2006-05-09 - ordinary meeting

Minutes for the Ordinary Meeting of Council – Mount Alexander Shire Council – 9 May 2006 Pg 1

MINUTES

FOR THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON

TUESDAY, 9 MAY 2006, COMMENCING AT 7.30PM AT THE CASTLEMAINE TOWN HALL.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 3

2. PRESENT 4

3. APOLOGIES 4

4. DECLARATION OF INTEREST / PECUNIARY INTEREST 4

5. MINUTES 4

6. PETITIONS, JOINT LETTERS AND DECLARATIONS 4

7. COMMITTEE REPORTS 4

8. OFFICER REPORTS 5

CEO CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 5

CEO 19 CASTLEMAINE SCHOOL OF MINES BUILDING - POTENTIAL PURCHASE 5

DEI DIRECTOR ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE 8

DEI 25 ADOPTION OF PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C32 AND RECOMMENDATION TO ISSUE PLANNING PERMIT 222/05 FOR THE USE OF AN OFFICE AND ALTERATION OF EXISTING BUILDING AT THE CORNER OF BARKER AND DOVETON STREETS, CASTLEMAINE 8

DEI 26 SIGN AND SEALING OF SECTION 173 AGREEMENT BETWEEN MOUNT ALEXANDER SHIRE AND CENTRAL VICTORIA GOSPEL RADIO INCORPORATED (PA167/04) 12

DEI 27 AMENDMENT C25 – PANEL REPORT AND ADOPTION 14

DEI 28 HALL STREET, CASTLEMAINE CONSTRUCTION BY SPECIAL CHARGE SCHEME (29/070/039) 21

DSS DIRECTOR SUPPORT SERVICES 24

DSS 27 COMMUNITY CAPITAL AND SPECIAL WORKS GRANTS SCHEME (10/60/8) 24

DSS 28 CAIRN CURRAN RESERVOIR 50TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATIONS (25/713/001) 26

9. DELEGATES REPORTS 28

10. NOTICE OF MOTION 28

11. URGENT SPECIAL BUSINESS 28

12. MEETING CLOSE 28


1. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

a. Hans van Gemert - Amendment C25

• Mr van Gemert spoke on behalf of Field Naturalists and others. Expressed satisfaction with Panel recommendations as mostly took up submissions from the community.

b. Heather Hollis - Amendment C25

• Ms Hollis is a resident of Happy Valley Road. Expressed congratulations to Council on the process. Ms Hollis supports the proposal before Council.

c. David Bannear - Amendment C25

• Mr Bannear is a resident near Happy Valley and also expressed congratulations to Council on a fair and democratic process.

d. Anne Quinton - Roads in Chewton

• Ms Quinton is concerned with speed of cars on the roads being upgraded in Chewton. • VicRoads advised that they would consider an approach from Council for a reduced speed limit. • Director Environment and Infrastructure advised that a letter of support from the community would

be helpful to the process.

e. Ruth Norris - Roads in Chewton and Amendment C25

• Ms Norris lives near bushland settlement and there is a concern for speed limits, particularly in relation to children. Would also support the process of Amendment C25.

f. Doug McConville - Amendment C25

• Mr McConville questioned what the changes were in the ‘altered report’ distributed regarding Amendment C25, as opposed to the report included in the Council Agenda.

• Manager Sustainable Development advised that the difference was in regard to advice received from DSE.

g. Noel Flanningan - Amendment C25

• Mr Flanningan is a resident of Happy Valley. Stated that if the Shire is to grow, space is needed for people to live. Mr Flanningan has no qualms with Amendment C25.

h. David Cunningham - Growth level in Mount Alexander Shire

• Mr Cunningham asked for an explanation on what level of growth Council has to plan for. • CEO responded that Council is required to supply that there is ten years supply of land in any

review. i. Jenny Penrose - Amendment C25

• Ms Penrose is also a resident of Happy Valley. Ms Penrose congratulated Councillors on the process undertaken. Impressed with impartiality of the Panel. Encouraged acceptance of recommendations sought. Protection of heritage and ambience of the area.


2. PRESENT Councillors: David Gittus, Jim Norris, Ruth Barkla, Alan Elliot, Garry Rewell, Felix Cappy and Philip

Schier. Officers: Chief Executive Officer, Manager Executive Services, Director Support Services, Director

Environment and Infrastructure and Manager Sustainable Development.

3. APOLOGIES Nil

4. DECLARATION OF INTEREST / PECUNIARY INTEREST Nil

5. MINUTES

The Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Mount Alexander Shire Council held at the Senior Citizens Hall, Castlemaine at 7.30pm on 26 April 2006.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Mount Alexander Shire Council held at 7.30pm on 26 April 2006 be confirmed. COUNCILLORS SCHIER / BARKLA That the recommendation be adopted. CARRIED

6. PETITIONS, JOINT LETTERS AND DECLARATIONS

Nil

7. COMMITTEE REPORTS

RECOMMENDATION

That the Minutes for the following committees be noted: a. Walks and Trails Advisory Committee - Attachment 7A COUNCILLORS NORRIS / SCHIER That the recommendation be adopted. CARRIED


8. OFFICER REPORTS

CEO CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CEO 19 CASTLEMAINE SCHOOL OF MINES BUILDING - POTENTIAL PURCHASE

1. Objective

To establish the viability of the purchase of the School of Mines building for future municipal purposes through commissioning of an architectural and costing review of the building’s potential for reuse and adaptation.

2. Policy Implications

Including consideration of Economic, Social and Environmental impacts.

The Castlemaine Civic Precinct Action Plan prepared in 1999 defines the precinct as the block bounded by Lyttleton, Hargraves, Templeton and Barker Streets. The action plan recommends that the precinct be developed to support national and international visitor experiences to the Goldfields Region and provide a community focus in the Shire.

Council needs to consider whether the long term plan for the precinct and its own future requirements can be better achieved with the School of Mines building in the direct ownership of Council.

3. Statutory Implications

Should Council resolve to acquire the School of Mines building loan borrowings will be the primary source of funding. Council will require approval for loan borrowings in accordance with statutory requirements.

4. Background

The Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) notified Council in June 2005 that it had commenced a disposal programme in which the School of Mines is included. Council holds the responsibility of the head lease which has another 10 months to expiry. The current use is restricted to ‘non-municipal purposes.’ All current tenants need to be advised of the proposals for the building in a timely manner. Council’s long term interest could be to secure the building for potential relocation of staff from Halford Street, to have all staff and services in close proximity and to achieve administrative savings. The per square meter floor space of approximately 875 square meters of office space at the School of Mines compares favourably with the 911 square meters of the first floor at Halford Street. So prima facie the building may have potential. From a number of points of view therefore, Council needs to clarify its future intentions toward the building. This position was explained in a report to Council on 28 June 2005. Council resolved: ‘Having regard to the building disposal programme of the Department of Sustainability and Environment Council formally declare an interest in Principle in purchase of the School of Mines building by: 1. Writing to the Property Coordinator, Department of Sustainability and Environment stating its

interest in principle to the purchase of the School of Mines subject to a satisfactory price being negotiated, a condition report to the satisfaction of Council and subject to Council’s ability to receive approval for the raising of loan funds.


2. Authorising the Chief Executive Officer to hold discussions with BRIT regarding future use of the building.’

At the time Council established staff accommodation at Halford Street, the School of Mines building was unavailable. This circumstance has now changed and it is now possible for Council to assess and consider this opportunity. After a number of promptings, DSE did not provide a firm price until correspondence was received on 3 April 2006 where it was advised that DSE wanted Council’s firm position by 1 May 2006. Following a letter to DSE’s property Coordinator explaining that this time line could not be accommodated an extension has been provided to 1 September 2006 by which time DSE seeks Council’s final position on purchase of the School of Mines.

The School of Mines Building The School of Mines was built in 1889 and is listed on the Victorian Heritage Register. It was sold to the Victorian Government by Mount Alexander Shire in 1994 under the administration of Commissioners. A tripartite lease arrangement was signed on 12 March 1997 between the State, Mount Alexander Shire and BRIT (Bendigo Regional Institute of TAFE) with Mount Alexander Shire holding the head lease at the insistence of the State. The options within that lease have been taken up and the lease is due to expire on 27 March 2007. The rental is a peppercorn of $1.00 per year. Council retains the net rental proceeds paying itself an administration fee and transferring the remainder into a reserve account. The reserve currently holds $77,327. Its purpose is to fund any major repairs to the building. BRIT is the main tenant of the School of Mines. There are 7 other tenants and the building is now fully occupied – Castlemaine State Festival, Castlemaine Yoga, RGS Technology, Green Graphics, David Robb – Planit, Thor Johnson, Tony Height. The building was refurbished via a Government grant in 2001 but is nevertheless a building that will soon require capital improvements. The replacement of the old water heaters continue to pose problems with water leakage, there are ongoing calls regarding plumbing and most likely replacement of the roof will be needed at some stage. DES has in recent weeks however made repairs to the roof valleys and guttering. The key term of the head lease is restrictive. The lease outlines the permitted use as: ‘Any educational or commercial use. The premises shall not be used for the conduct of municipal business or for any associated municipal use.’

5. Issues

Given the possible substantial borrowings that would be involved if Council were to proceed with the purchase of the School of Mines, it is responsible and appropriate that to assist Council with its decision making processes, expert advice be sought from agents familiar with similar projects of office relocation and estimations. It is expected that an assessment and feasibility report would take into account, heritage issues, site constraints and services, condition of the existing building, the need for community and Council facilities, staff space needs, mechanical services, disabled access facilities, safe working environment, public access security, maintenance issues, environmental issues, future growth, information technology and communication, records and storage, capacity for building alterations, assessment by building surveyor, car parking and other matters.

The report would provide diagrams explaining possible solutions, together with a report giving estimates of areas required, assessment of the need for any additional expansion of the building envelope, opinions of probable cost and other recommendations considered appropriate.


The cost for this work is estimated to be $8,000.

6. Financial and Resource Implications

DSE has quoted a valuation provided by the Valuer General which is substantially higher than the price the State paid for the building in 1994.

Council has obtained a conditional valuation from the Shire Valuer Mr Alan Harvey and a private valuer.

In preparation for the purchase of the School of Mines, should Council eventually resolve to do so, approval for loan borrowings has been submitted to the Office of Local Government.

The estimated costing for the proposed report is $8,000 - $10,000. This amount can be funded from estimated year end under expenditure in the municipal office administration account.

7. Consultation

This matter and the prospect of Council’s interest in the School of Mines building and the implications for BRiT have been discussed with BRiT representatives in a preliminary manner to date.

8. Conclusion

Council needs to formally determine by 1 September 2006 whether it wishes to purchase the School of Mines and at what price. In order to assist Council in its decision making it is recommended that Council commission a feasibility report on the ability, capacity and potential costs of converting the School of Mines to meet Council’s future municipal requirements.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council authorise the Chief Executive Officer to engage the services of a suitable firm to provide a feasibility and costings report on the ability, capacity and potential conversion of the School of Mines building to meet Council’s future municipal requirements. COUNCILLORS CAPPY / NORRIS That the recommendation be adopted. CARRIED


DEI DIRECTOR ENVIRONMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DEI 25 ADOPTION OF PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C32 AND RECOMMENDATION TO ISSUE PLANNING PERMIT 222/05 FOR THE USE OF AN OFFICE AND ALTERATION OF EXISTING BUILDING AT THE CORNER OF BARKER AND DOVETON STREETS, CASTLEMAINE

1. Objective

To adopt the Planning Scheme Amendment C32 to the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme as exhibited and recommend approval of Planning Permit No. 222/05 as drafted, and then forward both to the Minister for Planning for approval.


Including consideration of Economic, Social and Environmental impacts. In adopting the proposed amendment to the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme, Council recognises the planning benefit to be achieved through the re-use of an existing historically significant building located in a prominent position in the township of Castlemaine. The adoption of Amendment C32 is considered to be in accord with the objectives of the Council Plan 2005-2009, particularly in relation to Sustainable Built Environment in the redevelopment and reuse of a heritage place (objective 2.3).


The inclusion of a further schedule to the heritage overlay to allow prohibited uses at the subject site may increase the potential for planning permit applications, however, this is mitigated by the current planning permit application and the potential planning benefit of the re-use of an existing historically significant building located in a prominent position in the township of Castlemaine.

4. Background

In August, 2005, Council received a request to consider an application for combined planning scheme amendment and planning permit application which sought to introduce a new site specific schedule to the heritage overlay allowing prohibited uses to be considered for the subject site. Further, the planning application sought permission to use the site for the purpose of an office and externally alter the existing building at the corner of Doveton and Barker Streets, Castlemaine. At the Ordinary Council meeting of 27 September 2005 Council adopted a recommendation to request authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare Amendment C32 to the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme. Authorisation was given on 13 December 2005. At the Ordinary Council meeting of 24 January 2006, Council considered the merits of the proposal and resolved to support and place the combined planning scheme amendment and planning permit application on public exhibition for a period of no less than one month.

5. Issues

The formal public exhibition of combined planning scheme amendment C32 and planning permit application 222/05 has been undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Environment Act including publication of a notice indicating a closing date for submissions on the 10 April, 2006. No submissions have been received regarding the combined application. As there have been no submissions received, Council may now adopt the planning scheme amendment and recommend the issue of a planning permit for the use of an office and external alterations to the building located at the corner of Barker and Doveton Streets, Castlemaine.


As the application for planning permit is combined with a planning scheme amendment, under the Planning and Environment Act, Council is not able to issue the planning permit without the approval of the Minister for Planning.


The proponent/applicant will be required to cover the cost of lodging the combined planning scheme amendment and planning permit application with the Minister for Planning for approval.

7. Consultation

As required by the Planning and Environment Act the following methods of consultation regarding the proposal have been undertaken: • Placement of a notice in the local newspapers (Midland Express and Castlemaine Mail) and the

Government Gazette • A copy of the notice calling for submissions, explanatory report and draft conditions forwarded to

all adjoining/adjacent landowners and occupiers • A copy of the notice calling for submissions, explanatory report and draft conditions forwarded to

the required Ministers and all relevant referral agencies • Internal consultation with Council’s Heritage advisor and engineering department including draft

conditions Following the above consultation, no submissions have been received.

8. Conclusion

Council, having considered and recognised the benefits of the proposal, resolved to place on public exhibition a combined planning scheme amendment and planning application for the use of an office at Crown Allotment 14, Section 6, Corner of Doveton and Barker Streets, Castlemaine. Following the formal public exhibition of the proposed planning scheme amendment and planning application, no submissions have been received. Therefore, it is recommended that Council adopt the Planning Scheme Amendment C32 to the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme as exhibited, recommend approval of Planning Permit No. 222/05 as drafted, and then forward both to the Minister for Planning for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council, having received no submissions in response to the public exhibition process: 1. Adopt Amendment C32 to the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme as exhibited 2. Forward the adopted Amendment C32 to the Minister for Planning for approval, and 3. Forward a recommendation that a planning permit be issued for the use of an office and

external alterations at the corner of Doveton and Barker Streets, Castlemaine, subject to the following conditions:-

a. No Layout Alteration

The use and development allowed 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.


b. Further Plans Required The development permitted by this permit must not be commenced until three copies of detailed construction plans drawn to scale and/or with written dimensions are submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority in consultation with the heritage advisor. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit. Such plans must show:

• All external materials and paint colours including replacement of or repairs to existing

roofing • External alterations including the method of protection to existing fabric of the building • Detailed elevation plan of the proposed fence and gate including height, materials, colour

and finishes. • Method of repair of existing masonry as required by condition three • Internal alterations to the Chapel including a recording of existing wall and ceiling detail

and finishes.

c. Existing Building Maintenance The existing masonry, particularly facing Doveton Street, must be repaired including any necessary mortar works to the requirements of Council’s heritage advisor and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority

d. Signage Plans

Prior to the erection of any signage associated with the approved use or development, three sets of detailed signage plans are to be submitted to be approved by the Responsible Authority in consultation with the heritage advisor. Proposed signage should not be floodlit or specifically illuminated by external lights and must be contained wholly within the boundaries of the subject land except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. Once approved these plans will be endorsed and then form part of this permit.

e. Baffled Lighting

Outdoor lighting 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.

f. Property Appearance

The appearance of the subject land must not, in the opinion of the Responsible Authority, adversely affect the amenity of the locality

g. Heritage Requirements

External Materials and Paint Colours of the development permitted by this permit must be further approved by the Responsible Authority in consultation with the Heritage Advisor prior to commencement of any painting work.

h. Preparation of Landscaping Plan

The use or development permitted by this permit must not be commenced until a satisfactory landscaping plan for the whole of the subject land (particularly the street frontages) is submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. An endorsed copy of the plan must form part of this permit.


i. Landscaping Completion and Maintenance The landscape area(s) shown on the endorsed plan(s) must be planted and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

j. Parking in Streets

Vehicles under the control of the operator(s) under this permit or his/her staff must not be parked in the streets nearby.

i. Hours of Operation

Except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, the office use permitted by this permit must operate only between the following times:

8.00am – 6.00pm Weekdays 9.00am – 12 Noon Saturdays

j. Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Equipment Any equipment required for refrigeration, air-conditioning, heating and the like must be located on the subject land to the requirements of Council’s heritage advisor and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The equipment must be suitably insulated for the purpose of reducing noise emissions, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority

k. Stormwater

All stormwater run off from the buildings and development hereby permitted shall be disposed of to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

l. Sediment Control

The applicant / owner shall restrict sediment discharges from the construction site in accordance with Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control (EPA1991) and Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites (EPA 1995).

j. Commencement of Development (One Year) and Completion of Development and

Commencement of Use (Two Years) This permit will expire if the development permitted by this permit is not commenced within one (1) year from the date hereof or if the development is not completed and the use permitted by this permit is not commenced within two (2) years from the date hereof or if the use is discontinued for a period of two (2) years. The time within which the development must be completed and the use must commence may on written request made before or within three (3) months after the expiry of the permit be extended by the Responsible Authority.

Planning Note: Any further fencing to be erected on the site will require a further planning permit to be issued by the Responsible Authority.

COUNCILLORS NORRIS / SCHIER That the recommendation be adopted. CARRIED


DEI 26 SIGN AND SEALING OF SECTION 173 AGREEMENT BETWEEN MOUNT ALEXANDER SHIRE AND CENTRAL VICTORIA GOSPEL RADIO INCORPORATED (PA167/04)

1. Objective

The purpose of this report is to allow the registering on title of an Agreement under Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. In order to complete this process the said agreement is required to be signed and sealed by Council.


Including consideration of Economic, Social and Environmental impacts. Nil


Nil

4. Background

Planning permit no. 167/04 was issued under delegation on 25 November 2004 for a 4 lot subdivision at Crown Allotment 11A Section 7 Parish of Harcourt.

5. Issues

The above planning permit was issued subject to conditions including a requirement for the entering into of a Section 173 Agreement (condition 3). An Agreement is required to ensure the future development on the newly created lots will be limited to the building envelopes shown on the endorsed plans and that no mature trees will be removed, lopped or destroyed without the written consent of Council. The best way to ensure these objectives are achieved on the sites post-subdivision is by their inclusion on title by signing a 173 Agreement.

The Agreement will be between Mount Alexander Shire Council and the land owner Central Victoria Gospel Radio Incorporated.


As part of the Agreement the owner of the land is required to cover costs of preparation and lodgement of the Agreement and any further costs incurred to comply with the Agreement.

7. Consultation

Nil

8. Conclusion

The Section 173 Agreement is required to be signed and sealed by Council and registered on title to ensure the requirements of the planning permit can be complied with satisfactorily.


RECOMMENDATION

That the Section 173 Agreement (as tabled) between Mount Alexander Shire Council and Central Victoria Gospel Radio Incorporated in relation to Planning Permit no. 167/04 be signed and sealed. COUNCILLORS BARKLA / CAPPY That the recommendation be adopted. CARRIED


DEI 27 AMENDMENT C25 – PANEL REPORT AND ADOPTION

1. Objective

The objective of this report is to brief council on the recommendations of the Planning Panel appointed to consider Amendment C25 to the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme. Council must consider the Planning Panel report and its recommendations, decide if the recommended alterations should be made to the amendment, and whether to adopt or abandon the amendment.


Including consideration of Economic, Social and Environmental impacts. The recommendations of the Planning Panel are consistent with Council’s strategic planning objectives as expressed in the Council Plan 2005 – 2009. Objective 1.3 is to plan for the growth and changing economic, environmental, social and cultural needs of the community over a 50 year horizon. The Target for this objective is the adoption and implementation of Amendments C24 and C25.


The recommendation of the Panel report is that the Amendment be adopted with changes. The changes do have statutory implications; however the intent of the Happy Valley/Moonlight Flat Strategic Plan is maintained.

4. Background

The Happy Valley/Moonlight Flat Strategic Plan was developed in response to development pressure and community concern about the protection of environmental and heritage values. The Plan was developed with community, landowner, and state government input, and adopted by Council. In order to implement the Plan Council resolved to amend the planning scheme, and thus placed Amendment C25 on exhibition. Following exhibition, unresolved submissions were referred to a Planning Panel. The report of the Planning Panel has been released and must now be considered by Council. The role of the Planning Panel is to assist Council and the Minister for Planning resolve outstanding submissions in relation to the amendment. Consequently the Panel has made numerous recommendations in regard to the amendment.

5. Issues

The Panel has considered the wide range of issues associated with the Amendment and has concluded that the zoning changes proposed by the Amendment are generally appropriate. The Panel has also concluded that the overlay controls, local planning policy and changes to the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) proposed by the Amendment are generally appropriate, but has recommended a number of changes in response to submissions and its own assessment of the Amendment. The most significant changes recommended by the Panel relate to: • land in precincts 1c and 3 zoned Low Density Residential, and • land in Precinct 4 known as Lady Gully. PRECINCTS 1C AND 3 In summary, the recommendations of the Planning Panel in relation to Precincts 1c and 3 are: • introduction of a 1ha minimum lot size for land in the LDRZ, • alteration of DPO5 to include building setback distances from the Park boundaries, more detailed

‘Requirements for development plan’, and a requirement for the preparation of an environmental audit or report prior to the issue of a permit for development of land for a sensitive use.


• alteration of DDO2 to introduce a requirement that the visual impact of proposed buildings on Hundredweight Hill be assessed from the viewpoints of Pennyweight Flat and Pennyweight Flat Cemetery, and that all buildings and works are in accordance with an approved Hundredweight Hill/Moonlight Flat Development Plan (as required by DPO5).

The purpose of this planning scheme amendment is to set in place a planning framework for the future development of Happy Valley and Moonlight Flat. The Planning Panel has generally supported the combination of existing and new controls proposed for Precincts 1c and 3, however it recommends a larger lot size for land in the Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ) to ensure that future development is consistent with all components of the Strategic Plan including environmental values, fire risk, and proximity to the Castlemaine Diggings National Heritage Park (CDNHP).

The exhibited amendment proposed that land in the LDRZ be subject to the default minimum lot size of 0.4 hectare (1 acre or 4000m2). The Panel report states that: ‘The Panel accepts that the DPO (Development Plan Overlay) and DDO (Design and Development Overlays) Schedules applying to Precincts 1 and 3 require investigation and resolution of a range of relevant environmental issues, including remnant native vegetation and habitat values, building setbacks and fire risk management, before development in these areas can be approved. Nevertheless, in view of the environmental values of the LDRZ land in Precincts 1c and 3 and the additional fire risk associated with their location to the east of the Park, the Panel considers that there would be benefit in … specifying a minimum lot size. It is suggested that the minimum lot size be specified as one hectare, in order to ensure that appropriate setbacks to the CDNHP can be achieved. These should be negotiated with DSE, as provided for in the Rural Residential Guidelines. Following the completion of the Urban Forest Interface Study, as well as the site specific land capability and other studies required for the site under the DPO/DDO, this minimum could be varied if required.’ (page 53) If the Panel recommendation of a 1ha minimum lot size is adopted the number of lots that could be created through a re-subdivision would be halved in comparison to what was possible under the exhibited amendment. However, the panel acknowledges that the minimum size could be varied later if land capability and other studies showed that the land could support it. After seeking Council endorsement, a future applicant would be able to undertake a combined planning permit/planning scheme amendment for subdivision in accordance with a development plan, and a variation of the minimum lot size. This report recommends that the recommendations of the Planning Panel in regard to Precincts 1c and 3 as outline above are accepted by Council. PRECINCT 4 Precinct 4 includes land east of Colles Road and south of Stronels Road known as Lady Gully. Lady Gully consists of 16 Crown allotments on one title with a total area of 10ha. The exhibited Amendment proposed the re-subdivision of these Crown allotments into 5 lots of approximately 2ha. The amendment proposed to rezone land in Lady Gully from Rural Zone (RUZ) to Rural Conservation Zone (RCZ) and applies a Design and Development Overlay (DDO5) which includes an indicative subdivision plan for the 5 lots. In summary, the recommendations of the Planning Panel in relation to Lady Gully in Precinct 4 are: • retain the proposed Rural Conservation Zone (RCZ) • delete the minimum lot size of 2.0ha specified in the RCZ schedule, • delete DDO5 (which contains the indicative subdivision plan), • amend the Strategic Plan by deleting reference to further development in Precinct 4, and • address the Guidelines for Rural Residential Development as required by Ministers Direction No.

6 and, if it is still appropriate, undertake a further amendment relating to Precinct 4.


The Panel report does not support residential development of land at Lady Gully at this stage and considers that further investigation is required. The Panel report states: ‘… the Panel does consider that the (Minister’s) Direction (No 6) applies to Precinct 4, and that there are a number of considerations that need to be to be addressed before rezoning of the land to allow rural residential development should (sic) proceed. The Panel considers that the proposal to rezone the land to RCZ should proceed, but that the following changes should be made to the Amendment:

o delete the minimum lot size of 2.0ha specified in the RCZ schedule, o delete DDO5 (which contains the indicative subdivision plan); and o amend the Strategic Plan by deleting reference to further development in Precinct 4.

Once a report has been prepared as required by the Guidelines for Rural Residential Development, a further amendment relating to Precinct 4 could be prepared, if that is still appropriate.’ (page 92) The Panel has determined that Ministers Direction No. 6 applies because the amendment will have the affect of allowing the subdivision of land into lots with an area between 0.4 ha and 2 ha for residential use. Therefore, the proposal must comply with the Guidelines for Rural Residential Development. The Panel identifies several specific matters from the Guidelines that need to be addressed. Although compliance was not demonstrated in the amendment documents it is now considered that all matters may be addressed satisfactorily as outlined below: Compliance with Ministers Direction No. 6 and Guidelines for Rural Residential Development Outstanding Issues Requirement Officer Comment

1. Supply and Demand for rural residential lots

No more than 10 years supply must be available including any vacant existing lots

No supply and demand analysis for these types of lots has been undertaken, although it is unlikely that the 5 lots proposed would cause the supply to exceed the 10 year limit.

2. Buffers to National Parks and Crown land

Rural residential development must be 500metres from a National Park unless a lesser buffer is agreed to.

Consent to a lesser buffer has been agreed to by the Regional Manager of DSE.

3. Fire Hazard

Rural residential development must not be undertaken on land with a fire hazard rating of high or greater

The CFA advise that the terminology for the hazard rating of land has changed since the Guidelines were prepared. The CFA advise that if development can comply with the requirements of a Wildfire Management Overlay then the fire risk will be manageable. A submission has been received from the landowner has indicated that the requirement can be met.

4. Soil Contamination Rural residential development must not be undertaken on land that may have been contaminated by past activities, unless an environmental audit has been carried out.

Possible contamination of the site would result from nineteenth century gold crushing processes. Historical records indicate that the site was not used for gold crushing and it is unlikely that contamination would be at a level to make the land unsuitable for residential use.

5. Land Capability Assessment (LCA)

An LCA should be carried out to demonstrate that the land is capable of containing all waste waters on site.

A LCA has been carried out and indicates that the land is capable of containing all waste waters on site.


In addition to the above matters regarding compliance with Ministers Direction No. 6, the Panel has two other specific concerns: • The removal of vegetation required to protect any future dwellings and residents from the risk of

fire, and required by the CFA under the fuel reduction requirements of the proposed Wildfire Management Overlay (WMO), will adversely affect the environmental values of the site, and that

• The potential risk from wildfire due to the existing tree cover on the land, density of surrounding bushland, proximity to the pine plantation, remoteness of the site, and poor condition of Colles Road makes the land inappropriate for 5 rural residential lots.

In recognition that neither the CFA nor the land owner were represented at the Panel hearing, the Panel recommended that further consultation with these parties be held prior to finalising further proposals for the land. At the Special Meeting of Council held on the 1st and 3rd November 2005 it was resolved to defer a decision on Amendment C25 for 4 months to allow this consultation to take place. Consultation has since been held with the CFA, DSE and the land owner. It is now considered that the Panel’s two additional concerns can be addressed: • DSE have advised it does not consider the removal of native vegetation within the proposed

building envelopes in order to meet the requirements of the WMO will adversely affect the environmental values of the site. DSE have indicated that the negotiated outcome of 5 lots mitigates environmental impacts in comparison to retaining the existing 16 Crown allotments. The negotiated 5 lot outcome has proceeded on the basis of that vegetation offsets may be accommodated on an adjacent parcel in the same ownership.

• The CFA have indicated that if development can comply with the requirements and objectives of a Wildfire Management Overlay then the fire risk is considered to be manageable. Tomkinson, on behalf of the landowner have submitted an assessment demonstrating that the requirements of the WMO can be met.

If the Panel’s recommendations regarding Lady Gully are adopted, the land would be rezoned Rural Conservation Zone (RCZ) with a minimum subdivision size of 40 ha. Under these provisions a permit may be granted to create lots smaller than 40 ha if the subdivision is the re-subdivision of existing lots, the number of lots is not increased, and the number of dwellings the land could be used for is not increased. It would be possible to apply for the use and development of a dwelling on each of the 16 Crown allotments providing the provisions of the zone regarding access, sewer, treatment of waste water, potable water supply and electricity or energy supply are met. In reality, it is unlikely that all of these provisions could be met, but nevertheless an application may be made for greater than the 5 lots included in the DDO 5 Indicative Subdivision Plan. Although the Panel also recommends the application of a Restructure Overlay (RO) to the land in a future amendment, it is considered that the gap between the adoption of this amendment and commencement of any new amendment to apply a Restructure Overlay would provide an opportunity for development to occur that is inconsistent with the Strategic Plan. This report recommends that the recommendations of the Planning Panel in regard to Lady Gully in Precinct 4 as outlined above are not accepted by Council, and that the exhibited provisions are adopted


In accepting the Panel’s recommendation to adopt Amendment C25 staff time will need to be dedicated to bringing the amendment documents in line with the Panel recommendations, and a fee paid to the Minister for Planning to approve the amendment. These items have been included within the current budget allocation. The Panel report makes several recommendations for the completion of further strategic work and studies. These recommendations could have a significant impact on the allocation of resources in future years. These recommendations (officer comment in italics) include:


Development and implementation of a new Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO) schedule specifically tailored to the landscape character of the Happy Valley/Moonlight Flat. • Additional small project – accept and refer to budget process for prioritisation Following the identification of flood prone land by the Catchment Management Authority undertake detailed design work to assess: the amenity impacts of the realigned Happy Valley Road on adjoining properties, the impact of the road works and residential development on the floodplain and flow paths of Forest Creek, and the overall suitability of the land for road works and residential development. • Additional large project – accept and refer to budget process for prioritisation. Prepare Siting and Design Guidelines for development of land in the valley.

• Additional medium sized project – accept and refer to budget process for prioritisation.

Adopt the NCCMA mapping of biodiversity assets, when available, as the basis for Environmental Significance Overlays (ESOs) or Vegetation Protection Overlays (VPOs), to form part of a future amendment.

• Accept mapping, but amendment process could be resource intensive. Support NCCMA in

undertaking the amendment.

That the Council prepare and exhibit an amendment to extend the ESO Schedule 2 to cover all waterways in the catchment of Cairn Curran Reservoir. • Additional medium sized project – accept on the basis of suitable mapping being provided by the

water authority and refer to budget process for prioritisation

7. Consultation

At the Special Meeting of Council held between the 1st and 3rd November 2005 it was resolved that further consultation should be undertaken with the landowner of Lady Gully, the CFA and any other relevant authorities in relation to wildfire risk, and to receive public comment on the recommendations contained in the Panel report. Notification that Council would receive comment regarding the Panel recommendations was published in the Mayor’s Column of the Castlemaine Mail and in the Shire News. Six letters have been received; • three letters were supportive of the Panel recommendations, • a letter from the owner of land in Lady Gully (Precinct 4) expressing disappointment with the

recommendations about his land, • a letter from the CFA providing clarity about their requirements in regard to the land at Lady Gully,

and • a letter from Dawson Planning Services on behalf of Leech Earthmoving Pty Ltd requesting

Council not support some of the Panel recommendations. These comments have been reported to Council previously, and have been considered in framing the recommendations of this report.

8. Conclusion

Amendment C25 was referred to a Planning Panel by Council in order to assist in resolving numerous submissions. The resulting Planning Panel report recommends that the Amendment be adopted by Council with changes. A table summarising the changes recommended by the Panel and the Council officer’s response is included as Attachment DEI 27.


The changes recommended by the Panel are lengthy. The majority of recommended changes are either typographic, or add further strength to the implementation of the Happy Valley/Moonlight Flat Strategic Plan though the planning scheme. These changes should be accepted. The most significant changes recommended by the Panel relate to land in precincts 1c and 3 currently zoned Low Density Residential, and land in Precinct 4 known as Lady Gully. The changes recommended for precincts 1c and 3 should be accepted because despite reducing the number of developable lots they strengthen the implementation of the Plan objectives. In this case, if it can be demonstrated that all of the Happy Valley Moonlight Flat Plan objectives can be met it would be possible for a revised proposal to be implemented by a combined planning permit/planning scheme amendment process. Until such time as this can be clearly established the Panel’s recommendations are supported. The Panel makes further recommendations about additional strategic studies and planning scheme amendments to be undertaken by Council which are recommended for acceptance, but they will need to be referred to the budget process for prioritisation. In summary, the recommendations of the Planning Panel in relation to Amendment C25 are recommended for acceptance by Council with the exception of the recommendations pertaining to precinct 4.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council, having considered the Report of the Planning Panel appointed by the Minister for Planning on request from Council in relation to Amendment C25 to the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme: 1. Accept the recommendations of the Planning Panel in regard to Amendment C25, with the exception

of those relating to Precinct 4, and 2. Delegate to the CEO the ability to edit the amendment documents in regard to matters of minor

substance in accordance with the requirements of DSE, 3. Adopt the modified Amendment C25 and send it to the Minister for Planning for approval. 4. Consider the prioritisation of further strategic work in the forthcoming budget process. COUNCILLORS NORRIS / SCHIER That the recommendation be adopted. MOTION LOST A division was called for: Councillors in favour of the motion: - Councillors Jim Norris, David Gittus and Philip Schier. Councillors against the motion: - Felix Cappy, Ruth Barkla, Garry Rewell and Alan Elliot.


COUNCILLORS REWELL / BARKLA That Council, having considered the Report of the Planning Panel appointed by the Minister for Planning on request from Council in relation to Amendment C25 to the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme: 1. Accept the recommendations of the Planning Panel in regard to Amendment C25, with the exception

of those relating to Precinct 4, 1C and 3,

2. Delegate to the CEO the ability to edit the amendment documents in regard to matters of minor substance in accordance with the requirements of DSE,

3. Adopt the modified Amendment C25 and send it to the Minister for Planning for approval.

4. Consider the prioritisation of further strategic work in the forthcoming budget process. CR REWELL That the meeting be adjourned (8.39pm) for 5 minutes in order to allow for the clarification of the alternative motion.

CARRIED CR CAPPY That the meeting resume (8.46pm).

CARRIED The Mover with consent of the Seconder withdrew the motion, replacing it with a new motion as follows: Part 1 of the motion be altered to include “1C and 3 in regard to 1 hectare lot size”, the new motion reads: COUNCILLORS REWELL / BARKLA That Council, having considered the Report of the Planning Panel appointed by the Minister for Planning on request from Council in relation to Amendment C25 to the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme:

1. Accept the recommendations of the Planning Panel in regard to Amendment C25, with the exception of those relating to Precinct 4, 1C and 3 in regard to 1 hectare lot size,

2. Delegate to the CEO the ability to edit the amendment documents in regard to matters of minor substance in accordance with the requirements of DSE,

3. Adopt the modified Amendment C25 and send it to the Minister for Planning for approval.

4. Consider the prioritisation of further strategic work in the forthcoming budget process. CARRIED A division was called for: Councillors in favour of the motion:

- Councillors Felix Cappy, Ruth Barkla, Garry Rewell and Alan Elliot.

Councillors against the motion:

- Councillors Jim Norris, Philip Schier and David Gittus.


DEI 28 HALL STREET, CASTLEMAINE CONSTRUCTION BY SPECIAL CHARGE SCHEME (29/070/039)

1. Objective

This report recommends approval to commence the statutory process in relation to construction of a section of Hall Street, Castlemaine, under a special charges scheme.


Including consideration of Economic, Social and Environmental impacts. The recommendation contained within this report is consistent with Council’s objectives for a Sustainable Built Environment as outlined in the Council Plan 2005-2009 and, in particular Objective 2.1 - To maintain and provide infrastructure assets which meet community needs and have a long term focus.


If Council resolves to proceed with the scheme it is bound to meet the requirements of the Local Government Act 1989 which includes the requirement to provide notice to affected landowners and their right to make submissions and/or objections. These details are covered in Section 163 of the Local Government Act 1989.

4. Background

The proposal for the construction of Hall Street in Castlemaine was first discussed in late 2003 and, this was followed by a meeting of interested parties to discuss the proposal. This meeting was held on 4 March 2004 between Council representatives, Phil Warren (Toyota Dealership) and Residents – Christine Sayer, Mary-Clare and Rob Carroll to discuss the proposed development of Hall Street, Castlemaine. Initially the proposal was for leasing of the road reserve in Hall Street by Castlemaine Toyota. There were objections to this proposal from the neighbours and this initial proposal was modified after concerns were raised in relation to road width, parking, amenity, proposed tree removal etc. Castlemaine Toyota offered to pay the full cost of the construction initially. During 2005, Castlemaine Toyota purchased adjoining property to the north of the existing site on the Midland Highway and converted this site to retail space for used car sales. The increase in their car display area partially overcame the problem of space for used vehicles that had been previously parked along Hall Street. At its Council Meeting on 25 October 2005, Council resolved to write to landowners adjoining the proposed works in Hall Street advising of the revised proposal and the estimated costs for each of the abutting properties. The revised proposal allowed for construction of Hall Street from the Midland Highway to the western boundary of Castlemaine Hydraulics property. Letters were subsequently sent to adjoining landowners advising of the revised proposal and estimates of the cost for each property. During March 2006 responses were received from the four adjoining landowners in respect of the proposed special charge scheme. A majority of the rateable properties were in favour of the proposed special charge scheme however neighbours objected to the proposal.

5. Issues

The revised proposal has been agreed to in principle by both Castlemaine Toyota and Flowserve (Thompson Kelly & Lewis Pty. Ltd.) and these two ratepayers own 3 of the 5 separately rateable properties abutting the proposed works. Neighbours have objected to the proposed special charge scheme for the construction of Hall Street on the basis that (i) the works will provide no benefit, (ii) dust and traffic will still be a problem, and (iii) safety concerns.


The Local Government Act requires that a majority of the rateable properties must be in favour of the special charge scheme to proceed. Property owners have two further avenues for input during the statutory process, when Council serves notice of its intention to declare a special charge scheme: • In accordance with Section 163A of the Act, any person may make a submission in accordance

with section 223 in relation to Council’s proposal to declare a scheme. • In accordance with section 163B, any person required to pay the special charge will be given an

opportunity to object to the proposed declaration. If objections are received from more than 50 percent of affected properties, Council would not be able to proceed with the scheme.

• In the event that Council formally declares a special charge scheme, property owners will have the right to appeal to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).

The Castlemaine Toyota property on the corner of the Midland Highway and Hall Street and Castlemaine Hydraulics, in Hall Street, are both commercial ventures operating from their respective locations. Significant traffic is generated from the Castlemaine Toyota business as a result of car sales and vehicle servicing. Castlemaine Hydraulics also generates traffic in and out of their premises in Hall Street. The amount of traffic causes congestion and safety concerns with the number of parked and moving vehicles in Hall Street. The road is currently unsealed and the traffic using Hall Street also creates dust in the neighbourhood. The proposed works include construction of kerb and channel, construction of angle parking, sealing of the pavement and some minor drainage works. The construction works will provide better delineation for traffic movements and a defined parking area which will improve the current situation in relation to safety and congestion. The estimated costs for the works includes an allowance for survey and design to allow the detailed design to be completed.


Council is not contributing to the cost of these works as the total cost will be recovered from the abutting property owners.

7. Consultation

Consultation has been carried out since 2004 by way of meetings and also via written correspondence to the parties concerned. Letters outlining the proposed construction and an estimate of the apportionment of costs were sent to abutting landowners in February 2006 and responses have been received from each party. On the basis that Council endorses the officer recommendation a formal advertising and notification procedure will commence as outlined in Section 163 of the Local Government Act 1989. Section 163A allows for a person to make a submission under Section 223 in relation to Council’s proposal to make a declaration under Section 163. In addition to the right of submission a right of objection is included in Section 163B.

8. Conclusion

Owners of a majority of rateable properties wish to proceed with the proposed special charge scheme. Construction of this section of Hall Street will provide a benefit to the abutting properties as: • dust will be reduced by providing a sealed surface, • safety will be improved by providing a formalised parking area adjacent to the through lanes, and


• congestion should be reduced by the construction of a defined pavement with kerb and channel for traffic along with a defined parking area.

The next stage in implementing the Hall Street special charge scheme is for Council to commence the statutory process by giving notice of its intention to declare the scheme.

RECOMMENDATION

That: 1. Council gives notice of its intention to declare a special charge in accordance with part 8 of the

Local Government Act 1989, for the construction of the Hall Street special charge scheme. 2. The special charge in (i) above shall apply to the properties in Hall Street as detailed in

Attachment DEI 28A . 3. The apportionment costs to each property are based on the details as outlined in Attachment

DEI 28B. 4. The total estimated costs for each property is outlined in Attachment DEI 28C and may be paid

as a lump sum or by quarterly instalments over a four (4) year period with interest as provided by Section 163(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1989.

5. The interest rate applicable to instalments paid by each due date is to be one percent greater

than the rate applying to Council’s overdraft rate. 6. The Special Charge for the Hall Street special charge scheme shall remain in force for four (4)

years. 7. Within six months of the completion of works a final cost statement will be issued to all of the

property owners in Hall Street. 8. The total project cost is $51,000 and the total amount to be levied under this special charge is

$51,000. COUNCILLORS BARKLA / CAPPY That the recommendation be adopted. CARRIED


DSS DIRECTOR SUPPORT SERVICES DSS 27 COMMUNITY CAPITAL AND SPECIAL WORKS GRANTS SCHEME (10/60/8)

1. Objective

For Council to consider an application received from the John Powell Reserve Committee of Management for the 2005/2006 Community Capital and Special Works Grant Scheme.


Including consideration of Economic, Social and Environmental impacts. The aim of the Community Capital and Special Works Grant Scheme is currently stated as ‘the support of not-for-profit community-based organisations in their provision of facilities, programs and services that enhance the quality of life for residents of Mount Alexander Shire, or who strive to achieve more economically, environmentally and socially sustainable outcomes for the Shire’s community’. This aim is consistent with objectives listed within the Council Plan.


Australian Taxation Legislation requires that Goods and Services Tax be applied to any Grant which involves a taxable supply and consideration.

4. Background

The John Powell Reserve Committee of Management is a Section 86 Committee of Council. The reserve is situated in Guildford and is used by the Guildford Cricket Club, Castlemaine District Cricket Association, bocce players, various community members and visitors to events and for children who play on the oval. Council is in receipt of an application from the John Powell Reserve Committee of Management seeking $4717.55 in funds towards the installation of a water tank / pump to be used on the John Powell Reserve in conjunction with the Guildford Cricket Club. The water tank / pump will be used to maintain the turf pitch to create a safer player surface and to be more in line with other cricket playing surfaces. The Committee of Management will contribute $200 with another $240 of in-kind contributions.

5. Issues

The 2005/2006 Budget has an allocation of $60,000 for the Community Capital and Special Works Grant Scheme. At its Ordinary Meeting of 24 January 2006, Council resolved to fund various applications received in relation to the 2005/2006 Community Capital and Special Works Grant Scheme. This resolution resulted in allocations totalling approximately $43,000. At its Ordinary Meeting of 11 April 2006, Council resolved to allocate a further $4540 to the Castlemaine Theatre Group. There is approximately $12,500 remaining for Community Capital and Special Works Grant Scheme. There is therefore scope to allocate the $4717.55 in funds requested by John Powell Reserve Committee of Management without exceeding the budgetary parameters.


The application by the John Powell Reserve Committee of Management is consistent with the aims of the Community Capital and Special Works Grant Scheme in that it will provide a much safer playing surface for cricket and bocce players (socially and competitively) as well as providing a more welcoming area for children to play on. Watering the pitch will encourage grass to grow and less cracks to appear resulting in a safer surface for players. This is important for playability as the pitch is a high use / active playing surface. It is also significant to retain the pitch as a turf wicket as there are only 3 left in the Shire. A turf pitch is safer for players, encourages skill development and attracts people to the Shire for Regional Games. This application is also in line with the Civic Mutual Plus requirements to sustain a safe playing surface area. It will also provide a more attractive area for the various community events held there including the Mount Alexander Shire Vintage Engine Rally, the annual Bocce Games and the Banjo Jamboree, all of which attract visitors to the area. Planning Issues - If the water tank is installed next to the club rooms, installation of a water tank will be subject to planning permission under the Environment significance Overlay (ESA 6). This is due to an overlay in that area.


The 2005/2006 Budget has an allocation of $60,000 for the Community Capital and Special Works Grant Scheme. Total cost to council is $4717.55. This would come from Community Capital and Special Works Grant Scheme of which there is $12,500 funding still available in the budget. The $4717.55 would be a capital asset to Council. There would be no on-going costs to Council as any further maintenance would be the responsibility of the John Powell Reserve Committee of Management. As discussed with Council’s Recreation Officer, depreciation on a maintained pitch is much less than on an un-maintained pitch.

7. Consultation

This report has been prepared in consultation with Council’s Recreation Officer and Planning Services Officer.

8. Conclusion

Council has received an application for $4717.55 in funding in relation to the 2005/2006 Community Capital and Special Works Grant Scheme for the installation of a water tank / pump at the John Powell Reserve in order to facilitate maintenance of the pitch area of the John Powell Reserve. Risk analysis has indicated that a well maintained pitch creates a safer playing surface for players and that Council has an obligation to meet Civic Mutual Plus requirements for safety to ensure premiums are kept at a minimum. Council has sufficient funds in the Community Capital and Special Works Grant Scheme to fund this application.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council allocate $4717.55 in 2005/2006 Community Capital and Special Works Grant Scheme funds to the John Powell Reserve Committee of Management for the installation of a water tank / pump, subject to the Reserve Committee of Management obtaining an applicable planning permit. COUNCILLORS BARKLA / REWELL

That the recommendation be adopted.

CARRIED


DSS 28 CAIRN CURRAN RESERVOIR 50TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATIONS (25/713/001)

1. Objective

For Council to resolve on a request for sponsorship for the Cairn Curran Reservoir 50th Anniversary Celebrations.


Including consideration of Economic, Social and Environmental impacts. These celebrations relate strongly to the Community Theme of the Council Plan 2006-2010 which is currently on public display. The specific objective relating to this event is ‘to improve the sense of safety and wellbeing within the community’. There is currently a policy gap in the area of grants, donations and sponsorships which will be addressed in the coming months. This gap can lead to inequity in the distribution of funding to other entities.


These celebrations are being organised by the Baringhup Community Association which is delegated authority under Section 86 of the Local Government Act (1989).

4. Background

Council is in receipt of correspondence from the Baringhup Community Association Committee of Management seeking assistance in conducting the Cairn Curran Reservoir 50th Anniversary Celebrations. The Committee of Management has requested assistance in promoting the event, collecting memorabilia for display, inviting Mayor David Gittus to attend and waiving the cost to utilise Council’s buses. The celebrations are to be held at the Baringhup Weir and Baringhup Hall on 28 May 2006. Although the weir is not a Council asset, the Baringhup Community Association has invited Council to take part in celebrations due to the links between Mount Alexander Shire and Cairn Curran Reservoir. As part of the celebrations the Baringhup Community Association Committee of Management has invited representatives of Goulburn Murray Water and Mount Alexander Shire Council Mayor David Gittus to jointly unveil a plaque. Following these proceedings there will be a sausage sizzle plus tours of the weir followed by a display of memorabilia and a 40 minute slide show to be conducted at the Baringhup Hall.

5. Issues

The Baringhup Community Association has requested that Council assist with the Cairn Curran Reservoir 50 Anniversary Celebrations by assisting with promotion, providing any memorabilia available, arranging the attendance of Mayor David Gittus and providing Council’s two 12 seat buses at no cost in order to shuttle people between the weir and Baringhup Hall. Only one of Council’s buses is available on 28 May. As Baringhup is 30 kilometres from Castlemaine where the buses are stored, 60 kilometres travel would be utilised for the purposes of getting the buses to and from Baringhup. In order that residents of Baringhup are not disadvantaged in utilising the bus due to geographical location, Council may choose to waive the cost for the first 60 kilometres and charge regular rates for any additional distance. Providing the bus at no cost could set a precedent for other potential users.



In-kind costs: • Publicity: Council’s Media Liaison Officer assistance in arranging a media release relating to the

celebrations; • Mayor David Gittus’ time;

Fiscal resources: • Council’s 12 seat bus is regularly charged at $0.85 per kilometre. Baringhup is approximately 30

kilometres from Castlemaine (60km return). At Council’s regular rate of $0.85 per kilometre, 60 kilometres would cost $51.00. Providing 100 kilometres at no charge in order to cover the shuttle bus service would cost Council $85.00

7. Consultation

This report has been developed in consultation with the Baringhup Community Association Section 86 Committee.

8. Conclusion

On 28 May 2006 the Baringhup Community Association Committee of Management in conjunction with Goulburn Murray Water will be conducting the Cairn Curran Reservoir 50th Anniversary Celebrations. The celebrations will include the unveiling of a commemorative plaque, sausage sizzle, weir tours, a display of memorabilia and a slide show of the past 50 years of Baringhup Township and the weir. In order to ensure the significance of the event the Baringhup Community Association Committee of Management has requested that Council assist in promotion, official proceedings and transport at the event.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council resolve to sponsor the 50th Anniversary of Cairn Curran Reservoir by: 1. Providing one 12 seat bus to Baringhup Community Association Committee of Management for

the celebrations. 2. Providing the first 100km travelled in the bus at no charge and any additional distance at the

regular rate of $0.85 per kilometre. 3. Providing assistance in promoting the event through Council’s Tourism Information Centres

and Media Liaison Officer. COUNCILLORS NORRIS / SCHIER That the recommendation be adopted. CARRIED


9. DELEGATES REPORTS Nil

10. NOTICE OF MOTION Nil

11. URGENT SPECIAL BUSINESS Nil

12. MEETING CLOSE Meeting closed at 9.06pm.

2006-05-09 - ordinary meeting

Documents