme as the proposed demolition is likely to have an adverse impact on the significance and appearance of the heritage place.

MOTION

Moved Cr Leach, Seconded Cr Chapman.

Pursuant to section 61 of the Planning and Environment Act (1987), Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to Grant a Permit for partial demolition (roof trusses and rear wall) at 1/93 Garsed Street, BENDIGO 3550, subject to the following conditions:

1. PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORDING Prior to the commencement of any demolition activity, the owner is required to submit a clear photographic record of the roof trusses, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, in order to enable faithful reconstruction of the roof structure in the future.

PAGE 56 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

The photographic record must include detail of the types of existing timber, connections/joints, the sizes of all timbers which form the trusses and detail of truss connections to the brickwork.

The photographic record is to be submitted in both hard copy and electronic copy.

2. EXTENT OF DEMOLITION PERMITTED UNDER THIS PERMIT Only those aspects of the building as highlighted on the endorsed plans (roof trusses and rear wall) are permitted to be demolished.

All other features of the building must be carefully protected and structurally propped during demolition activities.

3. DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES All activities associated with the demolition 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.

4. EXPIRY This permit will expire if the demolition permitted by this permit is not completed within 2 years from the date hereof.

This timeframe may be extended, on written request to the responsible authority, in accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

LOST

MOTION

Moved Cr Campbell, seconded Cr Weragoda.

That the recommendation be adopted.

CARRIED

PAGE 57 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

2.4 440 SEDGWICK ROAD, SEDGWICK - THE SUBDIVISION OF LAND INTO 2 LOTS

Document Information

Author Liz Commadeur, Subdivision Planner

Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning & Development Director

Summary/Purpose

Application details: The subdivision of land into 2 lots Application No: DS/922/2015 Applicant: A J Valentine Land: 440 Sedgwick Road, SEDGWICK Zoning: Rural Living Zone Overlays: Bushfire Management Overlay Environmental Significance Overlay 1 (Watercourse Protection) Environmental Significance Overlay 2 (Groundwater Recharge Protection Area) No. of objections: 1 Consultation A consultation meeting was not conducted. meeting: Key considerations: The subject land was created in 2001 following the subdivision of an 82 hectare rural property into 10 lots. This original subdivision relied on the ‘averaging provisions’ in the planning scheme in order to create some lots that were smaller than the prescribed minimum area of 8 hectares. These small lots were offset by larger lots thereby ensuring that ‘on average’ the subdivision yielded an 8 hectare lot size. The subject land is one of the larger lots.

The proposal raises 2 key considerations:  The proposal is in contravention of the Section 173 Agreement which states that lots cannot be further subdivided.  Whether the proposal will have an adverse impact on the environmental and landscape values of the area when considered in the context of the original subdivision.

PAGE 58 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Conclusion: The application ought not to be considered in isolation from the original subdivision. The original subdivider took the benefit under the averaging provisions in the planning scheme to create sub-standard lot sizes and, in return, the subject land was set aside as a large lot. There were sound environmental reasons for adopting this approach: the subject land is heavily vegetated and has other environmental qualities that a large lot size aimed to protect. Allowing the subject land to be further subdivided would contravene the Section 173 Agreement and undermine the rational for the original subdivision and would create a bad planning precedent. It is recommended that no permit be granted.

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.

Background Information

The site was created as part of a 10 lot subdivision, which was approved under planning permit number 634/1997. It was a condition of the permit that the lots in the subdivision could not be further subdivided. This condition has been implemented by a Section 173 Agreement.

Report

Subject Site and Surrounds

The subject site is comprised of one parcel located on the western side of Sedgwick Road in Sedgwick. The site is irregular in shape with an area of 25.27 hectares and consists of rolling slopes with gentle crests and shallow drainage depressions. The majority of the site is covered by native vegetation, comprising of eucalypt woodland trees and isolated mature Yellow and Grey Box trees. The land slopes towards the north western corner. A dwelling and associated outbuildings are located on the eastern end of the site. A water race traverses the north eastern point of the site. Three dams are located across the site. Access to the site is via an existing gateway in the north east corner of the site to Sedgwick Road.

The site is described as Lot 10 on Plan of Subdivision 441829E.

PAGE 59 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Services, including power and telecommunications are able to be connected to the site. The site is reliant on water tanks for potable water supply and a wastewater treatment system for the management of wastewater.

The pattern of subdivision in the area is comprised of established rural living lots to the north, south and east. The size of the rural living lots ranges between from 4.2 to 20 hectares. The character of the area is defined by the semi-rural and bushland setting, particularly due to the location of forested areas to the west.

Figure 1: Location map showing subject site. Objector’s property is marked with a star.

Proposal

This application seeks the approval to subdivide the land into two rural living lots.  Lot 1 will have an area of 8.94 hectares, while Lot 2 will have an area of 16.33 hectares.

PAGE 60 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

 Access to the lots will be via common property from Sedgwick Road.  Lot 1 will contain the existing dwelling, while Lot 2 will be vacant.  Lot 1 will retain two dams, while Lot 2 will retain one larger dam.

Figure 2: Proposed plan of subdivision.

Planning Controls - Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme

The site is in the Rural Living Zone (RLZ) and is covered by the Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO1 and ESO2) and Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO). A permit is required to subdivide land in the RLZ, ESO and BMO.

The following provisions of the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme are relevant to the application:

State Planning Policy Framework:  Regional development (clause 11.05).  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).

PAGE 61 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

 Reference documents (clause 21.10).

Local Planning Policies:  Rural Subdivision Policy (clause 22.03).  Salinity and erosion risk policy (clause 22.04).

Other relevant provisions:  Rural Living Zone (clause 35.03).  Development Plan Overlay (clause 42.01).  Bushfire Management Overlay (clause 44.06)  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 North Central CMA No objection subject to conditions DELWP No objection subject to conditions Goulburn-Murray Water No objection subject to conditions Country Fire Authority No objection subject to conditions Environmental Health No objection subject to conditions Drainage No objection subject to conditions

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, one objection was received, with the grounds of objection being:  The proposed subdivision contravenes the Section 173 Agreement – that no lot may be further subdivided.  Approval of this subdivision will set a precedent for further subdivision in the area. The objections are discussed below.

Planning Assessment

Agreement not to further subdivide

PAGE 62 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

The Agreement is registered on the land title for the site. Any existing or potential landowner would be well aware that the subdivision potential of the site is restricted by the Agreement.

There is no planning reason for the City to no longer adhere to its commitment to the Agreement. The Agreement serves a clear planning purpose directed towards protecting the environmental and landscape values of the wider area. The rationale for the Agreement is robust and transparent. These arguments against further subdivision of the site are examined later in this report.

Procedurally speaking, ending the Agreement is the first hurdle that the landowner must overcome if the proposed subdivision is to proceed. It is possible to end an Agreement following the process prescribed in the relevant legislation. The first procedural step is for the City to give ‘in principle’ support for the ending to occur. This report recommends that no such in principle support should be given.

The landowner has formally made a request to end the Agreement concurrent with the permit application. No action has been taken with respect to this request pending the outcome of the permit application. Clearly, if it is decided to refuse to grant a permit then in principle support to end the Agreement should not be given.

The rationale for no further subdivision

The reason for the prohibition on further subdivision is because the original subdivision relied on the ‘averaging provision’ in the Planning Scheme which allowed some lots in the subdivision to be less than 8 hectares (the minimum lot size allowed in the zone).

In broad terms, lot averaging provides a more flexible method of subdivision whereby a variety of lot sizes of a specified average area is achieved and a larger residual area of environmentally sensitive land, or in some cases valuable agricultural land, is set aside for protection.

In relation to the original subdivision, the site was comprised of 82.4 hectares, which allowed the creation of 10 lots, ie. 80 divided by 8 = 10. The subdivision subsequently created 8 ‘sub-standard’ small lots (less than 8 hectares) plus 2 large lots (including the subject site). The subject site, in particular, was created to allow for the retention of a well vegetated area and to account for the moderate slope, as shown in Figure 1.

The proposed subdivision erodes the very reason why the averaging rule was allowed. Whilst eight of the original lots were less than 8 hectares, the two remaining lots were created much larger so that environmentally sensitive areas were not disturbed and could be ultimately maintained. Consequently, an overall environmental benefit was created whereby the small lots were ‘offset’ by the large lots. Lot 10 (the subject site) is the largest lot in the original subdivision and effectively provides for the retention of a large band of bushland, the protection of the existing slope and the seasonal waterway in the north west corner of the site.

PAGE 63 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

The original subdivider took the benefit of the averaging provisions at the time. The current landowner is, in effect, seeking to have a ‘second bite at the cherry’. There has been no material change in the Planning Scheme that would justify a departure from the original averaging approach.

It is tempting to view the subject site as suitable for further subdivision simply because it is a relatively large land parcel. There is sufficient room in the north western part of the site to accommodate a building envelope, with no requirement for the removal of any native vegetation, and wastewater can be disposed of appropriately on-site. But adopting a narrow focus on the subject site gives a distorted view of the merits of the proposed subdivision.

The permit application must be considered in the context of the original subdivision that created the subject site. The original subdivision struck an appropriate balance between rural-lifestyle development and environmental considerations. The proposed subdivision will threaten this balance.

Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO)

The site is affected by the BMO, due to its close proximity to forested areas. The application was referred to the Country Fire Authority, who had no objection subject to the inclusion of standard conditions should a permit be issued.

Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO1 – Watercourse Protection and ESO2 - Groundwater Recharge Protection Area)

A small section of the site follows the path of a seasonal stream along the north western corner which is affected by the ESO1. The application was referred to the North Central Catchment Management Authority (NCCMA) and Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP). NCCMA had no objection subject to any building envelope being setback a minimum of 30 metres from the top of bank of all waterways. DELWP had no objection subject to a condition that required any potential earthworks to be designed and constructed to avoid any soil erosion.

The site is affected by the ESO2 in the western and north western areas. The application was referred to Goulburn-Murray Water, who had no objection, subject to the inclusion of standard conditions.

Wastewater

Reticulated sewerage is not able to be connected to the site. The City’s Environmental Health Unit concluded that the site was generally suitable for the installation of an on-site effluent disposal system to Lot 2.

Conclusion

The application should not be supported because the proposed subdivision is in contravention of Point (g) in Section 173 Agreement X845770N. This point states that “No further subdivision is permissible on any lot in the subdivision”.

PAGE 64 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Options

At this point in time Council may only resolve to refuse to grant a permit. If Council was of a mind to support the proposed subdivision then it should defer the application until such time as the Section 173 Agreement is ended.

With respect to current request to end the Section 173 Agreement, Council must resolve whether or not to give ‘in principle support’ for it to be ended. If in principle support is given, then the delegated officers would commence the process for ending the Agreement, including the giving of public notice. A final decision on the ending of the Agreement would only be made following completion of the full statutory process.

Attachments

 Objection

RECOMMENDATION

A. 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 440 Sedgwick Road, Sedgwick for the following reasons:

1. The proposed subdivision will contravene the Section 173 Agreement that burdens the subject land.

2. The proposed subdivision will have an adverse impact on the environmental and landscape values of the area when considered in the context of the original subdivision that created the subject land.

3. The subdivision will create sub-standard lot sizes having regard to the ‘averaging provisions’ applicable at the time the subject land was created.

B. That the landowner by advised that ‘in principle support’ will not be given to end the Section 173 Agreement that burdens the subject land, for the reasons explained in this report.

RESOLUTION

Moved Cr Campbell, Seconded Cr Cox.

That the recommendation be adopted.

LOST

PAGE 65 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

MOTION

Moved Cr Chapman, seconded Cr Ruffell.

That the report be deferred.

CARRIED

PAGE 66 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

2.5 REVIEW OF PLANNING FEES - SUBMISSION BY THE CITY OF GREATER BENDIGO

Document Information

Author Ross Douglas, Manager Planning

Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning and Development Director

Summary/Purpose

This report provides a copy of the City of Greater Bendigo submission into the State Government review of Planning and Subdivision fees and seeks endorsement of that submission. A Regulatory Impact Statement was prepared for the proposed Planning and Environment (Fees) Regulations 2016 in June 2016 and required submissions to be forwarded by 24 June 2016. The short consultation period did not allow for a 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 City staff and in consultation with the Municipal association of Victoria (MAV).

The submission supports the fee review which provides for a significant level of cost recovery for the City with regard to Planning Applications.

Policy Context

Council Plan Reference:

Leadership and Good Governance 1.3 Contribute to policy and strategy development being led by government and other agencies.

Background Information

For some time the MAV and individual municipalities have lobbied the State government to review planning fees as the current fee regime does not provide a reasonable level of cost recovery.

Following the recent rate capping decision the State Government prepared a Regulatory Impact Statement for a review of the Planning and Environment (Fees) Regulations.

If introduced as proposed in the review, the proposed new Fees will create a substantial increase in the amount of income received by the City from planning permit applications.

A submission (attached) has been sent supporting the proposed new fees.

PAGE 67 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Report

The proposed new fees are attached and the full Regularity Impact Statement can be found at http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/297133/Regulatory- Impact-Statement.pdf

Fees for planning permits

Substantial rises are proposed for more complex applications which is considered appropriate, the higher the value the higher the fees, reflecting the application complexities and cost of assessment.

The broad community bears the current costs of supporting the statutory planning team and it is reasonable that the community pay some of these costs as good planning decisions generate overall community benefit. The question is what proportion the applicant (receiving an immediate benefit) should pay versus the proportion the community pays.

It is estimated that the new fee regime will move the proportion of costs recovered for planning applications from 32% at present to 67%, an approximate increase of 35%.

Current Fee Model Proposed Fee Model 80% 80%

60% 68% 60% 67% 40% 40%

20% 32% 20% 33%

0% 0% Community Pays Applicant Pays Community Pays Applicant Pays

It is not unreasonable that the applicant bear that additional cost as opposed to the general community.

Fees for planning scheme amendments

Planning scheme amendments are a slightly different proposition to planning permits, with some amendments proposed by Council benefitting the whole community as opposed to privately sponsored amendments which create a private uplift in value.

The new fee structure for privately sponsored planning scheme amendments moves towards full cost recovery which is supported.

This higher emphasis on a user pays system reflects the extraordinary benefit gained by a planning scheme amendment and the usual complexity and resource costs associated with them.

This position on the new fees aligns with Council’s adopted pricing policy.

PAGE 68 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

The submission supports this proposition and stresses that planning fees should be set appropriately so that:  An efficient and effective planning service can be provided.  Those that directly benefit from a planning decision pay as full a cost of that decision, exceptions to this general rule are acknowledged.  There is an incentive to submit high quality planning permit applications or amendment proposals that are well resolved that reduce the need for rework during the process.

Of note that the City’s submission varies slightly from that of the MAV and some other Municipalities in that we submitted that:  As a larger regional council we are not supportive of lower fees for Councils outside of metropolitan Melbourne (nor could we understand the rationale for such a proposition) and  The proposed transition arrangements are appropriate for regional areas so as to reduce the immediate impact of the proposed fee changes.

Options/Alternatives:

The Council has the option of endorsing the submission or amending it.

Conclusion

The proposed Fee review is long overdue and is supported.

The new fees will create new revenue for the City that it has forgone for a long time and ensures that those that benefit from planning decisions pay a fee commensurate to the service provided by the City, reducing costs to general ratepayers.

Given the additional income, a further report will be presented to Council when the actual fees are confirmed on options for Council to consider including:  Improving service standards;  Mitigating the impact for residents who might only use the service one in their life for single site changes with no financial gain.

Attachments

 The proposed fee structure.  The City of Greater Bendigo submission to the Planning and Environment (Fees) Regulations 2016.

PAGE 69 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

RECOMMENDATION

That Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to endorse the submission on the proposed Planning and Environment (Fees) Regulations 2016.

RESOLUTION

Moved Cr Campbell, Seconded Cr Lyons.

That the recommendation be adopted.

CARRIED

PAGE 70 Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

PAGE 71 Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

3. PRESENTATION AND VIBRANCY

3.1 FUTURE USE OF CROWN LAND AT VICTORIA STREET, EAGLEHAWK

Document Information

Author Mark Stubbs, Senior Strategic Planner

Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning and Development Director

Summary/Purpose

This report outlines considerations related to the future land use of two parcels of Crown land at Victoria Street, Eaglehawk, a majority of which has been assessed as surplus by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP). The recommendation is that two potential land use scenarios would be appropriate outcomes and of benefit to the Eaglehawk community:

● Part public open space (public space) and part residential housing, generally in accordance with the adopted Eaglehawk Structure Plan 2013. ● An expansion of the Eaglehawk Cemetery onto most, if not all of the Crown land, with appropriate provision for public space access and use.

Policy Context

The subject site is addressed by both the adopted Eaglehawk Structure Plan (2013) and the Eaglehawk Open Space Precinct Master Plan (2010).

Background Information

In approximately March this year, the DELWP was approached by not-for-profit organisation, Quality Living Options (QLO), about the possible transfer of a parcel of Crown land in Victoria Street, Eaglehawk for the purposes of developing an assisted living complex for intellectually disabled persons.

Figure 1 (overleaf) identifies the location of the land parcel which is situated immediately adjacent to a second, larger parcel of Crown land. Summary details of the parcels are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Details of the subject Crown land parcels. Parcel Area Zone Current use 1 4,508 sq.m. Residential 1 Mostly cleared. Used informally for car parking. 2 35,784 sq.m. Residential 1 (part) Partially public bushland, partially

PAGE 72 Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Public Park and cleared and unimproved Recreation Zone (part)

The City was subsequently approached by the DELWP seeking advice as to its position regarding the future retention of the parcel in its current form as public space.

Figure 1. Location plan for Crown land parcels.

Report

Appropriate strategic land use direction

The referral of this enquiry by the DELWP has raised what on face value is a simple question – what is the most appropriate strategic land use direction for the subject Crown Land parcels? With reference to the City’s existing strategic planning and master planning, it can be seen that the land use directions partly conflict:

Eaglehawk Structure Plan 2013

The Structure Plan recommends that a majority (at least two thirds in area) of the Crown Land parcels together should be retained as bushland however that part of the land including the subject parcel, is suitable for residential development (without of course prescribing the specific type or form of residential development). See Figure 2 overleaf.

Eaglehawk Open Space Precinct Master Plan 2010

The Master Plan identifies a somewhat different outcome to the Structure Plan – the retention and revegetation of both Crown land parcels as public bushland. See Figure 3 overleaf.

PAGE 73 Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Figure 2. Extract from Eaglehawk Structure Plan (Figure 7: Land Use)

PAGE 74 Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Figure 3. Extract from Eaglehawk Open Space Precinct Master Plan

Greater Bendigo Public Space Plan

Added to this picture is current work by the City in relation to strategic planning for its public spaces – the Greater Bendigo Public Space Plan. This project is in a relative early stage of development and due for completion by June 2017.

Whilst it is considered unlikely that the eventual strategy would provide specific land use direction in relation to the subject site, it will establish wider objectives and principles that could be applied. Furthermore, some of the findings of the research and analysis stage of the project provide some insights which are worthy of consideration as follows:

● Overall, Greater Bendigo benefits from a very high provision of public space and high accessibility to public space for residents. ● The quality of the city’s public spaces is however relatively low on average. ● The western side of Eaglehawk is well-served by the availability of and access to public spaces, including Canterbury Park, Lake Neangar, Lake Tom Thumb and the Eaglehawk Cemetery. ● Most crucially, the quality of these spaces is above the Greater Bendigo average (see Figure 4). ● Public space connections within and across communities are crucial.

PAGE 75 Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

● Passive surveillance of public spaces, created by other uses such as housing overlooking them, is essential for safety. Over half of the city’s public spaces have been found to have poor to fair passive surveillance.

Figure 4. Extract from Greater Bendigo Public Space Plan Strategic Context and Issues Report, July 2016 – Access to above average public space

Crown Land Assessment

In July 2016, the DELWP completed an assessment of the site in accordance with its Strategic Crown Land Assessment Policy and Guidelines, following a prior request by the City. The purpose of the assessment is to enable the Minister for Energy, Environment & Climate Change who holds the land to determine:

● Whether land should be divested from the Crown estate; ● Appropriate mechanisms to protect any public land values if Crown land is to be divested; and ● The implications of the status of traditional owner/native title rights if Crown land is to be divested.

The completed assessment has identified that part of the site, which includes the subject parcel (Parcel 1), is surplus, and that the balance of the site is not surplus. An indication of the approximate delineation is shown in Figure 5 and approximates the current boundary of residential and public space land use recommended by the Eaglehawk Structure Plan. This is preliminary and subject to detailed review prior to commencing the Crown land disposal process. The land assessed as not surplus was due to the following factors:

PAGE 76 Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

● Contains environmental and conservation values to be retained in Crown estate. ● Predominantly vegetated (mix of natural regeneration and community plantings). ● The presence of a gully. ● Part of this land is currently zoned Public Park and Recreation Zone. ● Past discussions involving the City to add the area to the Tom Thumb reserve.

Figure 5. Approximate delineation of surplus / not surplus land.

The Quality Living Options (QLO) proposal

The specifics of the QLO proposal are not the intended subject of this report. However, because the City’s notification of landowners for the purpose of consultation identified Quality Living Options as the organisation which initiated the enquiry with the DELWP, several submissions did make comment in relation to the nature of a prospective development proposal by QLO. These comments are discussed following.

Consultation/Communication

Community consultation was initiated by the City to ensure that public views regarding the future use of the site, and in particular, whether the direction in the Structure Plan or Master Plan should prevail, could be understood and considered. Explanatory letters with attached summary plan were sent to the owners in the vicinity of the site (230 recipients), as well as to the Business and Community Network 3556 with an invitation to comment over a two-week period. Eleven (11) submissions were received and are summarised in Attachment A. The main points raised by submissions separated according to two subjects – the land use direction and the QLO proposal – are shown in Table 2.

PAGE 77 Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Table 2. Summary of submission comments according to subject. No Comments about land use direction Comments about the QLO proposal 1 None. Walls Street should be sealed in association with the development. 2 None. The proposal is inappropriate due to proximity of cemetery dam (resident safety) and traffic increase. 3 None. Supports the proposal to provide a desperately-needed facility. Notes that space for parking should be retained for the funeral parlour. 4 Supports the Eaglehawk Structure Plan Supports the proposal. (residential). 5 Supports use for residential in view of More information and community the Structure Plan. consultation is needed about the accommodation and residents. 6 Supports use of the site by Bendigo This use adjacent to the funeral directors Cemeteries Trust for a future and to the cemetery is inappropriate. Expansion of the Eaglehawk Cemetery. Supportive of this proposal at an alternative site, such as Finn Street. 7 Previously identified the site as ideal The proposal is not appropriate and may and a priority for Eaglehawk Cemetery have adverse impacts. expansion, and to maintain open space access. Residential use would be an inconsistent use of the land and potentially have adverse impacts. 8 None. The proposal would downgrade the area. The site is poorly connected to services, has drainage problems and is needed for funeral parlour parking.

No Comments about land use direction Comments about the QLO proposal 9 Recognises the site’s existing The proposal will bring more people to the Residential Zone and potential to be area with dependency on government developed as such. Recognises also support. that the Open Space Precinct Plan identifies the area of Crown Land for retention and revegetation as bushland. 10 The Structure Plan should take None. precedence (residential). There is sufficient land to accommodate the proposed residential development and public bushland. 11 Believes the best use of this land is for The City should work with DELWP to public open space and not for identify an alternative site for the proposal. residential purposes.

Whilst a simple totalling of submissions in favour of a particular strategic land use direction is not in itself a deciding factor in this matter, it is important to note that, of the seven submissions that in fact comment on this issue:

● Three submissions support a residential land use for the subject parcel, with balance parcel retained as public open space/bushland;

PAGE 78 Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

● Two submissions support a more specific use for both parcels, principally for the purpose of the Eaglehawk Cemetery with associated public open space; ● One submission clearly advocates retention of both parcels as public open space; and, ● One submission raises a wider question about the extent of existing policy support in either direction.

Overall assessment

The initial overall observation to be made is that the site, particularly given its location, characteristics and context, has the capacity and potential to deliver a range of benefits to the Eaglehawk community.

Availability of open/public space

The findings of first stage of the Greater Bendigo Public Space Plan confirm that extensive areas of public space are available in the vicinity of the site and are also of above average quality. The site also forms part of a clear public space connection between the Eaglehawk Cemetery, which itself is well-used as a pedestrian thoroughfare (especially secondary school children), and Lake Tom Thumb.

The question therefore becomes, how much land is required to ensure this connection functions effectively, both for people and for wildlife, and remains visible in the urban landscape? The retention of approximately half of the site (around 20,000 sq.m.) as public space is certainly considered reasonable in these circumstances and considering these objectives.

Provision for residential living

The process which led to the development of the Eaglehawk Structure Plan recognised a local shortage of residential land supply for the future. For this reason, the Structure Plan identified a number of sites, including part of the subject site (about half of its area, or around 20,000 sq.m.), for future residential infill.

The appropriateness of this strategic direction is considered to be sound, particularly given that the site has access to local facilities and services that is at least as good, if not better than, some other parts of Eaglehawk (e.g. less than 1km to the town centre, less than 750m to the secondary college, less than 400m to the bus stop), and the availability of services infrastructure.

The extent of land allocated for future residential housing also occupies that part of the site which has received the least investment to date in terms of revegetation or other public space works, and is used informally as an overflow car park.

The current application of the Residential Zone to a majority of the site supports this objective. However, it is noted that the boundary of the zone should be amended to reflect an appropriate extent of residential development, as indicated by the Eaglehawk Structure Plan.

PAGE 79 Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Residential housing / public space relationship

Housing and public space are highly complementary uses and mutually beneficial ones when designed appropriately. Creating the opportunity for housing to be developed on the eastern-most part of the site means that user of the public space can benefit homes overlooking the area and reducing the sense of isolation. This could occur by means of a simple access street or lane between the housing and the public space. The occupants of the homes will benefit from views of the public space and from immediate access.

Potential to accommodate other compatible uses

The location of the Eaglehawk Cemetery across Victoria Street, and the need advised by the Bendigo Cemeteries Trust to secure space for expansion in the future, is an important aspect of this context of the site. There is recognised to be considerable mutual benefit in the prospect of an expansion of the cemetery grounds and the retention of public space access and use. The immediate adjacency of the William Farmer Funeral Directors is an important aspect of the context also, and would be a highly compatible and complementary use.

The Bendigo Cemeteries Trust will have the opportunity to formally express its interest in that part of the site declared surplus, and will have the advantage of doing so through the “first right of refusal” process which is offered to all Victorian government agencies and departments (including the Department of Health which is the governing body for cemetery trusts) and local government, before release for sale on the open market.

Conclusion

The Crown land at Victoria Street, Eaglehawk represents a significant future opportunity for the Eaglehawk community. Two future land use scenarios in particular are considered to constitute an appropriate use of the land, noting the potential exists for some combination both.

The first would retain the majority of the site for public space and incorporate a small component of residential housing. In this scenario, the public space would be substantial enough to create a strong connection between the Eaglehawk Cemetery and Lake Neangar, and to support other purposes such as revegetation and habitat. The residential housing would help to meet Eaglehawk’s future accommodation needs and, with well-considered design, improve the amenity and safety of the public space. This arrangement is reflected by the current Eaglehawk Structure Plan.

The second future would see an expansion of the Eaglehawk Cemetery onto most, if not all of the Crown land. The prospect of cemetery grounds as viable public spaces is increasingly recognised, and again, with well-considered design, coordination and management, such an approach could successfully integrate public space access and use. The immediate proximity of the cemetery grounds to the William Farmer Funeral Directors also represents a considerable benefit.

PAGE 80 Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

At this time, given that a majority of the land has been declared by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, the potential exists for either of the scenarios to transpire. The Crown land disposal process will create an early opportunity for the Bendigo Cemeteries Trust to express its interest in the site.

Resource Implications

None notable.

Attachments

1. Attachment A – Summary of Submissions

MOTION

Moved Cr Cox, seconded Cr Chapman.

That Cr Lyons assume the Chair for this item.

CARRIED

Cr Fyffe (Mayor) and Cr Ruffell declared a conflict of interest (conflicting duties) as they are Board Members on the Cemetery Trust.

Crs Fyffe and Ruffell left the meeting.

PAGE 81 Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

RECOMMENDATION

That Greater Bendigo City Council: 1. Endorses the future land use arrangement for the Crown land at Victoria Street, Eaglehawk, as shown in the adopted Eaglehawk Structure Plan 2013. 2. Acknowledges the suitability also of an alternative future land use arrangement based on a future expansion of the Eaglehawk Cemetery onto the Crown land, with appropriate provisions to retain public space access and use for the benefit of the general community. 3. Notifies the Department of Environment, Land and Water, and all submitters, of its decision.

RESOLUTION

Moved Cr Cox, Seconded Cr Williams.

That the recommendation be adopted.

CARRIED

Crs Fyffe and Ruffell returned to the meeting and Cr Fyffe resumed the Chair.

PAGE 82 Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

3.2 KAMAROOKA AND DISTRICT COMMUNITY PLAN

Document Information

Author Lyn Talbot, Corporate and Community Planner

Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning and Development Director

Summary/Purpose

To advise Council of the completion of the first Kamarooka and District Community Plan, 2016

Policy Context

Council Plan Reference: Development and review of Community Plans in the small towns and neighbourhoods of Greater Bendigo is supported by Council Plan (2015-2016) Strategy 3.7 which stated ‘Structured community engagement, community planning and community development programs support our residents and communities, particularly those who may experience isolation.’ This strategy is met through provision of CoGB support for Small Town and Neighbourhood communities to prepare, implement, evaluate and review their local Community Plans. Community Plans provide an important form of engagement and local participation in the various communities, and a strong connection between the City of Greater Bendigo and those communities.

In the past, each new or revised community plan has been endorsed by Council to be used as a primary document of advice regarding identified community priorities, and with regards potential funding opportunities.

Greater Bendigo 2036: Council made a strong commitment in 2005 to support the development of community plans, including the Greater Bendigo +25 Community Plan which set a long-term agenda for the whole municipality. The Greater Bendigo 2036 Community Plan was completed in 2011, and it represents a long-term (25 year) vision by the community. One recommendation in that plan was to ensure that local Community and Neighbourhood Plans continued to have significance and resonance in various Council discussion forums. Greater Bendigo 2036 identifies a community priority to "Plan strategically to foster community inclusiveness" and “Provide genuine opportunities for public input into locality plans before they are finalised, to overcome the perception of tokenism”. The 2036 Community Plan is referred to in the current Council Plan as a major document providing input into the yearly revision.

PAGE 83 Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Following the development of the original Greater Bendigo +25 Community Plan in 2005 a process was commenced to support each small town to develop their own community plan. The CoGB has continued to endorse the provision of infrastructure for plan preparation and implementation.

Background Information

Because of the geographic location of Kamarooka being at the boundary of the Greater Bendigo municipality in close proximity to two other council areas, Kamarooka residents felt somewhat removed from local government services and processes. Some community members felt a community plan would be a means of increasing their profile, identifying collective priorities and potentially attracting additional resources to their area.

More than 30 residents attended a public meeting in June 2015 called to discuss whether there was wide enough community support for developing a Community Plan. The idea was supported enthusiastically, but there was generally a low level of knowledge about what a community plan is and how to undertake the process.

A working group was formed and they have been supported to undertake community consultation and develop the plan.

The Kamarooka Community Club, as an existing Incorporated Association, has agreed to support implementation of the Kamarooka and District Community Plan. This has included amending their constitution and objectives to reflect their role and forming a new management committee.

Report

These are the four themes and relevant goals from the plan

1. Social and community events in Kamarooka ● Kamarooka will continue to be a place where most people feel safe, know their neighbours and feel a sense of connection to the community. ● Kamarooka welcomes newcomers, but there are opportunities to increase the social interactions and the pleasures and rewards this brings.

2. Maintaining infrastructure that is vital for the community ● To have one well-appointed community gathering place that has suitable catering facilities, meeting spaces and recreational facilities.

3. Supporting the rural business and lifestyle ● Kamarooka has a foundation in agriculture; agribusiness will continue to be the key to economic viability. ● Finding ways to secure agricultural financial security and promoting diversity to build commercial viability will require collaborative partnerships and equitable access to communication services.

PAGE 84 Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

4. Protecting and preserving the local natural environment and landscape ● Kamarooka will maintain its unique natural environment that people value highly. They want to make sure this remains a natural asset and ensure pest animals and plants don’t reduce the beauty and productive future of the entire setting.

Each theme has a number of actions that were derived from the priorities identified in the community consultation processes. The Community Club members developed an action plan to guide activities towards achieving their first priorities.

Consultation/Communication

A number of different community engagement strategies were used in efforts to make sure all community members had the opportunity to express their priorities: ● A survey was sent to all residents in Greater Bendigo who live in Kamarooka and the districts adjacent. Additional copies were provided to the neighbouring Shires, and a number of organisations in the neighbouring shires. ● Notices about how to access the survey were included in local newsletters and school newsletters. ● Community members and school children were encouraged to complete a ‘visioning’ postcard where their imagined a return visit to Kamarooka in the future. ● Following analysis of the survey data, extensive consultation was undertaken at the annual Kamarooka Picnic in October 2015. People were encouraged to vote on their priority actions and complete a postcard. ● The draft Plan was developed drawing on all the information and the first draft was circulated to community members for feedback. ● Draft Community Plan actions have been discussed with relevant CoGB staff members. ● The final plan was prepared, including incorporation of information on community history provided by community members.

Conclusion

The first Kamarooka and District Community Plan 2016 will contribute in a strategic manner to advocacy about community priorities and the informed exchange of advice and information between the Kamarooka community and the City of Greater Bendigo and other interested organisations. The plan enhances the structured mechanism for successful partnerships to form between these communities and organisations with an interest in the development of Kamarooka and districts, including as a means of advocacy and exchange with the adjacent Shires of Loddon and Campaspe.

Resource Implications

The City of Greater Bendigo has continued support for the development of new community plans in the small towns and neighbourhoods, and the review of these plans when appropriate. During the process of development and review the communities are provided with a range of in-kind assistance, such as document development, printing and mailing. These costs are covered in the annual Community Planning budget in the Strategy Unit.

PAGE 85 Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Resources for the implementation phase of the Community Plans are supported by staff from the Community Partnerships team who assist with grants, funding applications and support and a range of other community development activities and celebrations.

Attachments

1. A copy of the Kamarooka and District Community Plan 2016.

RECOMMENDATION

Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to:

1. Acknowledge development of the first Kamarooka and District Community Plan; and 2. Endorse the principle that City of Greater Bendigo involvement in Kamarooka and district be guided by the relevant priorities set out in this plan.

RESOLUTION

Moved Cr Williams, Seconded Cr Lyons.

That the recommendation be adopted.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

PAGE 86 Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

3.3 BARRACK RESERVE REDEVELOPMENT

Document Information

Author David Hogan – Team Leader Capital Projects

Responsible Michael Smyth – Acting Director Community Wellbeing Director

Summary/Purpose

This report summarises the outcome of tender CT000273 Construction of Barrack Reserve Redevelopment and seeks Council endorsement to award the contract to FNG Group Pty Ltd.

Policy Context

This project is consistent with the Council Plan 2013 -17. The project is consistent with the themes of planning for growth which supports population growth through good design and careful planning of infrastructure and facilities and the presentation and vibrancy theme which supports attractive and accessible parks, public places and streetscapes that are widely used.

Council Plan Reference:

Council Plan 2013 – 2017 (2015-2016 Update)

2.1 – To maintain the unique character of Greater Bendigo, Council delivers major projects that accommodate the growing population and diversifies the economy.

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.

3.2 – Residents and visitors are able to access good quality sports and recreational leisure facilities that are fit for purpose and enable them to celebrate their active artistic, cultural, sporting and social lives.

Strategy Reference:

This project was identified as part of the 2009 Barrack Community Precinct Master Plan. The City has strongly progressed delivery of the Master Plan items and this project is amongst the final outstanding active sport and leisure project identified within the 2009 Master Plan.

PAGE 87 Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Background Information

The Barrack Reserve precinct includes an AFL/Cricket oval, single court basketball stadium, lawn bowling greens, tennis/netball courts, swimming pool, fitness station, playground, sections of treed passive open space and the main pavilion which caters for a variety of user groups, including taekwondo, adult exercise groups and personal trainers, artists groups and fortnightly markets. The Barrack Reserve pavilion was constructed in the 1985, followed by the construction of the AFL change rooms in 1990.

The existing pavilion and change rooms have had minimal works undertaken over the past 29 years. This inadequate facility is long overdue for an upgrade to meet the needs of the current and future residents of Heathcote, along with broader regional facility needs for Greater Bendigo.

Previous Council Decision(s) Date(s): At the Ordinary Council Meeting of 20 May 2009, Councillors adopted the Barrack Community Precinct Master Plan.

Report

The project is a staged upgrade to the main pavilion, adjacent change rooms, and surrounding landscaping. The redevelopment of the internal spaces aims to transform the building into a new civic hub. This includes:

 a new conference room;  upgraded entry and foyer spaces;  upgraded stadium change room areas to comply with Disability Discrimination Access (DDA) standards;  refurbished wet areas to DDA standards;  a social room;  a refurbished multipurpose community room which has frontage to a new Northern courtyard;  a revamped upstairs time-keepers box;  storage areas;  a new kitchen/kiosk with servery to three sides;  a north facing courtyard for flexible community events;  upgraded football change rooms to DDA standards;  umpire rooms to AFL and Netball Victoria guidelines; and  landscaping works to the entry area and connection to High Street.

Stage 2 of the works includes the construction of a new netball court and associated sports lighting to meet current standards, and adjacent landscaping incorporating direct spectator/user connection to the change rooms and the northern entry to the pavilion.

Tenders closed on Friday 1 July 2016. Six conforming bids were received from:

1. FNG Group 2. Fairbrother Construction 3. Searle Bros. 4. Walsh & O’Meara Builders

PAGE 88 Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

5. Daniel Duna 6. Mascon Pt Ltd

Tender submissions were evaluated on the following criteria: Criteria Weighting Capability 30% Capacity 20% Price/Value 40% Local Content 10% Risk Management Pass - Fail

The Tender Evaluation Committee met and a preferred contractor was chosen on merit and scoring based on the above criterion. Referees were contacted and provided positive recommendations for the preferred contractor.

Tenderer scores were as follows: Contractor Overall tender evaluation score FNG Group 8.26 Fairbrother Construction 7.76 Searle Bros. 8.23 Walsh & O’Meara Builders 8.24 Daniel Duna 7.70 Mascon Pt Ltd 6.23

Priority/Importance:

This project has been adopted as part of the 2016/17 Council budget, along with previous funding committed in 2015/16 to complete the design works and commence construction.

Options/Alternatives:

Nil

Timelines:

The preferred contractor has indicated that works can be completed in the required period subject to inclement weather and unforseen delays. If Council authorises officers to award the contract at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 10 August 2016 it is expected that site establishment will commence early September following completion of the football season.

A planning permit application was lodged and has been advertised. No objections were received during the advertised period and the permit has now been issued.

Progress:

Detailed design of the pavilion is complete and an external public tender has been conducted. Officers are seeking Council approval to award the tender.

PAGE 89 Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Risk Analysis:

The current expected timeline will complete all works by June 2017. There is potential that this time could extend due to unforseen reasons, which may impact on the 2017 football season. To address this Liquidated Damages have been included in the contract to cover the cost of temporary football change rooms.

A funding contribution from the Heathcote District Community Bank of $150,000 has been confirmed. Sporting club contributions totalling $30,000 were agreed to and there is a risk that with changes in club management these contributions can no longer be met.

Consultation/Communication

Internal Consultation: Design and delivery of the project was been overseen by an internal review group. This has included input from:

 Active & Healthy Communities  Town Planning  Building and Property  Engineering & Public Space  Parks & Natural Reserves  Environmental Heath and Local Laws  Sustainable Environment

External Consultation:

The community consultation process for this project dates back to 2009, with extensive consultation taken during formulation of the Barrack Community Precinct Master Plan, including a 1700 person community survey, and numerous other opportunities for community feedback on the Master Plan.

More recently, the City of Greater Bendigo and the architect appointed to undertake detailed design, Dale Cohen Architects, held five community/stakeholder consultation meetings over a 7 month period starting in December 2014.

These meetings were very successful, with the architect commenting that “given the nature of the project, and that the proposed building would essentially perform as a community hub, these meetings attracted a wide range of community participants, community user groups & various stakeholders. We found these ‘hands on’ community meetings highly beneficially towards the development of the project, as it facilitated a collaborative design process, ownership & ongoing community involvement in the design process. It allowed stakeholder representatives to share their ideas, provide input & overall helped shaped the project to where it is now”.

As demonstrated by the numerous letters of support received from various user and community groups, the Heathcote community is fully supportive of the project and see it as a crucial development for Heathcote.

PAGE 90 Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Resource Implications

Tenders received are in line with the expected build cost. Further to the building cost, the City will expend the remaining budget to deliver a netball court with lighting and landscaping works external to this tender.

Budget Allocation in the Current Financial Year: Total Expense: $2,460,000. including carried forward from 16/17 Revenue (external funding ): $280,000

External Funding Sources: $150,000 from the Heathcote District Community Bank $30,000 from tenant clubs. $100,000 from Sport and Recreation Victoria for the netball court with lighting.

Current Estimate: Tendered price: $1,973,960 Provisional sum $39,090 Total contract sum: $2,013,050

Contingency $197,396

Total project cost allowance: $2,210,446

A further construction tender is to be undertaken for the netball court with lighting and surrounding landscape.

Any known or anticipated variance to budget: An additional provisional sum of $39,090 will be added for the possible replacement of the multipurpose room floor. The necessity for this work will be assessed once construction commences and further exploratory investigation is completed.

Projected costs for future financial years: Zero.

Any ongoing recurrent expenditure required: User groups for this facility will be responsible for the outgoing utilities and cleaning of the building. Ongoing depreciation, maintenance and ultimate renewal will be the responsibility of Council.

Conclusion

Redevelopment of the Barrack Reserve Pavilion is amongst the final outstanding active sport and leisure project identified within the 2009 Barrack Community Precinct Master Plan. Tenders to complete this work have been called with a positive response from builders. Tenders are in line with the expected cost and works can commence following the 2016 AFL season.

Attachments

Nil

PAGE 91 Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Acknowledge the positive contribution active & healthy lifestyles make toward Greater Bendigo becoming the most liveable regional City;

2. Authorise officers to undertake the necessary administrative steps to award contract CT000273 – Construction of Barrack Reserve Redevelopment to FNG Group;

3. Authorise project variation approval delegations of $150,000 (exclusive of GST) for the Project Director and $250,000 (exclusive of GST) for the Chief Executive Officer.

RESOLUTION

Moved Cr Campbell, Seconded Cr Weragoda.

That the recommendation be adopted.

CARRIED

PAGE 92 Productivity / Sustainability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

4. PRODUCTIVITY

Nil.

5. SUSTAINABILITY

Nil.

PAGE 93 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

6. LEADERSHIP AND GOOD GOVERNANCE

6.1 REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT ARBITER

Document Information

Author Peter Davies, Manager, Executive Services

Responsible Craig Niemann, Chief Executive Officer Officer

Summary/Purpose

The purpose of this report is to advise the Council that an independent arbiter has heard a complaint from Cr Helen Leach alleging a contravention of the Councillor Code of Conduct by a councillor and has submitted his findings in accordance with section 81AA(2)(d)(ii) of the Local Government Act 1989.

Policy Context

Council Plan Reference: Council demonstrates good governance and leadership.

Background Information

Cr Helen Leach made a complaint alleging a contravention of the Councillor Code of Conduct by Cr Barry Lyons.

The conduct and/or matters of which Cr Leach complains occurred at two meetings of the Council: a Governance meeting held on April 20, 2016 and an ordinary meeting of the Council held on May 4, 2016.

In accordance with the internal resolution procedure of Council, the Principal Conduct Officer referred the complaint to an independent arbiter for consideration.

As required by the Act, having heard the application from Cr Leach, and having ensured the party affected by an application alleging a contravention of the Councillor Code of Conduct is given an opportunity to be heard, the arbiter must make findings in relation to the application and give the findings to the Council with written reasons.

Report

The arbiter heard the application from Cr Leach against Cr Lyons on Monday July 25, 2016 at the municipal offices.

The hearing was conducted informally and each party had the opportunity to speak to their respective statements and respond to questions from the arbiter.

PAGE 94 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

The arbiter made findings as to fact in relation to Cr Lyons’ conduct at the two meetings referred to in Cr Leach’s complaint. The arbiter found the following breaches of the Councillor Code of Conduct to have occurred:

(1) At the Governance meeting held on April 20, 2016, Cr Lyons, in breach of paragraph 2(5)(b) of the Code did not demonstrate respect for a colleague, namely Cr Leach, in failing to ensure that his dealings with her he treated her fairly; and

(2) At the ordinary meeting of the Council held on May 4, 2016 Cr Lyons, in breach of paragraph 2(2)(d) of the Code in the discussion on the motion then before the Council failed to strive to maintain public trust and, in breach of paragraphs 2(5)(a) and (b) of the Code, did not demonstrate respect for a colleague, namely Cr Leach, in failing to ensure that he treated her fairly.

Written reasons are contained in a confidential section of the arbiter’s report.

The Act provides that the Council may apply sanctions for contravention of the Councillor Code of Conduct. These are that the Council may give any or all of the following written directions to the councillor complained against, to:

(a) direct the councillor to make an apology in a form or manner specified by the Council;

(b) direct the councillor to not attend up to, but not exceeding, two meetings of the Council;

(c) direct that, for a period of up to, but not exceeding, two months commencing on a date specified by the Council, the councillor-

(i) be removed from any position where the councillor represents the Council; and

(ii) to not chair or attend any advisory committee or special committee meeting or an assembly of councillors or any other meeting specified in the direction.

Conclusion

The Council’s internal resolution procedure was conducted and has found that Cr Lyons contravened the Councillor Code of Conduct.

At the Councillors' Forum held on August 3, 2016, the finding of the Arbiter and the sanctions that Council can apply under the Act were discussed. Following the departure of Crs Leach and Lyons, both having declared a conflict of interest, Councillors' considered that an apology was appropriate under the circumstances. It was acknowledged that Cr Lyons had already provided a written apology to Cr Leach. Councillors' requested a copy of the apology.

PAGE 95 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Due to the fact that Cr Lyons had apologised and an apology was considered appropriate, there was no need for a Council decision on the sanctions at the Council Meeting, so it was considered that a procedural motion to note the apology was an appropriate way to conclude the matter.

Resource Implications

The cost of engaging the arbiter to consider the application was $5,197.50.

Attachment

Confidential attachments:

1. Arbiter’s report 2. Written apology by Cr Lyons to Cr Leach

PROCEDURAL MOTION

That Council note and acknowledge the written apology to Cr Leach from Cr Lyons to resolve this matter.

RESOLUTION

Moved Cr Campbell, Seconded Cr Cox.

That the recommendation be adopted.

CARRIED

PAGE 96 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

6.2 REVIEW OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT - DIRECTIONS PAPER SUBMISSION - JULY 2016

Document Information

Author Peter Davies, Manager, Executive Services

Responsible Craig Niemann, Chief Executive Officer Officer

Summary/Purpose

The purpose of this report is to ask Council to adopt the attached draft submission to the Local Government Act Review Directions Paper.

Policy Context

Council Plan Reference: Council demonstrates good governance and leadership.

Background Information

On August 11th 2015, the Minister for Local Government announced a review of the Local Government Act 1989.

The purpose of the review is to reform local government by reinvigorating democratic practices and help councils serve their communities more effectively and efficiently.`

A discussion paper was released in September last year to start a conversation between councils, the community and the state government in order to identify the key issues that reflect the terms of reference for the review.

The Council made a submission in response to the Discussion Paper.

After considering all the submissions received from the community and the sector, the Government has now released its Directions Paper on the Local Government Act Review, Act for the Future, and has started an extensive consultation process to inform proposals for reform contained in this paper.

The Directions Paper has three principal aims: to revitalise local democracy; to support councils to be innovative, collaborative and efficient; and to create a plain English Act that is easy to understand and apply.

PAGE 97 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Report

While the Directions Paper outlines over 150 reforms, there are 10 major reform directions aligned to one or more of the principal aims. These relate to the role of the mayor, the representative structure of councils, voting arrangements, deliberative community engagement, integrated planning and reporting, effective ministerial intervention, transparent CEO employment, the power to innovate and collaborate, a consistent rating system and autonomous decision-making balanced by a principle- based Act.

On July 21st 2016, councillors gathered for a workshop on the review, the purpose of which was to identify a general position on the major reform directions set out in the Directions Paper.

The general position of the councillors has been expressed in the draft submission.

The reforms proposed in the paper will be the subject of further consultation until the middle of September 2016.

Local Government Victoria will also be undertaking an extensive engagement process with the sector, in addition to reconvening technical working groups to provide expert feedback from the sector on the reform directions.

Councillors have the opportunity to make individual submissions.

Resource Implications

There are no resource implications for Council

Attachment

(1) Draft submission to the Local Government Act Review

RECOMMENDATION

That Council-

(1) adopt the attached draft submission to the Local Government Act Review; and

(2) send the submission to the Local Government Act Review Secretariat.

RESOLUTION

Moved Cr Campbell, Seconded Cr Lyons.

That the recommendation be adopted.

CARRIED

PAGE 98 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

REVIEW OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1989 DIRECTIONS PAPER SUBMISSION BY GREATER BENDIGO CITY COUNCIL

INTRODUCTION

The principal aims and assumptions

The overarching principle of the Council’s submission in response to the earlier Discussion Paper is the right of a democratically elected body to make decisions suitable for and answerable to the community that elects it, with state intervention limited to extreme circumstances. This aligns comfortably with the three principal aims of the Directions Paper: that Victorians better understand and value the role of councils as democratically elected bodies; that councils be more autonomous and be given the opportunity to embrace innovation and collaboration; and to create an Act that tells people clearly what councils do and how to get involved.

To this end, the Council submits the proposed reforms in the Directions Paper should ensure that the functions and powers conferred on a council are given full, practical and consistent expression. In this context, the Council supports the general principles or aims underpinning the direction reforms.

Unfortunately, some of the proposed provisions negate or counter the very aims. The direction reforms are overly prescriptive. In addition, stripping the Act of prescriptive provisions with the intention of consigning them to regulations or mandatory guidelines does not make councils more autonomous; it simply means the prescription is parked somewhere else.

The Council supports a principled-based Act, but not one where over prescription is concealed elsewhere.

Mayors leading Councils

The Council supports provisions which would confirm that which already exists by convention: that the Mayor has a prominent, acknowledged and supported leadership role. To suggest, however, that leadership will be enhanced if all Mayors are elected for a two year term is not supported. Beside the prospect of being stuck with a Mayor who may have had difficulty for an imposed term of office, and consequently potentially denying two Councillors the opportunity to serve in the role, it should be up to each council to determine how long the Mayoral term should be. This not only allows for individual determination based on differing considerations and personality, it is also consistent with the aim of allowing autonomy.

Similarly, councils should have the option of a deputy Mayor rather than the position mandated. Imposing this as a one size fits all model fails to acknowledge local needs, capacity or competence. Size is irrelevant: Bendigo does not have a deputy Mayor; its neighbouring shire to the south does. The flexibility inherent in the status quo should prevail.

The Council does not support the inclusion of a ministerial power to approve direct election of Mayors as this potentially creates more problems than it is intended to solve and reduces the election of a Mayor to simply a popularity vote. The consequential interface between a popularly-elected Mayor and other Councillors can be fraught and easily avoided.

The Council does not support conferring a power on a Mayor to appoint chairs of Council committees and Councillors to external committees. In keeping with the principal aim of the reform, it should be up to each council to decide how it wishes to make such appointments. There is no justification for such prescription.

PAGE 99 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Similarly, the Council does not support conferring a power on a Mayor to remove a Councillor who is disrupting a Council meeting. Rather, it supports a procedure whereby such a removal is moved by the Mayor, seconded by another Councillor, and voted on by all thereby making the removal a decision of the Council, not an individual. This is consistent with the principle of autonomy.

Council supports the Mayor leading engagement in developing/implementing a Council plan; the requirement that Councillors recognise and support the role of Mayor; the provision allowing the Mayor and the CEO to mutually set Council meeting agendas (and a definition of what ‘mutually’ means from a practical point of view would be beneficial to avoid misunderstanding); to be informed by the CEO before organisational restructure that affects the Council plan; to lead and report to Council on oversight of the CEO’s performance; and requiring the CEO to support the Mayor in their leadership role. Representative structures

The power of the Victorian Electoral Commission to determine the number of Councillors is questioned in the context of an autonomous local government deciding for itself the appropriate number of constituent members factoring in local needs, expectation, capacity and competence. While it is accepted that the state set a band (currently 5-12), there is a compelling argument that an autonomous body be free to review and determine the appropriate number of Councillors within that band, not an external authority. This goes to the very principle of self-determination and is always subject to the scrutiny and judgment of the local community to which elected representatives are ultimately accountable.

The Council does not support extending the existing band to 5-15 Councillors to accommodate population growth, but it does support allowing the existing Council to review the number of Councillors and determine an appropriate number for the next election, leaving the incoming Council free to review and determine according to need, and any other relevant consideration, the number of Councillors required for the following term. This is consistent with the principle of autonomy. In relation to the current arrangement with the VEC, the Council does not support including a formula for determining Councillor numbers based on the ratio of Councillors to residents, mediated by the geographical scale of the local government area.

In relation to wards, the Council supports option two: that is, subdivided, entirely uniform multi-member wards or entirely single-member wards.

With a view to ensuring continuity and the infusion of new ideas, the Council submits that consideration could be given to the frequency of Council elections: that is, akin to the Senate, requiring half the Council stand for election every two years.

Additionally, and with an eye to future efficiencies, consideration could be given to the option of electronic voting. Reliance on manual voting appears to be a protracted and inefficient process.

Simpler voting arrangements

The Council supports preferential voting for multi-member wards and unsubdivided elections, and the provision that a voter is only required to mark the ballot paper with the number of consecutive preferences for which there are vacancies.

The Council supports a modern electoral franchise (eligible voter list) and an accurate roll.

In relation to voting entitlements, the Council supports option one: that the new Act grandfather the voting entitlement of existing property-franchise voters in the municipality and make voting compulsory for all enrolled voters.

PAGE 100 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Deliberative community engagement

The Council acknowledges the community shapes the Council plan and, therefore, the importance of community engagement. In a principle-based Act, the Council supports the requirement that Councils undertake a deliberative community engagement process before adopting a four-year Council plan, but it does not support being told how to do it. The methodology should be determined by the Council in accordance with local expectation and accountability, not prescribed in regulation. The Council, therefore, does not support provisions which include Regulations that an engagement strategy must ensure the community informs the engagement process; that the community be is given adequate information to participate; that the scope/remit of the consultation and areas subject to influence are clear; and that those engaged are representative of the Council’s demographic profile.

The Council acknowledges that transparency and accountability of Council operations may vary between councils, and in a principle-based Act it may be appropriate to provide as a matter of principle that transparency and accountability are compulsory attributes for all Councils. But, given Councils are accountable to those who democratically elect them, how those Councils apply the stated principle should be decided by the respective Council and each will be judged, or held to account, accordingly.

As an alternative, provision could be made for optional guidelines containing that which may have been considered appropriate for Regulation but, respecting the autonomy of Councils and the aims of the reform directions, it should not be mandated.

The Council supports the requirement that the Mayor report to the community each year about how the Council plan has implanted the community’s priorities.

Ministerial intervention

Consistent with the Council’s overarching principle and the principal aims of the Directions Paper, the Council supports provision in the new Act to strengthen the minister’s powers to deal with individual Councillors who are contributing to or causing serious governance failures at a Council.

It, therefore, supports retaining the current Ministerial power to appoint a municipal monitor; to issue a governance direction to a Council; and to stand down a Councillor. It also supports empowering the Minister to recommend a Councillor be suspended by an order-in-Council for contributing to or causing serious governance failures at a Council in exceptional circumstances only. Council also supports, in exceptional circumstances, a provision enabling the Minister to dismiss an individual Councillor.

A provision to stand down an individual Councillor, in the finite context of a code of conduct process, does not solve an underlying problem, it evades it. There appears to be no compelling reason why, in exceptional circumstances, including the health safety and wellbeing of Council staff or other Councillors, the clearly identified cause of the poor behaviour cannot be removed. This is even more imperative where there is repeated and escalating poor behaviour.

Any argument that the remedy of dismissal undermines the democratic process is misconceived. The remedy serves to protect and reinforce the integrity of the democratic process, not destroy it. It ensures the continuity of a democratically elected body, not just the interests of one constituent member. This remedy is also consistent with the aim of the direction reform because it would enable early intervention to avoid Council dismissal where there is evidence the poor behaviour is adversely impacting on the capacity of the Council to transact business or conduct itself in a manner consistent with the Councillor Code of Conduct.

PAGE 101 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

CEO employment and performance

Direction reforms impacting on the Council’s employment and review of the Chief Executive Officer should respect the autonomy of Councils with minimal, if any, state government interference, however well-intentioned. For this reason, the Council does not support the proposal to align the CEO remuneration policy with the Remuneration Principles of the Victorian Public Sector Commission’s Policy on Executive Remuneration for Public Entities in the Broader Public Sector. While the argument for consistency might appear meritorious, it fails to acknowledge an overreach into an area that is reasonably within the competence of an accountable elected body. The Council submits it should be left to determine what an appropriate remuneration is for its employee taking into account any local considerations it deems appropriate and relevant.

The Council does, however, support a modified proposal to require the Mayor and the other Councillors to get independent advice in overseeing CEO recruitment, contractual arrangements and performing monitoring. The direction reform currently limits this requirement to a function of the Mayor only.

Ratings system

The Council supports reform provisions that update rating exemptions so they are clear and fair. It acknowledges that currently all land is rateable except for land exempted in the Act and this will continue, but exemptions will be described more clearly.

In relation to rateable land, the Council supports option two in the Directions Paper: that includes land subject to a lease, sublease, licence or sub-licence that is used for a charitable purpose, provided the lease or licence is for a nominal amount. It also makes land rateable that is: owned by a for-profit organisation but leased to a charitable organisation; or used exclusively for mining purposes.

The Council supports the requirement that a Council prepare a four-year revenue and rating strategy. The Council also submits that it retain the power to set differential rates.

Autonomous decision-making

Council supports the aim to achieve autonomous Councils that are accountable and actively engaged in the community as a basic tenet of the democratic process. In addition, it supports provisions that ensure Council decision-making is open, transparent and accountable. To this end, the Council supports the inclusion of high level principles in the new Act to be used to guide Councillor decision-making. It also supports the removal of detailed prescription about Council-decision-making processes from the Act, but only if these prescriptive processes are not parked somewhere else (such as in Regulations or mandatory guidelines) with the same effect.

This is consistent with the principle that the Act provides a broad enabling framework, while at the same time acknowledging the autonomous decision-making role of elected Councils by allowing Councils to determine the most appropriate methodology.

The Council does not support the requirement that the CEO establish a workforce plan describing the Council’s staffing structure including future needs. Further, the Council does not support the proposal that the plan can only be changed in consultation with the staff.

Any workforce plan or organisation structure proposed by the CEO would be to the Mayor, Councillors and staff.

PAGE 102 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

The proposal that the plan be available to the Mayor and to staff should be modified to include Councillors, too.

Greater Bendigo City Council July 22, 2016

PAGE 103 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

6.3 CHANGE TO BUSHFIRE PLACE OF LAST RESORT - NEIGHBOURHOOD SAFER PLACE AT CANTERBURY PARK, EAGLEHAWK

Document Information

Author Sue Moses, Municipal Fire Prevention Officer

Responsible Prue Mansfield Director Planning and Development Director

Summary/Purpose

This report recommends decommissioning the Bushfire Place of Last Resort - Neighbourhood Safer Place at Canterbury Park Eaglehawk Football Oval at 2 Simpsons Road Eaglehawk due to the disruption caused by current redevelopment works, and designate a replacement Bushfire Place of Last Resort – Neighbourhood Safer Place adjacent at Canterbury Park, 20 Simpsons Road Eaglehawk at the carpark and events area.

Policy Context

The State Government included the requirement for Neighbourhood Safer Places (since renamed to be Bushfire Places of Last Resort – Neighbourhood Safer Place), in the Emergency Services Legislation Amendment Act 2009. The City of Greater Bendigo commitment to this is described in the:

Council Plan 2016 - 2017 Theme 1 - Leadership & Good Governance: 1.9.2 Ensure the emergency management arrangements for the City are aligned with Emergency Management Victoria policies and procedures and implement the Cluster Municipal Emergency Management Plan in partnership with surrounding municipalities.

City of Greater Bendigo Municipal Emergency Management Plan

City of Greater Bendigo Municipal Fire Management Plan

City of Greater Bendigo Municipal Neighbourhood Safer Places Plan.

Background Information

The Bushfire Royal Commission recommended that Neighbourhood Safer Places – Bushfire Place of Last Resort, be established to provide a ‘place of last resort’ for people in bushfire affected areas, as a place to go if all their other plans fail. The intent being

PAGE 104 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016 that for those who had not developed a fire plan or get caught out or their plans failed had a local place to go where they have some chance of survival.

The Legislation requires Councils to identify, designate, establish and maintain Bushfire Places of Last Resort – Neighbourhood Safer Place, in their municipal district. The role of the CFA is to certify the selected sites against Fire Rating Criteria. There are 10 sites designated in the City of Greater Bendigo.

The sites are reassessed annually to establish if there have been any changes. It is proposed that for the coming Fire Danger Period that 9 of the sites will remain unchanged with the one change being Canterbury Park at Eaglehawk.

Previous Council Decision Dates:

December 2009 – Council adopts Municipal Neighbourhood Safer Places Plan. December 2009 – Council designates eight Neighbourhood Safer Places October 2010 – Council adopts two additional Neighbourhood Safer Places.

Report

The current construction works at Canterbury Park prevent the current location at the football oval from being a suitable Bushfire Place of Last Resort - Neighbourhood Safer Place for the coming Fire Danger Period.

As per the Municipal Neighbourhood Safer Places Plan, City staff and CFA have identified and assessed the nearby area to the north east of the football oval being the Canterbury Sports precinct carpark and the events area (smaller oval grassed space) as a suitable replacement.

Figure 1: Proposed new location

PAGE 105 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

It is proposed that the identified replacement area remain as the ongoing Bushfire Place of Last Resort – Neighbourhood Safer Place, subject to the annual review process. It is regarded as a more suitable site as the oval area is sometimes locked whereas the proposed new area provides continuous unlocked access.

There is both access and egress from Simpsons Road to the Canterbury Park car park and events area with entry via the access road near Lake Neangar and egress via the exit point on Simpsons Road near Trumble Street.

The layout of this area along with Bushfire Place of Last Resort – Neighbourhood Safer Place signage, will funnel people to the events green area where they can congregate away from traffic and the lake area. Signage will be as per Bushfire Place of Last Resort – Neighbourhood Safer Place signage guidelines.

The CFA Fire Rating assessment has been completed and the site declared compliant.

The proposed change was endorsed by the Municipal Fire Management Planning Committee (MFMPC) and the Municipal Emergency Management Planning Committee (MEMPC) in June 2016.

Priority/Importance:

This is of high priority to meet the CFA annual Neighbourhood Safer Places assessment timeline of 31 August.

The annual review process must be completed by 30 September as per the CFA Act, Sect 50K, 1958.

Options/Alternatives:

Council may choose not to replace the Bushfire Place of Last Resort - Neighbourhood Safer Place at Eaglehawk. This would not be regarded as in the best interests in the community that has become accustomed to the idea of having a Bushfire Place of Last Resort – Neighbourhood Safer Place.

Timelines:

Councils must complete the annual CFA of designated Bushfire Places of Las Resort - Neighbourhood Safer Places by 30 September as per CFA Act, Sect 50K, 1958.

Progress:

To complete the process the Bushfire Places of Last Resort - Neighbourhood Safer Place process, the following steps must occur:  Revoke (decommission), and endorse the designation of a new NSP at a council meeting;  Amend the City’s website;  Ensure organisations / people (listed in step 15 of the Municipal Neighbourhood Safer Places Plan) are notified;

PAGE 106 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

 Remove / install signage at the site and any directional signage;  Amend any community bushfire information including Community Information Guides;  Amend the MEMP, MFMP and if required, the MNSPP; and  Complete the process in the CFA’S NSP online business system.

Risk Analysis:

Conflict of use: All user groups of the Canterbury precinct have been notified of the change. There is little chance of a conflict of use as in the event of a fire so severe it compels people to use a Bushfire Place of Last Resort – Neighbourhood Safer Place, it is likely that sporting or other events being held in the events space would be cancelled, especially if a Code Red Day was declared.

Signage and publicity around a Bushfire Place of Last Resort – Neighbourhood Safer Place, advises people that they use the space at their own risk and cannot expect any emergency services or agencies to be present. The decision to not include the area immediately around the lake (water’s edge) is due to consideration that an unfenced body of water is not an appropriate location where there is the potential combination of young children and confusion, and could potentially be in the dark and with smoke in the environment. However it is well recognised that people will make their own decisions around where they will go.

The use of the site for parking and people to gather is consistent with its everyday use for sport and events and should not have an adverse effect on the neighbourhood or the environment.

Consultation/Communication

Internal Consultation: The proposed change has involved communication between the Municipal Fire Prevention Officer, Municipal Emergency Resource Coordinator, Building and Property Services, and Works. Once finalised the change will appear on the City’s website and intranet

External Consultation: All user groups have been informed of the change. This includes netball, football, bowls, cricket and tennis clubs. There is no objection and clubs have been invited to provide feedback on any concerns should they arise in the future as all Bushfire Places of Last Resort – Neighbourhood Safer Places, are reviewed annually.

Communications with the community will occur as a combined approach with CFA and City on websites, media releases and social media.

Resource Implications

New signage has been purchased during the 2015-2016 financial year. No other changes are required to occur at the site for it to be used for this purpose.

PAGE 107 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Installation of the signs will be funded by Fire Prevention and does not require any variation to the budget.

Communications will occur as a combined approach with CFA and Council on websites, media releases and social media.

Conclusion

It is concluded that the interruption to the Bushfire Place of Last Resort - Neighbourhood Safer Place at Eaglehawk due to the works, can be easily rectified by moving its location from the football oval to the adjacent car park and events area.

Attachments

1. Bushfire Place of Last Resort - Neighbourhood Safer Place - Assessment Report

RECOMMENDATION

That the Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to: 1. Decommission the Bushfire Place of Last Resort – Neighbourhood Safer Place at Canterbury Park Football Oval. 2. Designate the Canterbury Park Sports Precinct parking and events area as a Bushfire Place of Last Resort – Neighbourhood Safer Place.

RESOLUTION

Moved Cr Cox, Seconded Cr Lyons.

That the recommendations contained in the Leadership and Good Governance Report Nos. 6.3 (Change to Bushfire Place of Last Resort - Neighbourhood Safer Place at Canterbury Park, Eaglehawk), 6.4 (Record of Assemblies) and 6.5 (Contracts Awarded Under Delegation) be adopted. CARRIED

PAGE 108 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

6.4 RECORD OF ASSEMBLIES

Document Information

Author Peter Davies, Manager Executive Services

Responsible Craig Niemann, 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.

Report

Meeting Information Meeting Councillors' Forum Name/Type Meeting Date 22 June 2016 Matters discussed 1. Discussion on priorities for the Regional Waste Management Plan 2. Planning matters and draft Ordinary Agenda review 3. Marong Business Park 4. Rescission motion

PAGE 109 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

5. Additional budget submission 6. Organics waste exemption process 7. Michael Street footpath report 8. Safe City Forum 9. 40kph speed limit proposal at Eaglehawk 10. Eaglehawk Railway Precinct 11. Art Gallery Board meeting 12. Epsom Primary School 13. CCTV funding announcement 14. Strathfieldsaye Hub 15. Big Hill and Mandurang Valley amendment 16. Environment Strategy 17. Reconciliation Action Plan 18. Access to Information 19. Local Government Inspectorate Report 20. Organisation structure

Attendees/Apologies Councillors Cr Rod Fyffe Cr Rod Campbell Cr Peter Cox 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 Darren Fuzzard Mr David Lloyd Ms Prue Mansfield Mr Michael Smyth Mr Peter Davies Mrs Alison Campbell

Conflict of Interest disclosures Matter Councillor/officer making disclosure Councillor/officer left No. meeting Nil

PAGE 110 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Meeting Information Meeting Councillors' Forum Name/Type Meeting Date 13 July 2016 Matters discussed 1. Cultural Diversity and Inclusion Plan 2. Domestic Animal Management Plan 3. Planning matters and draft Ordinary Agenda review 4. Healthy Together achievement 5. Update on the Gasworks site 6. Phoenix FM 7. Home and Community Care 8. Regional Futures Summit and EDA Conference 9. Meeting cycle 10. Governance meeting 11. Citizens' Jury 12. Notice of Motion 13. Phoenix Energy 14. Chauncey Street bridge, Heathcote 15. Injured wildlife 16. Slashing of roadsides 17. Information to the EPA 18. Future options for Clays Road property 19. Road Management Plan 20. Epsom Primary School 21. Leave of Absence (Cr Williams) 22. Family Fun Day - Kangaroo Flat

Attendees/Apologies Councillors Cr Rod Fyffe Cr Peter Cox Cr Helen Leach Cr Barry Lyons Cr Mark Weragoda Cr James Williams Apologies: Cr Rod Campbell Cr Elise Chapman Cr Lisa Ruffell Staff/ Ms Kerryn Ellis Community Ms Rachelle Quattrocchi Representatives Mr Terry Karamaloudis Ms Prue Mansfield Mr Richard Morrison Mr Michael Smyth Mr Peter Davies Apologies: Mr Craig Niemann

Conflict of Interest disclosures Matter Councillor/officer making disclosure Councillor/officer left

PAGE 111 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

No. meeting Nil

Meeting Information Meeting Safe Community Forum Name/Type Meeting Date 3 June 2016 Matters discussed 1. Bendigo Safe Community Forum Strategic Plan Review 2. Royal Commission into Family Violence Recommendations 3. Safe Transport Space Research Project 4. Anti-Social Behaviour in the CBD Working Group 5. CBD Graffiti Prevention Project 6. White Ribbon Day Working Group 7. Ice Action Working Group 8. Current funding opportunities - Department of Justice and Regulation 9. Member updates

Attendees/Apologies Councillors Cr Lisa Ruffell Staff/ Ms Deb Simpson Community Mr Michael Smyth/ Representatives Ms Kate Wright Ms Margaret Singe Mr Tom Wills Inspector Peter Greaney Mr Colin Wells Ms Robyn Trainer Ms Cheryl Sobczyk Ms Yvette Jaczina Mr Ken & Mrs Jeanette Westhead Apologies: Mr Syd Anstee/ Ms Annette Tuohey Ms Kerry Donaldson The Hon Jacinta Allan

Conflict of Interest disclosures Matter Councillor/officer making disclosure Councillor/officer left No. meeting Nil

PAGE 112 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Meeting Information Meeting Heritage Advisory Committee Name/Type Meeting Date 21 July 2016 Matters discussed 1. 'WeHeartBendigo' competition 2. Bendigo Gasworks 3. Soldiers' Memorial 4. Bendigo Town Hall 5. Planning update 6. Strategy update 7. Council update

Attendees/Apologies Councillors Cr Peter Cox Apology: Cr Mark Weragoda Staff/ Ms Megan McDougall Community Dr Dannielle Orr Representatives Ms Trudy Rickard/ Ms Helen Ashby Mr Laurie Brown Ms Elaine Doling Ms Penny Holloway Mr Darren Wright Apologies: Ms Emma Bryant Mr Trevor Budge/ Mr David Bannear Mr Jordan Grenfell Ms Kay MacGregor Dr Di Smith Mr Rod Spitty Mr Calum Walker

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.

(refer to page 109 - recommendation adopted)

PAGE 113 Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

6.5 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

Heathcote – North CT000257 Bitu-Mill (Civil) Pty Ltd 819,464.25 Craig Niemann 8 June 2016 Costerfield Road Works Prouses Road Shoulder 29 June CT000261 Widening & Intersection Avard Civil Pty Ltd 626,205.32 Craig Niemann 2016 Works – North Bendigo Construction of Olympic Parade & Mackenzie 21 June CT000262 Avard Civil Pty Ltd 456,821.11 Darren Fuzzard Street West Roundabout 2016 – Kangaroo Flat

RECOMMENDATION

That the contracts awarded under delegation, as outlined in this report, be acknowledged by Council.

(refer to page 109 - recommendation adopted)

PAGE 114 Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

7. URGENT BUSINESS

Nil.

8. NOTICES OF MOTION

Nil.

9. COUNCILLORS' REPORTS

Cr Chapman reported on her attendance at the Rural Women's Network meeting; the Kangaroo Flat Ward Meeting; the Lockwood Ward meeting; the waste to energy meeting and the Citizens’ Jury deliberation meeting.

Cr Weragoda reported on his attendance at a meeting with Goulburn Murray Water regarding Lake Eppalock; the National Darts Championships; the Redesdale Community Engagement Meeting.

Cr Cox presented a story of the Eaglehawk Community House to the Mayor. Cr Cox also reported on his attendance at a meeting of the Heritage Advisory Committee; the forthcoming opening of the Vahland Drinking Fountain; the Bendigo Historical Society Annual General Meeting and the meeting of the Steam and Oil Engine Club.

Cr Lyons reported on his attendance at the Community Foundation Big Give Fund Raiser; the opening at Marist Brothers College at Maiden Gully; the sod turning at the Greater Bendigo Aquatic and Wellbeing Centre; the Construction and Developers roundtable meeting; the Victorian Tourism Conference at Ulumbarra and the Ward Meetings at Kangaroo Flat and Sedgwick.

Cr Leach reported on her attendance at an opening of Marist Brothers; VicRoads consultation meeting at Strathfieldsaye; the sod turning event at the Greater Bendigo Aquatic and Wellbeing Centre; Waste Group consultation meeting; Strathdale Community Centre workshop; Small Business event; 2016 Squash Championships; meeting regarding Waste to Energy and the Redesdale Ward meeting.

Cr Ruffell reported on her attendance at the Blue Ribbon Foundation fundraiser and meeting with Minister Allan.

Cr Williams reported on his attendance at the opening of the new crossing at Huntly; the Greater Bendigo Rural Support meeting; a meeting of the Calder Highway Improvement Committee; the La Trobe University award ceremony and a meeting with the Epsom Huntly Flood Mitigation Group.

PAGE 115 Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

10. MAYOR'S REPORT

His Worship the Mayor, Cr Rod Fyffe, tabled a report on his attendance at the following meetings and events;

 Regional Futures Summit  Ministerial tour of the Soldiers Memorial  Attended the workshop on the Local Government Act  Meeting with a group of Chinese students from our sister city  Attended the Official Blessings and Opening of Fourviere at Marist College  Officially launched the Arnold Street Gallery  Meeting with Bendigo Rifle Club  Attended the launch of ANZ 2016 Seeds of Renewal Program  Attended the official Aquatic Centre sod turning event  Attended the official launch of the Bendigo Small Business Festival  Attended the launch of ‘Made in Bendigo’  Officially Opened the 2016 Bendigo International Squash Championships  Attended St. Monica's PS to talk about the role of Local Government  Attended the opening of the 2016 Frank Sedgman Cup  Officially Opened the Country Classics Body Building Competition  Attended the finals presentation of the Bendigo International Squash Championships  Attended the Construction and Developers ‘Round Table Discussion’  MAV Board Meeting  Officially Opened the ‘Write on the Fringe Festival’  Attended the Heathcote Winegrowers Association event  Attended the Potato Industry Conference  Attended the Maiden Gully Playgroup Morning tea  Attended a site tour of the new Bendigo Hospital Project  Officially Launched the 2016 National Gymnastics Clubs Carnival  Various media interviews  Various meetings with residents

The Mayor thanked those Councillors who represented him at events he was unable to attend.

PAGE 116 Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

11. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT

The Chief Executive Officer, Mr Craig Niemann, tabled a report on his attendance at the following meetings and events:

 Participated in the Councillors’ workshop on the Local Government Act Directions Paper  Attended a meeting with representatives from the Victoria Grants Commission  Attended the launch by Minister Eren of the Bendigo Tennis Complex Designs  Attended the sod turning event for Greater Bendigo Indoor Aquatic and Wellbeing Centre  Met with stakeholders to discuss arrangements for moving patients to the new Bendigo Hospital  Launched the Made in Bendigo booklet  Attended the LGPro Local Government Act Review session relating to the Roles of Mayors and CEOs, CEO Employment matters and CEO workforce responsibilities  Presented the third quarterly corporate briefing to City of Greater Bendigo managers and coordinators  Participated in a Recognition and Settlement Agreement workshop with representatives from Dja Dja Wurrung and Local Government Victoria  Attended the induction session for Regional Partnerships Victoria. The Loddon Campaspe group will be chaired by Nigel McGuckian

PAGE 117 Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

12. CONFIDENTIAL (SECTION 89) REPORTS

12.1 Confidential Report in accordance with Section 89(2)(a) and (d) of the Local Government Act 1989, relating to a personnel and contractual matter.

12.2 Confidential Report in accordance with Section 89(2)d) of the Local Government Act 1989, relating to a contractual matter.

12.3 Confidential Attachment in accordance with Section 89(2)(a) and (h) of the Local Government Act 1989, relating to a personnel matter and any other matter which the Council or special committee considers would prejudice the Council or any person.

RECOMMENDATION

That the meeting be closed to the public to consider a report in accordance with Section 89(2)(a), (d) and (h) of the Local Government 1989, as amended, relating to personnel and contractual matters and any other matter which the Council or special committee considers would prejudice the Council or any person.

RESOLUTION

Moved Cr Chapman, seconded Cr Williams.

That the recommendation be adopted.

CARRIED

PAGE 118 Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

There being no further business, the meeting closed at 8:50pm.

Confirmed:

31 August 2016 Chairman

PAGE 119