Está en la página 1de 109

AGENDA

Ordinary Meeting of Council


6.00pm Wednesday 10 August 2016

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

Question time at the formal Council Meeting will be limited to written questions received
before 12 noon on the day of the meeting. The questions will be read by a Council
representative and answered by the Mayor. There will not be an opportunity for questions to
be asked from the floor.

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 Councils 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

PRAYER

PRESENT

APOLOGIES

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS

DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

1.

PETITIONS AND JOINT LETTERS

22

1.1

Petition: Request for Sealing of Myrtle Creek Road, Axe


Creek

22

2.

PLANNING FOR GROWTH

24

2.1

Planning Scheme Amendment C221 - Bendigo Urban


Flood Study - Consider Submissions and Refer to Panel

24

2.2

Ministerial Planning Scheme Amendment GC49 - Hospital


Helicopter Flight Path Protection- For Information and
Support

39

2.3

1/93 Garsed Street, Bendigo - Partial Demolition (Roof


Trusses and Rear Wall)

47

2.4

440 Sedgwick Road, Sedgwick - The Subdivision of Land


into 2 Lots

55

2.5

Review of Planning Fees - Submission by the City of


Greater Bendigo

63

3.

PRESENTATION AND VIBRANCY

67

3.1

Future Use of Crown Land at Victoria Street, Eaglehawk

67

PAGE 3

3.2

Kamarooka and District Community Plan

77

3.3

Barrack Reserve Redevelopment

81

4.

PRODUCTIVITY

87

5.

SUSTAINABILITY

87

6.

LEADERSHIP AND GOOD GOVERNANCE

88

6.1

Report of the Independent Arbiter

88

6.2

Review of the Local Government Act - Directions Paper


Submission - July 2016

91

6.3

Change to Bushfire Place of Last Resort - Neighbourhood


Safer Place at Canterbury Park, Eaglehawk

98

6.4

Record of Assemblies

103

6.5

Contracts Awarded Under Delegation

108

7.

URGENT BUSINESS

109

8.

NOTICES OF MOTION

109

9.

COUNCILLORS' REPORTS

109

10.

MAYOR'S REPORT

109

11.

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT

109

12.

CONFIDENTIAL (SECTION 89) REPORTS

109

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.

109

12.2

Confidential Report in accordance with Section 89(2)d) of


the Local Government Act 1989, relating to a contractual
matter.

109

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.

109

____________________________
CRAIG NIEMANN
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PAGE 4

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY
PRAYER
PRESENT
APOLOGIES

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS


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

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME


Public Question Time Guidelines
Public Question Time Purpose
Council has provided the opportunity for members of the public to lodge written questions
of broad interest to Council and the community. Matters relating to routine Council works
should be taken up with Councils Customer Service Officers through its Customer
Request System.
Question time will be limited to written questions received before 12 noon on the
day of the meeting. The questions will be read by a Council representative and
answered by the Mayor.
No questions relating to planning matters on the Agenda will be accepted. By the time
planning matters have reached the council agenda, they have been through an extensive
process as required by the Planning and Environment Act. In addition, in most instances
mediation has been held between the parties involved. Throughout the process there are
many opportunities for people to ask questions.
Public Question Time Where, When And Who
The public question time is held at every Ordinary Meeting of Greater Bendigo City
Council. Meetings of Council commence at 6.00pm in the Reception Room, Bendigo
Town Hall, Hargreaves Street, Bendigo.
The public question time is held at the start of the meeting as close as practical to
6:00pm. A maximum of 30 minutes has been provided for registered written questions.

Acceptance of Questions
Councils Meeting Procedure Local Law does not allow for other questions or comments
during the remainder of the meeting.

PAGE 5

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

1.

An individual may only lodge one question per meeting.

2.

In the event that the same or similar written question is raised by more than one
person, an answer may be given as a combined response.

3.

In the event that time does not permit all written questions registered to be
answered, questions will be answered in writing or referred to the next meeting if
appropriate.

4.

The Mayor and or CEO have the right to decline registration on basis of:
Legal proceedings;
More appropriately addressed by other means;
Vague or lacking in substance, irrelevant, frivolous, insulting offensive,
improper, defamatory or demeaning;
Answer likely to compromise his / her position;
Confidential, commercial-in-confidence.

5.

Each individual whose written question has been accepted or declined will be
advised by early afternoon on the day of the scheduled meeting.

6.

In the event of a written question being declined the question will be circulated to
the Council for information.

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS


That Standing Orders be resumed.

CR CAMPBELL'S REPORT

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 agenda; or in writing to the Chief Executive Officer
before the meeting. Declaration of indirect interests must also include the
classification of the interest (in circumstances where a Councillor has made a
Declaration in writing, the classification of the interest must still be declared at the
meeting), i.e.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)

direct financial interest


indirect interest by close association
indirect interest that is an indirect financial interest
indirect interest because of conflicting duties
indirect interest because of receipt of an applicable gift
indirect interest as a consequence of becoming an interested party
indirect interest as a result of impact on residential amenity
conflicting personal interest

A Councillor who has declared a conflict of interest, must leave the meeting and
remain outside the room while the matter is being considered, or any vote is taken.
Councillors are also encouraged to declare circumstances where there may be a
perceived conflict of interest.

PAGE 7

Ordinary Meeting - 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
1.

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

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

PAGE 8

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

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.

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
PAGE 9

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

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/standarddrawings/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 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
Director

Prue Mansfield, Director Planning & Development

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:

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 Victorias 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. Objectors 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 peoples 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.

PAGE 19

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

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

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.
PAGE 20

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

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/standarddrawing-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
Director

Ian Couper, Interim Director Presentation and Assets

[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.
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.
PAGE 23

Planning for Growth - Reports

2.

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

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
Director

Prue Mansfield, Director Planning & Development

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
outstanding submission/s.

PAGE 24

Planning for Growth - Reports

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

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.
2. Request the Minister for Planning to authorise Council to prepare Amendment
C221 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme.
PAGE 25

Planning for Growth - Reports

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

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.
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.
PAGE 26

Planning for Growth - Reports

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

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


undertaken therefore flooding overlay
should be removed.

Works already considered in modelling.


Will run the model again with Crusoe
reservoir as a mitigation option (see later
discussion) which may reduce flooding
extent but not remove entirely.
Refer to Panel

Submitter 3: Paul Comer, 165 Sullivans Road, Strathfieldsaye


Supports/Objects

Officer Response & Recommendation

PAGE 27

Planning for Growth - Reports

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Objects. LSIO in small corner not flood


prone and should be removed.

LSIO over a very small area with no


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


and inspection.

No reason to change mapping provided


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


old dam that will be filled in.

Only small area in front of property


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


correct, levee bank nearby.

Levee bank considered in the model. No


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


bigger area for building and neighbour
constructed an illegal levee that causes
flooding.

Building envelope area can be increased


by reducing flood extent but overlay will
still apply. Compliance officer has asked
neighbour to put breaks in levee to
release water.
Refer to panel

Submitter 9: VicRoads
Supports/Objects

Officer Response & Recommendation

PAGE 28

Planning for Growth - Reports

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

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


needs cleaning out.

Creek cleaning will not affect flood.


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


Averys Rd which should be fixed. Also a
levy would help.

Culvert being upgraded but will not


change flooding extent.
Refer to Panel

Submitter 15: Margaret and Noel Bruhn, 21 Morsehead Court, White Hills
Supports/Objects

Officer Response & Recommendation

Objects. Doesnt believe their land


floods.

Flood extent cannot be changed.


Refer to panel

PAGE 29

Planning for Growth - Reports

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

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


correct.

Mapping reviewed and some minor


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

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


consider recent filling.

Maps will be changed.


Change to amendment as requested

Submitter 22: Currie Brown on behalf of Bendigo Properties, 244 Edwards


Road, Maiden Gully
Supports/Objects

Officer Response & Recommendation


PAGE 30

Planning for Growth - Reports

Objects. Wants changes to LSIO to


consider recent filling.

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Maps will be changed.


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


and property values. Doesnt believe it
floods, been there for 82 years.

Mapping reviewed. No change


recommended.
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. Doesnt want the Significant


Landscape Overlay schedule 1 (SLO1)
removed.

SLO1 not being removed in this


amendment. ESO1 being removed as no
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


affecting flooding and should be fixed.

Explained that this is VicRoads


responsibility. Fixing unlikely to change
flood mapping. No change to
amendment.
Refer to panel

Submitter 27: Daniel and Rosemary Ruedin, 2-10 Howard Street, Epsom
Supports/Objects

Officer Response & Recommendation

Objects. Concerned about no


development recommended within 50m
of levee bank.

No change to amendment proposed.


Refer to panel

Submitter 28: Epsom Huntly Drainage Committee, Ron Bergmeier and Bill
Knight, 244 Midland Highway, Epsom
Supports/Objects

Officer Response & Recommendation

PAGE 31

Planning for Growth - Reports

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Objects. Concerned with accuracy of


modelling and data.

It is acknowledged that Bendigo flood


study had limited historical data as had
not been collected. As much data used
as possible and modelling.

Concern that new developments not


included in modelling.

All new developments were included in


modelling up to when the model was run.

Climate change not considered, more


frequent and extreme events possible.

Climate change was considered by


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


undertaken

Mitigation may occur in future, many


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


planning application.
Wants overlays to be amended as works
done.

No permit submitted or approved.


Premature to change mapping.
Refer to panel

Submitter 31: Charles Cornish, 89 Sargeants Road, Epsom


Supports/Objects

Officer Response & Recommendation

Objects. Concerned that in applying the


SBO2 behind the levee bank that the
modelling did not consider the mitigation
effects of the Ascot channel.

The Catchment Management Authority


considers the mapping to be correct.
Channel considered in model.

Questions extent of LSIO and believes


there should be an independent review of
the Study. Says that study says the
mapping was reviewed by an
independent technical panel, therefore
requests a copy of this review.

DELWP appointed an independent panel


of independent professionals and
academics which checked methodology
and assumptions and outcomes. It is not
a report or public document.

Believes that LSIO1 should not apply to


his property as only stormwater entering
as a result of inadequately sized culvert
in Sargeants Road. If anything it should

Land also affected by Racecourse Creek


flood waters.

PAGE 32

Planning for Growth - Reports

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

be an SBO1. Requests that this culvert


be upgraded.
Also questions whether pipes and
channels around Sargeants road have
been considered in the mapping.

Pipes and channels considered.


No change to mapping recommended.
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


and McIvor Rd Bridges. Any plans to
change?

No bridges to be changed in short to


medium term, very expensive. No
change to mapping recommended.

Can overlay be changed as land will be


built up?

Refer to panel

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


concerns and concern re flooding. Asks
whether central Deborah mine can take
water and be considered in mapping.
Wants to do development but CMA says
it is flood prone and cant be filled.

Mine will not take water. Mapping


reviewed and not recommended to be
changed. Development difficult.
Refer to panel

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

PAGE 33

Planning for Growth - Reports

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

implemented, done a site flood


assessment, request LSIO change.

too old, new information will be needed.


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


necessary (current ESO1 and proposed
LSIO1).

Not included in amendment and not


recommended for removal.
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.


Refers to previous VCAT decisions.

LSIO not recommended for changes.


Modelling correct.
Refer to panel

Submitter 39: Colin Johnston, Gold Nugget Tourist Park


Supports/Objects

Officer Response & Recommendation

Objects to relocatable buildings requiring


a permit under LSIO1 and SBO2

Needs to be consistent for all caravan


parks. May require conditions.
Refer to panel

Submitter 40: Andrea Tomkinson on behalf of UDIA


Supports/Objects

Officer Response & Recommendation

Objects. Support Councils intentions to


provide greater certainty to landowners,
however believe there are some issues
including:
Mapping accuracy, (individual houses
and fences not considered)

Although the mapping is far more


accurate than our current planning
scheme mapping, it does not map each
individual house and fence. The
submission does not provide any further
technical information or specific
examples and therefore the mapping
should not be changed.

Ability to provide more detailed


modelling with a permit

More detailed flood information can be


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.

PAGE 34

Planning for Growth - Reports

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Possible increases in insurance


premiums and criticism that insurance
issues werent discussed in
information material

Potential impacts on insurance premiums


were provided during exhibition: in the
community bulletin, on line and at the
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.

Submitter 42: Damien Cranage, Total Property Developments


Supports/Objects

Officer Response & Recommendation

Objects. Wants changes made to flood


mapping to reflect approved
permits/developments as per sites below:

These sites have been reviewed by the


CMA with the following responses.
Requests can be supported depending
on status and extent of filling:

21 Plumridge Street, White Hills


(DS/575/2013)

Yes, current permit

8,9 and 11 Carrington Close, White Hills


(DS/493/2011)

Yes, current permit

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,


(AM/706/2009)

No, current permit raised floor levels but


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


filling near creek.

Recommend no change to mapping at


this stage.
Refer to panel

Submitter 44: Tony Knox (2), 49 Regent Street, Strathfieldsaye


Supports/Objects

Officer Response & Recommendation

PAGE 35

Planning for Growth - Reports

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Submitter 42: Damien Cranage, Total Property Developments


Supports/Objects

Officer Response & Recommendation

Objects. Amend LSIO as land no longer


prone to flooding and future works will
reduce flooding.

The Catchment Management Authority


has responded that part of the land is still
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 need for the LSIO.

The Catchment management authority


says that the land is still flood prone and
dont support a change.
Refer to panel

Submitter 46: Goulburn Murray Water


Supports/Objects

Officer Response & Recommendation

Supports. Requests that the requirement


for new lots in a subdivision to be set
back 30m from waterways in the Local
Floodplain Development Plan for
residential zone be extended to all Res
including Low Density Residential and
Rural Living Zone.

Support requested change. As it will be


making a change to the Plan,
recommend that it be forwarded to panel
for consideration.
Refer to panel

Submitter 47: Kevin and Margaret McDonald, 37 Creek Street, South, Bendigo
Supports/Objects

Officer Response & Recommendation

Objects. Disagree with site being flood


prone, insurance premiums have
increased based on incorrect information.

CMA has reviewed mapping and area is


flood prone. Insurance premiums
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


PAGE 36

Planning for Growth - Reports

General concerns, clean out creek,


housing has been approved in creeks,
want real drainage, clean drains

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Cleaning out creek doesnt affect extent


of the 1% Average Exceedance
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.

Submitter 51: Spiire, 746 McIvor Highway, Junortoun/trotting terrace


Supports/Objects

Officer Response & Recommendation

Lots filled for building envelopes, request


that LSIO be removed.

CMA has reviewed mapping and part of


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


divert flood waters

Cleaning out creek doesnt affect extent


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.

PAGE 37

Planning for Growth - Reports

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

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.
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.

PAGE 38

Planning for Growth - Reports

2.2

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

MINISTERIAL PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT GC49 - HOSPITAL


HELICOPTER FLIGHT PATH PROTECTION- FOR INFORMATION
AND SUPPORT

Document Information Author

Frank Casimir - Statutory Planner

Responsible
Director

Prue Mansfield, Director Planning & Development

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.

PAGE 39

Planning for Growth - Reports

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

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
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

PAGE 40

Planning for Growth - Reports

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

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.
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 41

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 42

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, caf, 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 43

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 2.30pm3.30pm.

PAGE 44

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 45

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.

PAGE 46

Planning for Growth - Reports

2.3

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

1/93 GARSED STREET, BENDIGO 3550 - PARTIAL DEMOLITION


(ROOF TRUSSES AND REAR WALL)

Document Information
Author

Lachlan Forsyth, Statutory Planner

Responsible
Director

Prue Mansfield, Director Planning & Development

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 3550

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 Councils
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 47

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 buildings 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 buildings 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 Groups
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 48

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 824m.
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 buildings 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 49

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 50

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 51

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 MSSs 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 52

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.
Councils 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 faade 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 Citys 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 Citys Heritage Advisor agrees with this position and has recommended that the
demolition should not be supported. The following except taken from the Heritage
Advisors 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 53

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.

PAGE 54

Planning for Growth - Reports

2.4

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

440 SEDGWICK ROAD, SEDGWICK 3551 - THE SUBDIVISION OF


LAND INTO 2 LOTS

Document Information
Author

Liz Commadeur, Subdivision Planner

Responsible
Director

Prue Mansfield, Director Planning & Development

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 3551

Zoning:

Rural Living Zone

Overlays:

Bushfire Management Overlay


Environmental Significance
Protection)
Environmental Significance
Recharge Protection Area)

Overlay

(Watercourse

Overlay

(Groundwater

No. of objections:

Consultation
meeting:

A consultation meeting was not conducted.

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 55

Planning for Growth - Reports

Conclusion:

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

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 56

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. Objectors 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 57

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 58

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 59

Planning for Growth - Reports

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

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.
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 60

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 Citys 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 61

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.

B.

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.

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.

PAGE 62

Planning for Growth - Reports

2.5

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

REVIEW OF PLANNING FEES - SUBMISSION BY THE CITY OF


GREATER BENDIGO

Document Information
Author

Ross Douglas, Manager Planning

Responsible
Director

Prue Mansfield, Director Planning and Development

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 63

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/RegulatoryImpact-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
80%
60%

80%
60%

68%

40%
20%

Proposed Fee Model

67%

40%

32%

0%

20%

33%

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 Councils adopted pricing policy.

PAGE 64

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 Citys 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.

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

PAGE 65

Planning for Growth - Reports

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

PAGE 66

Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports

3.

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

PRESENTATION AND VIBRANCY

3.1

FUTURE USE OF CROWN LAND AT VICTORIA STREET,


EAGLEHAWK

Document Information
Author

Mark Stubbs, Senior Strategic Planner

Responsible
Director

Prue Mansfield, Director Planning and Development

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.

PAGE 67

Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Table 1. Details of the subject Crown land parcels.


Parcel

Area

Zone

Current use

4,508 sq.m.

Residential 1

35,784 sq.m.

Residential 1 (part)
Public Park and
Recreation Zone (part)

Mostly cleared. Used informally


for car parking.
Partially public bushland, partially
cleared and unimproved

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 Citys 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.

PAGE 68

Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

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.

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

PAGE 69

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 citys 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 70

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 citys 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 71

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 Citys 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 72

Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Table 2. Summary of submission comments according to subject.


No
1

Comments about land use direction


None.

None.

None.

Supports the Eaglehawk Structure Plan


(residential).
Supports use for residential in view of
the Structure Plan.

Supports use of the site by Bendigo


Cemeteries Trust for a future
Expansion of the Eaglehawk Cemetery.

Previously identified the site as ideal


and a priority for Eaglehawk Cemetery
expansion, and to maintain open space
access. Residential use would be an
inconsistent use of the land and
potentially have adverse impacts.
None.

No
9

10

11

Comments about land use direction


Recognises the sites existing
Residential Zone and potential to be
developed as such. Recognises also
that the Open Space Precinct Plan
identifies the area of Crown Land for
retention and revegetation as bushland.
The Structure Plan should take
precedence (residential). There is
sufficient land to accommodate the
proposed residential development and
public bushland.
Believes the best use of this land is for
public open space and not for
residential purposes.

Comments about the QLO proposal


Walls Street should be sealed in
association with the development.
The proposal is inappropriate due to
proximity of cemetery dam (resident
safety) and traffic increase.
Supports the proposal to provide a
desperately-needed facility.
Notes that space for parking should be
retained for the funeral parlour.
Supports the proposal.
More information and community
consultation is needed about the
accommodation and residents.
This use adjacent to the funeral directors
and to the cemetery is inappropriate.
Supportive of this proposal at an
alternative site, such as Finn Street.
The proposal is not appropriate and may
have adverse impacts.

The proposal would downgrade the area.


The site is poorly connected to services,
has drainage problems and is needed for
funeral parlour parking.
Comments about the QLO proposal
The proposal will bring more people to the
area with dependency on government
support.

None.

The City should work with DELWP to


identify an alternative site for the proposal.

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 73

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 74

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 Eaglehawks 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 75

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

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.

PAGE 76

Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports

3.2

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

KAMAROOKA AND DISTRICT COMMUNITY PLAN

Document Information
Author

Lyn Talbot, Corporate and Community Planner

Responsible
Director

Prue Mansfield, Director Planning and Development

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 77

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 78

Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports

4.

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

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 dont 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 79

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.
2.

Acknowledge development of the first Kamarooka and District Community Plan;


and
Endorse the principle that City of Greater Bendigo involvement in Kamarooka and
district be guided by the relevant priorities set out in this plan.

PAGE 80

Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports

3.3

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

BARRACK RESERVE REDEVELOPMENT

Document Information
Author

David Hogan Team Leader Capital Projects

Responsible
Director

Michael Smyth Acting Director Community Wellbeing

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 81

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 & OMeara Builders
5. Daniel Duna
PAGE 82

Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

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
FNG Group
Fairbrother Construction
Searle Bros.
Walsh & OMeara Builders
Daniel Duna
Mascon Pt Ltd

Overall tender evaluation score


8.26
7.76
8.23
8.24
7.70
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 unforeseen 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 83

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 unforeseen 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 84

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.

PAGE 85

Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Attachments
Nil
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.

PAGE 86

Productivity / Sustainability - Reports

4.

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

PRODUCTIVITY

Nil.
5.

SUSTAINABILITY

Nil.

PAGE 87

Leadership and Good Governance - Reports

6.

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

LEADERSHIP AND GOOD GOVERNANCE

6.1

REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT ARBITER

Document Information
Author

Peter Davies, Manager, Executive Services

Responsible
Officer

Craig Niemann, Chief Executive 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 88

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 Leachs 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 arbiters 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 Councils 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 89

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.
2.

Arbiters report
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.

PAGE 90

Leadership and Good Governance - Reports

6.2

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

REVIEW OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT - DIRECTIONS PAPER


SUBMISSION - JULY 2016

Document Information
Author

Peter Davies, Manager, Executive Services

Responsible
Officer

Craig Niemann, Chief Executive 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 91

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 principlebased 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.

PAGE 92

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 Councils 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.

PAGE 93

Leadership and Good Governance - Reports

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

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.
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
CEOs 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.

PAGE 94

Leadership and Good Governance - Reports

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

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.
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 Councils 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 communitys priorities.
Ministerial intervention
Consistent with the Councils overarching principle and the principal aims of the Directions Paper, the
Council supports provision in the new Act to strengthen the ministers 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.

PAGE 95

Leadership and Good Governance - Reports

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

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.
CEO employment and performance
Direction reforms impacting on the Councils 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 Commissions 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
Councils 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.

PAGE 96

Leadership and Good Governance - Reports

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Any workforce plan or organisation structure proposed by the CEO would be to the Mayor, Councillors
and staff.
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 97

Leadership and Good Governance - Reports

6.3

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

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

Document Information
Author

Sue Moses, Municipal Fire Prevention Officer

Responsible
Director

Prue Mansfield Director Planning and Development

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.

PAGE 98

Leadership and Good Governance - Reports

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

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
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.

PAGE 99

Leadership and Good Governance - Reports

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Figure 1: Proposed new location

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 Neanger 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.

PAGE 100

Leadership and Good Governance - Reports

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

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 Citys website;
Ensure organisations / people (listed in step 15 of the Municipal Neighbourhood Safer
Places Plan) are notified;
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 CFAS 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 (waters 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:
PAGE 101

Leadership and Good Governance - Reports

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

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 Citys 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.
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.

PAGE 102

Leadership and Good Governance - Reports

6.4

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

RECORD OF ASSEMBLIES

Document Information
Author

Peter Davies, Manager Executive Services

Responsible
Officer

Craig Niemann, Chief Executive 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.
2.

A planned or scheduled meeting that includes at least half the Councillors (5) and a
member of Council staff; or
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
Name/Type
Meeting Date
Matters discussed

Meeting Information
Councillors' Forum
22 June 2016
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 103

Leadership and Good Governance - Reports

5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Additional budget submission


Organics waste exemption process
Michael Street footpath report
Safe City Forum
40kph speed limit proposal at Eaglehawk
Eaglehawk Railway Precinct
Art Gallery Board meeting
Epsom Primary School
CCTV funding announcement
Strathfieldsaye Hub
Big Hill and Mandurang Valley amendment
Environment Strategy
Reconciliation Action Plan
Access to Information
Local Government Inspectorate Report
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
No.
Nil

PAGE 104

Councillor/officer left
meeting

Leadership and Good Governance - Reports

Meeting
Name/Type
Meeting Date
Matters discussed

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Meeting Information
Councillors' Forum

13 July 2016
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
No.
meeting
Nil
PAGE 105

Leadership and Good Governance - Reports

Meeting
Name/Type
Meeting Date
Matters discussed

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Meeting Information
Safe Community Forum
3 June 2016
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
No.
Nil

PAGE 106

Councillor/officer left
meeting

Leadership and Good Governance - Reports

Meeting
Name/Type
Meeting Date
Matters discussed

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

Meeting Information
Heritage Advisory Committee
21 July 2016
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
No.
Nil

Councillor/officer left
meeting

RECOMMENDATION
That Council endorse the record of assemblies of Councillors as outlined in this report.

PAGE 107

Leadership and Good Governance - Reports

6.5

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

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
Contract No

Project

Successful Contractor

Value
(GST Excl)

Delegated
Officer

Date Signed

Capital Contracts
CT000257
CT000261

CT000262

Heathcote North
Costerfield Road Works
Prouses Road Shoulder
Widening & Intersection
Works North Bendigo
Construction of Olympic
Parade & Mackenzie
Street West Roundabout
Kangaroo Flat

Bitu-Mill (Civil) Pty Ltd

819,464.25

Craig Niemann

8 June 2016

Avard Civil Pty Ltd

626,205.32

Craig Niemann

29 June
2016

Avard Civil Pty Ltd

456,821.11

Darren Fuzzard

21 June
2016

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

PAGE 108

Ordinary Meeting - 10 August 2016

7.

URGENT BUSINESS

Nil.
8.

NOTICES OF MOTION

Nil.
9.

COUNCILLORS' REPORTS

10.

MAYOR'S REPORT

11.

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT

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.

PAGE 109