agenda ordinary meeting of council - city of greater bendigo...page 1 venue: can be obtained online...

AGENDA

Ordinary Meeting of Council

6.00pm Wednesday 17 May 2017

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

VENUE: Reception Room, Bendigo Town Hall, Hargreaves Street, Bendigo NEXT MEETING: Wednesday 21 June 2017 Bendigo Town Hall

Copies of the City of Greater Bendigo Council’s Agendas & Minutes

can be obtained online at www.bendigo.vic.gov.au

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 VisionCouncil VisionCouncil VisionCouncil Vision

Greater Bendigo - Working together to be Australia's most liveable regional city.

Council ValuesCouncil ValuesCouncil ValuesCouncil 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.

ThemesThemesThemesThemes

1. Planning for Growth

2. Presentation and Vibrancy

3. Productivity

4. Sustainability

5. Leadership and Good Governance

ORDINARY MEETING WEDNESDAY 17 MAY 2017 ORDER OF BUSINESS: ITEM PRECIS PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY 5

PRAYER 5

PRESENT 5

LEAVE OF ABSENCE 5

APOLOGIES 5

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS 5

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 5

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS 6

CR FYFFE'S REPORT 6

DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST 7

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 8

1. PETITIONS AND JOINT LETTERS 9

2. PLANNING FOR GROWTH 10

2.1 PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C220 & DEVELOPMENT PLAN PD/80/2016 - LANSELL CREST, CONSIDER SUBMISSIONS AND REFER TO PANEL

10

2.2 PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C223 - WHITE HILLS AND EAST BENDIGO HERITAGE STUDY, STAGE 2 - CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS AND REFER TO PANEL

38

2.3 8 HALTER COURT, JUNORTOUN 3551 - 2 LOT SUBDIVISION AND REMOVAL OF NATIVE VEGETATION

74

2.4 72 MARONG ROAD, WEST BENDIGO 3550 - DEMOLITION OF DWELLING AND OUTBUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION OF DWELLING

84

2.5 BENDIGO AIRPORT STRATEGIC PLAN (2017) 93

3. PRESENTATION AND VIBRANCY 100

4. PRODUCTIVITY 100

5. SUSTAINABILITY 100

6. LEADERSHIP AND GOOD GOVERNANCE 101

6.1 CONTRACTS AWARDED UNDER DELEGATION 101

6.2 RECORD OF ASSEMBLIES 103

7. URGENT BUSINESS 110

8. NOTICES OF MOTION 110

9. COUNCILLORS' REPORTS 110

10. MAYOR'S REPORT 110

11. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT 110

12. CONFIDENTIAL (SECTION 89) REPORTS 110

____________________________

CRAIG NIEMANN CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Ordinary Meeting - 17 May 2017

PAGE 5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

PRAYER

PRESENT

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Cr George Flack has requested Leave of Absence for the Council Meetings to be held on 21 June 2017 and 19 July 2017. Cr James Williams has requested Leave of Absence for the Council Meeting to be held on 21 June 2017.

APOLOGIES

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

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

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Public Question Time – Purpose Council has provided the opportunity for members of the public to ask questions of broad interest to Council and the community. Matters relating to routine Council works should be taken up with Council’s Customer Service Officers through its Customer Request System. 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 the people to ask questions. Therefore, no questions relating to planning matters on the Agenda will be accepted. 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 and unregistered questions. Residents are encouraged to lodge questions in advance so that a more complete response can be provided.


PAGE 6

Questions will be put to the Council by the individual posing the question; the question will be answered by the Mayor or CEO, or where appropriate, Councillors or Council Officers. Acceptance of Questions Each person asking a question of Council is required to stand, state their name, and address the Mayor. Public Question Time is not an opportunity for making of statements or other comments. Council’s Meeting Procedure Local Law does not allow for other questions or comments during the remainder of the meeting. 1. An individual may only ask one question per meeting, a follow-up question may be

permitted at the discretion of the Mayor. 2. In the event that the same or similar question is raised by more than one person,

an answer may be given as a combined response. 3. In the event that time does not permit all questions registered to be answered,

questions will be answered in writing or referred to the next meeting if appropriate. 4. The Mayor and or CEO have the right to decline registration on basis of:

• Legal proceedings; • More appropriately addressed by other means; • Vague or lacking in substance, irrelevant, frivolous, insulting offensive,

improper, defamatory or demeaning; • Answer likely to compromise his / her position; • Confidential, commercial-in-confidence.

5. Each individual whose registration form has been accepted or declined will be

advised by the Friday of the week prior to the scheduled meeting. 6. In the event of a registration form being declined the registration form will be

circulated to the Mayor or Councillors for information.

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS

That Standing Orders be resumed.

CR FYFFE'S REPORT


PAGE 7

DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Pursuant to Sections 77, 78 and 79 of the Local Gov ernment Act 1989 (as amended) direct and indirect conflict of interest m ust 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 intere sts must also include the classification of the interest (in circumstances wh ere a Councillor has made a Declaration in writing, the classification of the i nterest must still be declared at the meeting), i.e. (a) direct financial interest (b) indirect interest by close association (c) indirect interest that is an indirect financial interest (d) indirect interest because of conflicting duties (e) indirect interest because of receipt of an app licable gift (f) indirect interest as a consequence of becoming an interested party (g) indirect interest as a result of impact on resi dential amenity (h) conflicting personal interest A Councillor who has declared a conflict of interes t, must leave the meeting and remain outside the room while the matter is being c onsidered, or any vote is taken. Councillors are also encouraged to declare circumst ances where there may be a perceived conflict of interest.


PAGE 8

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Wednesday 19 April 2017. The following items were considered at the Ordinary Council meeting held on Wednesday 19 April 2017 at 6:00pm. • Draft Community Plan 2017-2021 for Exhibition • Proposed Budget for the Financial Year Ending 30 June 2018 • Change to Advertising Sign Planning Controls at the Kangaroo Flat Aquatic Leisure

Centre, Bendigo Stadium and Bendigo Tennis Centre - Planning Scheme Amendment C233

• 347 Warrowitue-Forest Road, Heathcote - Use of Land for Agriculture and Assoc Buildings and Works

• CT000313 - Bendigo Soldiers Memorial Institute Revitalisation Project • Community Grants Round 2 2017 • Farming Advisory Committee - Member Appointments • Bendigo Maubisse Friendship Committee - Review of Instrument of Delegation • Junortoun Community Plan 2017-2021 • Greater Bendigo Public Space Plan - Stage 2 Vision and Conceptual Vision • Potential Sale of 85 Lomas Road, Goornong - Post Community Engagement February

2017 • Delegation to the Chief Executive Officer • Loan Borrowings • Record of Assemblies • Contracts Awarded Under Delegation The unconfirmed minutes have also been posted on the City of Greater Bendigo website pending confirmation at this meeting. RECOMMENDATION That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on Wednesday 19 April 2017, as circulated, be taken as read and confirmed.


PAGE 9

1. PETITIONS AND JOINT LETTERS

Nil.

Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 17 May 2017

PAGE 10

2. PLANNING FOR GROWTH

2.1 PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C220 & DEVELOPMENT PL AN PD/80/2016 - LANSELL CREST, CONSIDER SUBMISSIONS AN D REFER TO PANEL

Document Information

Author Alison Kiefel, Planner Responsible Bernie O’Sullivan, Director Strategy an d Growth Director

Summary/Purpose

Amendment details: This Amendment proposes to modify Schedule 16 to the Development Plan Overlay which applies to 39-51 Lansell Street, East Bendigo. A summary of the changes includes: • Removal of cap on dwelling numbers; • Acknowledge issue of Certificate of Environmental Audit; • Acknowledge work undertaken to record the heritage of

the site; and • Reformatting of schedule setup and separation of key

issues.

Proponent: Blue Bondi Pty Ltd

No. of submissions: 101

Key issues: • The Amendment facilitates the development of the site in line with the City’s strategic direction of urban consolidation and development of key sites.

• Density • Streetscape and neighbourhood character • Traffic


PAGE 11

RECOMMENDATION

That the Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to:

1 Accept all late submissions;

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

3. Request the Minster for Planning to appoint an Independent Panel to consider all outstanding submissions to the Amendment and to operate as an advisory committee to the Development Plan.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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.

Productivity • Greater Bendigo has a vibrant and diverse economy that grows jobs and enables

good living standards.

Sustainability • The built and natural qualities that make Greater Bendigo an attractive and appealing

place are valued and conserved.

Background Information

The key steps in the Amendment process are summarised below:


PAGE 12

The Amendment has arisen from a privately sponsored request by Blue Bondi P/L. The site has a Development Plan Overlay which restricts development of the site to 65 lots. This was suggested by the proponent when the site was originally rezoned in Amendment C34 and suited the market environment in 2004. Since then, the previous Bendigo Residential Development Strategy 2004, has been replaced with Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy 2014, and Clause 21.05 Compact Greater Bendigo. The site has been identified as a key development site under the recently completed Amendment C215 process and comprehensive public consultation to implement this Strategy. This Amendment requests to alter the Development Plan Overlay to complement this new strategic direction. A request for approval of a Development Plan has also been received for the site. This process is occurring concurrently with the Amendment. A Development Plan is prepared for a site when required by a Development Plan Overlay. This Plan can be prepared at any time, and has a separate statutory process to a Planning Scheme Amendment. A Development Plan must be approved by the Responsible Authority (City of Greater Bendigo) before a permit for subdivision or other development can be considered.


PAGE 13

A planning permit will also be required for this development for subdivision and for dwellings on lots less than 300sqm. The permit application will be assessed against an approved Development Plan, referred to relevant authorities for conditions, but will be exempt from any further public notice.

Previous Council Decisions 8 June 2006 – Amendment C34 gazetted which rezoned the land to Residential and applied the Development Plan Overlay. 22 October 2014 – Council adopted the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy 2014. 2 March 2016 – Council adopted Amendment C215, which changed the Municipal Strategic Statement, including identification of this site as a key residential development site. 29 June 2016 – Council resolved to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning for Amendment C220.

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. Land affected by the Amendment The subject site is located at 39-51 Lansell Street, East Bendigo, and known as Lot 2, PS4348105. The site is an irregular shaped allotment, approximately 2.6 hectares in size. The site was formerly used as an abattoir, and later by the Country Roads Board. All buildings on the site have been demolished and environmental decontamination works completed, with a Statement of Audit issued. The site is predominately cleared with undulating topography and four trees remaining on site. Access is via Lloyd Street which forms the northern boundary, or Lansell Street along the southern boundary. Lansell Street terminates at VicRoads depot (Murphy Street end), and has a ‘local only’ access road for residents. Adjacent to the site to the east is the Bendigo VicRoads office and to the west is Bendigo Kangan TAFE, East Bendigo public pool, and East Bendigo bowling green. Opposite the site in Lloyd and Lansell Streets are established residential properties.


PAGE 14

What the Amendment does

The Amendment seeks to provide the ability for the land to be developed as a key development site as part of the implementation of the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy 2014.

The Amendment proposes to amend Schedule 16 of Clause 43.04 Development Plan Overlay to:

• Delete the cap on dwelling numbers;

• Update the schedule to acknowledge issue of a Certificate of Environmental Audit;

• Update the schedule to acknowledge work undertaken to record the heritage of the site; and,

• Update the format and requirements to be addressed in the Development Plan Overlay.

What the Development Plan proposes A Development Plan (including written report, layout plan, access plan, landscape plan, staging plan, building envelope and details plan), has been prepared in accordance with the proposed Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16. In summary the Development Plan proposes: • 104 lots ranging in size from 85sqm to 350sqm; • 2,3,4 and 5 bedroom dwellings that are single, double or triple storey; • Two open space parks totalling 1,300sqm (5% of site);


PAGE 15

• Landscaped open spaces and nature strips; • All dwellings will have at least one car space, most will have two; One main link road accessible by Lansell Street or Lloyd Street.

Consultation/Communication

Exhibition Procedures The Amendment C220 and Development Plan PD/80/2016 were exhibited for one month from 17 November 2016 to 19 December 2016. Note – The Planning Scheme does not require advertising of Development Plans, however our municipality informally advertises Development Plans as part of its transparent decision making processes. Notice was provided in the following manner:

• Individual notices, including an information bulletin to owners and occupiers of land opposite and adjacent to the site in Lansell and Lloyd Streets.

• 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 16 November 2016 and

19 November 2016. • Public notice of Development Plan displayed on both road frontages of site. • Publication of the notice of the Amendment in the Government Gazette on 17

November 2016. • Access on-line. • Drop in information session held at Bendigo East Public Hall, 6 December 2016

(which was advertised in a City of Greater Bendigo Facebook post; and media releases by the proponent). Attended by over 50 people.

Submissions A total of 101 submissions were received, 86 during the exhibition period and 15 late submissions. Of these, 6 were in support of the proposal, including all 5 referral authorities that responded, and 95 submissions requested a change to the amendment. Of the 95 submissions requesting a change, over half (69) of the individual submissions were the same wording (preformatted), one was a petition of 101 signatures and the remainder were from individual residents and neighbouring property owners. It is noted that only 2 residents in Lloyd Street objected, and less than 15% of the objections were from Lansell Street residents. All internal departments are satisfied with the proposal with only minor changes requested. Future planning permit applications for subdivision would also be referred to departments for specific conditions. The issues raised by topic are discussed below, with a summary table of submissions and responses following. Refer to the attachment for copies of all submissions.


PAGE 16

Key development site and removal of cap for number of lots • Approximately 90 of the submitters object to the removal of the cap (currently 65 lots),

and a few submitters object to the site being used as a ‘key development site’, and therefore increasing the density. There is also concern that approval of this proposal will set a precedent in residential areas.

The majority of residentially zoned land in Victoria has no minimum lot size or maximum density. This site currently has more restrictions with the Development Plan Overlay than most General Residential Zone land. This change will therefore not be creating a precedent, as it aligns the site with the majority of residential land. The Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy 2014, and Clause 21.05 Compact Greater Bendigo, has already determined this site as a key development site following a public consultation process as part of Amendment C215. The basis of the Greater Bendigo ‘compact city policy’ and identification of key development sites is to identify sites that are close to facilities and amenities to enable walking or cycling as a common transport method rather than car based movements to promote a healthy and active lifestyle. The objective of key development sites is ‘to provide higher density housing at strategically identified key development sites.’ This will be the first of the key development sites to be considered. Density, streetscape and neighbourhood character • Most objecting submitters are concerned that the density of development is too

intense and that the new dwellings will not complement the existing streetscape. As discussed above, the majority of residentially zoned land in Victoria has no minimum lot size or maximum density. This site currently has more restrictions with the Development Plan Overlay than most General Residential Zone land. The site is bordered by non-residential uses, including VicRoads offices, Bendigo Kangan TAFE and recreational uses. The existing residential interfaces along Lansell and Lloyd Streets are already fragmented by these non-residential uses. The site is located outside the East Bendigo Character Policy which only applies to existing residential areas, including Lansell and Lloyd Streets. However, the Development Plan proposes to contribute to the residential character of the area by: • Constructing dwellings that face the existing and internal streets, and being a

maximum of two storey. • New landscaping, and street trees; • Maintain a consistent setback; • No front fences to maintain informal feel to streetscape.


PAGE 17

Public open space, children’s playground, and size of backyards • Submitters are concerned that the two public parks are not big enough for the

development, especially as the backyards are too small, and that there should be a children’s playground provided.

The amount of open space in the Development Plan meets the State planning requirement for 5% of the total site. The basis of the Greater Bendigo ‘compact city policy’ and identification of key development sites is to identify sites that are close to facilities and amenities to enable walking or cycling as a common transport method rather than car based movements to promote a healthy and active lifestyle. The Development Plan Overlay requires the approval of a landscape plan, which has been submitted and was exhibited to the public. All allotments have been carefully designed to have easy access to one of the two green spaces within the development; and must meet the General Residential Zone requirement and minimum passive open space requirements of the Planning Scheme. Since exhibition of the Development Plan, the Minister for Planning has amended the controls in the General Residential Zone to require a percentage of the site (dependant on the overall size of the lot) to be garden. The impact to this particular development plan is yet to be determined, as the application of the new controls is currently being established. The City has considered the location of nearby playgrounds in relation to the PlaySpace Strategy, which ideally recommends a local play space within 400m of residents. There is an existing play space in front of the East Bendigo Swimming Pool, 150m from the site. There is also access to informal and natural play space within the proposed development; 150m to a bush reserve for informal walking tracks and 1km from Lake Weeroona which is a regional scale playspace. The City is therefore satisfied that no additional playspaces are required as a result of this development. Traffic • The submissions question if the existing road network can handle more traffic safely.

Submitters raise a number of concerns including: o Methodology used and calculation of increased traffic; o Methodology used and calculation of existing traffic and parking, including

days/times of existing road use assessment, o Parking and types of use surrounding the site; o Users of road network and safety (eg. learner drivers); o The local road/brick section at end of Lansell Street (Murphy Street end); o Safety of intersection at Patrick Street and Lansell Street for pedestrians; o Should upgrade various intersections, including Kennedy Street (Charleston

Road) with Lansell and Lloyd Streets; o Emergency access and bin collection days.


PAGE 18

The proponent supplied a traffic report prepared by Traffix (Oct 2016), that identifies the relevant traffic issues and is considered satisfactory to City of Greater Bendigo - Engineering, VicRoads, Transport Victoria and CFA. The traffic assessment includes the standard data and scenarios required to be analysed for this development. The additional traffic generated by the development will mean an increase to the frequency of vehicles along roads and wait times at intersections. Completing the traffic assessment at another time of the year would not alter the overall recommendations, as both Lloyd and Lansell Streets are considered to be of a width and standard to accommodate up to 6,000 vehicles per day (vpd); this proposal will result in traffic figures well under 2,000 vpd for each street. Consideration of the type of customer and vehicles accessing VicRoads is not appropriate. Therefore the road network capacity and intersections will continue to operate within the acceptable parameters. There is no requirement to provide on street parking within the development. Onsite parking will be assessed at the planning permit stage. The access road at the Murphy Street end of Lansell Street is not proposed to be altered. The existing road network in Lansell Street is considered to be sufficient to cater for the additional traffic generated throughout the day and at peak times. There is no evidence that the traffic issues raised by submitters require changes to the existing or proposed road network to accommodate the projected increase in vehicle movements. Following review of the submissions, the applicant suggested a splitter island be installed in Patrick Street at the Lansell Street intersection to assist with control traffic movements, improve safety, increase the centreline offset between Patrick Street and the site access to 39-51 Lansell Street and provide a refuge for pedestrians to stage their crossing of Patrick Street. This is supported by the City and will be included in the Development Plan. Kennedy Street (Charleston Road) is awaiting funding for an upgrade at the intersections of Lloyd and Lansell Streets, so it is not appropriate to require the applicant to pay for an existing issue, which is also remote from the site. The CFA is the appropriate referral authority for consideration of evacuation and emergency situations. The CFA has responded with no objections or changes. Bin collection has been taken into account and is not considered to present an issue for traffic more than any other residential street. Infrastructure

• Concerns have been raised that the drainage, water and sewerage systems will not

support more development in this area. Also that mobile phone coverage needs improving.

There is no evidence to suggest that the site can’t be adequately serviced.


PAGE 19

The proponent submitted a servicing report with the Amendment and Development Plan outlining that all services are available and of a suitable standard for further development. The Amendment and Development Plan were forwarded to service authorities, including Coliban Water and North Central Catchment Management Authority, neither of which raised any issues/objection. The City requires developments to design drainage with retardation to ensure the discharge rate is the same as pre-development. This is assessed as part of the planning permit. The recent Bendigo Urban Flood Study did not identify any flooding on or around the site. A new mobile phone tower has been approved close to the site. Summary Table of Submissions

Preformatted submissions (69 submissions)

Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation

Object to the removal of cap on number of dwellings and the higher density proposed. Reasons are outlined below: Does not fit with streetscape character

Refer to Panel Refer to above issues discussion.

Is not medium density housing Medium density is not specifically defined in the Planning Scheme, however is used to describe the density and detached style of dwellings proposed in this development. High density housing is considered to be high rise and multi apartment type buildings.

Loss of property value to existing housing Generally the effect of development on property value is not a planning consideration. Exceptional circumstances and clear evidence is required before this can be considered.

Crowding and lack of privacy The future buildings must meet the minimum standards set by the State for overshadowing, privacy and passive open space. (Clause 54/55). This will be specifically assessed at the future Planning Permit stage.

Increase of noise The noise level is anticipated to be typical of a residential area. There are no uses or development in this proposal that


PAGE 20



would be considered to exceed the EPA regulations for residential areas.

No room for pets This is not a planning consideration.

Small backyards will mean an increase in obesity

The basis of the Greater Bendigo ‘compact city policy’ and identification of key development sites is to identify sites that are close to facilities and amenities to enable walking or cycling as a common transport method rather than car based movements to promote a healthy and active lifestyle. All allotments have been carefully designed to have easy access to one of the two green spaces within the development.

Access and parking will cause congestion.

Refer to above issues discussion.

The local access road and the end of Lansell Street will need to be modified for increased traffic


Lack of trees and biodiversity for environmental benefit

The site currently has 4 trees, which will require removal and offset as per the State planning controls. The proposal includes many new plants and trees along the street and in the two parks. Overall the site will increase the flora on site.

No children’s playground, and the existing park will not be sufficient.


Pressure on drainage system leading to flooding


Additional stress on an existing,problematic sewerage system


Increase in crime rate due to density The correlation between density and the crime rate is not substantiated. The Planning Scheme seeks to promote personal safety through activation of public open spaces to ensure passive surveillance through the orientation of


PAGE 21



lots. This development has excellent public surveillance of its open spaces due to the design and density of the development.

Susan Treloar, 51 Murphy Street, East Bendigo


Objects Same issues as those in the preformatted submission, and additional concerns as below.


New intersections and access road congestion, changes need to be made at Lansell/Kennedy Streets and Lloyd/Kennedy Streets for the extra vehicles.


The local access road and the end of Lansell Street will need to be modified for increased traffic.


Minimal open space provision, especially for trees in the street


Small yards mean no room for trees Refer to above issues discussion.

Sheryl McNamee, 48 Lansell Street, East Bendigo


Objects. Preformatted submission, and additional concerns as below

Refer to Panel. Refer to above issues discussion.

Concern for accessibility by emergency services and increase in their workload.

All road networks within the proposed development and surrounds are of a sufficient dimension to accommodate all emergency vehicles, additionally the CFA have not raised any issues. The resourcing of emergency services is not a planning matter.

Lack of public transport This development is located adjacent to a


PAGE 22

Sheryl McNamee, 48 Lansell Street, East Bendigo


public bus route at the corner of Lloyd and Murphy Street, only 150m from the site, or in McIvor Road which goes to LaTrobe University.

Believes that this development is going through now so they can construct ‘dog box’ apartments (attached a Herald Sun article from 19/12/2016)

This is not the case. This is the first step in a long process and the buildings are not able to be built until this Amendment process is complete, a planning permit has issued and the relevant Building permits and works undertaken. This means the ‘new’ apartment rules developed by the State (referred to in the article) will be in effect by then.

Terry Hunter, 34 Lansell Street, East Bendigo


Objects. Identifies a number of positives regarding the proposal, including support for the higher density.

Refer to Panel. Noted

Inaccurate information - the Birchgrove (the applicant) brochure states schools are within a 5min walk and 15min to Bendigo Hospital and Bendigo Senior Secondary School. Believes this is not accurate.

This was not a City publication, and we acknowledge that the figures may not be accurate.

Housing diversity – roof styles and design need more work.

The final designs of the buildings are still being formed and will be considered as part of a planning permit process.

Traffic – queues at intersections, and delays for pedestrians in crossing roads.


Connectivity – further footpaths along Lansell Street and to destinations to enable connectivity are required.

As the footpath is outside the property area, and within an existing road network, this would be the responsibility of the City.

Public spaces – promote higher level of facilities in public spaces to encourage neighbourhood interaction.

Noted. A landscape plan has been submitted as part of the Development Plan which identifies how the open spaces are to be developed.


PAGE 23

Janice Walkley, 38 Casey Street, East Bendigo


Objects. Changing the cap on the number of dwellings will set a precedent.

Refer to Panel. Refer to above issues discussion.

Appearance of the dwellings are not complementary to the style of Bendigo.

The designs of the buildings are still being formed, and can be altered. This proposal considers Planning Scheme changes and site layout.

Parking and traffic in Casey Street, Coles supermarket, and bowls/pool.

This is outside the scope of the planning considerations.

Detrimental to water pressure, sewerage, mobile phone connection


There is insufficient employment for new residents

Improving the unemployment rate is not a specific planning matter to be considered in relation to this proposal. Our statistics show that the Greater Bendigo population is growing at 1.72% per annum (id.community) and as part of the overall strategy to house these people, this site was considered suitable as a key development site for higher density. Residents that purchase a property may be existing Bendigo or surrounds residents, or new.

Assist nurses with accommodation Unsure in what context this was discussed, however a nurse is an example of someone who may reside in the future dwellings. The future residents of the dwellings have not been determined.

Heather Bray, 6 Day Street, East Bendigo


Objects Preformatted objection with additional comments as below


Concern for learner drivers in Lloyd Street

Learner drivers do not need special consideration. The impact to traffic conditions has been considered, and the traffic volumes predicted are significantly lower than the design capacity of the streets.


PAGE 24

Heather Bray, 6 Day Street, East Bendigo


Dust during construction This is a common concern for residents, and the City requires developers to prepare a construction management plan as part of a planning permit to address this issue.

Kevin & Elizabeth Heath, 33B Michael Street, East Bendigo


Objects Should have two entry and exits on Lloyd Street.

Refer to Panel There is no need for an additional access in Lloyd Street as the proposed two way road through the development provides two entry and exit points.

The increase in dwellings to 104 from 65 will cause too much traffic.


Concern for number of bins Refer to above issues discussion.

Ailsa Richardson, 135 Lloyd Street, East Bendigo


Objects to this development, but supports higher density. Increase in traffic


Height of three storey developments and overshadowing.

Due to the separation distance being over 30m, existing residences along Lansell Street will not be overshadowed.

Construction materials – use of Hardiplank

The final exterior treatment for the dwellings has not been determined.

Coles Supermarket – insufficient car spaces.

This is not a planning matter for consideration, and is unable to be altered.

Street trees – suggest alternate species. The City’s Parks and Natural Reserves and, Public Open Space and Landscaping departments are responsible for the approved list of street trees.


PAGE 25

Peter Maher, 23 Patrick Street, East Bendigo


Objects Preformatted objection with additional comments as below


Not in keeping with area, and specifically East Bendigo Residential Character Policy


Beau Emmett and Jamye Power, 21 Patrick Street, East Bendigo


Objects Preformatted objection with additional comments as below. Design of buildings

Refer to Panel Refer to above issues discussion. The final design and appearance for the dwellings has not been determined.

Consideration of traffic at intersections such as Lansell and Patrick Streets, and Patrick Street and McIvor Road.


Pat Guthrie, 10 Day St, East Bendigo


Objects Preformatted objection with additional comments as below.


This development will result in a ‘slum’. This is a personal view and not a planning consideration.

Believes should there be a fire incident that the congestion would be terrible.

There are two vehicle exit (and entry) points which is considered appropriate for this development. The CFA has assessed the proposal and has no objection.


PAGE 26

Robert Toon


Objects Refer to Panel

Houses look into each other and parks are too small. Suggests changing to a one way street and larger parks such as found in Copenhagen.

The dwellings are positioned to meet the Planning Scheme requirements for overlooking, and open space. One way streets are not supported for this development as services, access and minimum street widths are required.

Would like more controls to apply design constraints for materials and footprints.

This could be accommodated in the Development Plan Overlay.

Supports medium density development however not this proposal as it is.

Noted.

Martin Jenner, 47 Casey Street, East Bendigo



Doesn’t support removal of cap Noted.

The lots are too small, children will have no backyard, and be forced to play on the road or in the crammed park.


Concern for existing traffic levels associated with the supermarket, and what the additional traffic will do.

The supermarket is not relevant to this planning process. Consideration of additional traffic has been assessed.

Noise pollution from the supermarket. This is not relevant to this planning process.

Drainage issues with neighbouring unit development.

This is not relevant to this planning process.

Brett Hey, 28 Day Street, East Bendigo



Doesn’t support removal of cap. Noted.

Traffic report is flawed and didn’t assess impact on Lloyd and Murphy Streets intersection, or Lloyd Street and Strickland Road (Kennedy Street)



PAGE 27

Brett Hey, 28 Day Street, East Bendigo


intersection.

Overcrowding and increase in noise. Refer to above issues discussion.

Safety of children and high density of cars.


Devaluation of property prices. Refer to above discussion in the table.

Additional strain on a failing drainage system.


Bruce Corrie



Supportive of development overall but believes insufficient recreational space.


Tricia Corrie



Supportive of development overall but believes insufficient recreational space


Colin Newson, 47 Murphy Street, East Bendigo



Doesn’t support removal of cap. Refer to above issues discussion.

Additional traffic will use ‘local only’ road at Murphy and Lansell Streets intersection.


Not satisfied that Lloyd and Lansell Streets can handle more traffic in current state.


He has poor water pressure and this development will make that worse.


Concern for size of allotments and impact Refer to above issues discussion.


PAGE 28

Colin Newson, 47 Murphy Street, East Bendigo


to living environment this will have on existing residential home owners, especially at night-time from noise and traffic.

Stuart Symes, 81 Goynes Road, Epsom



Believes the Council/City planning department are making inconsistent decisions.

This proposal is a request to amend the Planning Scheme (amend the rules that apply to the land), there is a public process to do this. The planning applications that are referenced in the submission would have been for permit applications, which are assessed against the current ‘rules’ of the planning scheme. The submitter also acknowledges this was under the previous Council.

Doesn’t support removal of cap or a compact city.


Predicted vehicle movements are not accurate, fails to provide evidence on many levels including walk and cycling.


No proper community engagement, especially on environmental and social concerns.

The current planning process is being undertaken, and no final decision has been made. The process includes opportunity for the community to provide their views and concerns, as demonstrated by this submission. This also occurred for Amendment C215 to introduce the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy to the Planning Scheme.

The neighbourhood character has not been considered.


Sets a precedence and is outside original planning guidelines.


Overshadowing and overlooking issues Refer to above discussion in the table.

The traffic assessment should take into Refer to above issues discussion.


PAGE 29

Stuart Symes, 81 Goynes Road, Epsom


consideration the type of customers and vehicles accessing VicRoads further along Lansell Street.

Traffic assessment needs to be during peak times when the neighbouring bowls club and pool were in use concurrently.


Parking figures are not definitive. There is no requirement to provide on street parking. Onsite parking will be assessed at the planning permit stage.

No controls regarding number of occupants, or animals per building.

The number of occupants and animals per building is set by local laws, the planning scheme, and building code/regulations.

No controls for dust or noise concerns. Refer to above discussion in the table.

Vivien Chamberlin, 2/41 Murphy Street, East Bendigo



104 lots should be the maximum number that is allowed. Concern for traffic.

The applicant has supplied a Development Plan as part of the proposal to show 104 lots. A new Development Plan, that has a different layout and number of lots can be submitted at a later date and would be assessed again against the Development Plan Overlay. Refer to above issues discussion.


Gary Pethybridge, 37 Lyndam Ave, Maiden Gully


Will set a precedent. States that the City is required to consult with community regarding changes that allow high density domestic development.


The developer is not considering the existing community, and Council is letting them do the development.

The current planning process is being undertaken and no final decision has been made. The process includes opportunity for the community to provide


PAGE 30


Gary Pethybridge, 37 Lyndam Ave, Maiden Gully

their views and concerns, as demonstrated by this submission.

The City should have strategies to counteract gangs or other antisocial activity that is associated with this style of development.

This is a larger issue, and is not a matter for this planning scheme amendment.

Needs to provide more community/open space.


Lansell Street should be a ‘Level 2’ street, all along its length for the additional traffic from this development (Murphy Street end local traffic road)


Parking and road use assessment are not adequate for when bowls club and pool in use simultaneously.


Should consult with Bendigo Metropolitan Fire Brigade who would attend domestic fires.

The CFA is the responsible authority for referral and they have responded with no issues or objection. There is no such authority as the BMFB.

The brick road (local access only) at end of Lansell Street is not suitable for emergency use, and alternative access should be provided.

The CFA is the responsible authority for referral and they have responded with no issues or objection.

States there is sufficient supply of infill development by demolishing timber residences and redeveloping without this ‘ghetto’ style development

This is a generalised, personal view of a complex issue. The Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy supports infill and key development sites.

The yards are too small for dogs and people. People ‘should not have to live under these poor conditions’.


Queries on future stages of proposed development.

This proposal is a complete development of the site in the current ownership. There are no future stages.

Malcolm Pethybridge, 40 Lansell Street, East Bendigo



Preformatted objection with additional Refer to above issues discussion.


PAGE 31



comments as below

No solar cells proposed on dwellings Dwellings are required to meet the current energy star rating and solar panels can be considered at the Building Permit stage.

The possibility of flooding and diseases. Refer to above issues discussion.

No Council in Victoria has agreed to no cap on housing, ever.

This statement is unfounded, as Victoria’s General Residential Zone land has no maximum density or minimum lot size.

The proposed dwellings are ‘unsightly’ ‘dog boxes’

This is a personal opinion.

No room for rubbish bin storage on site. Rubbish bins storage is a requirement, and will be considered as part of the future planning permit application.

No room for cars on the property or yards for relaxation, children or pets.

Each dwelling will contain at least one car space and yards must meet the requirements of the Planning Scheme.

Overshadow houses along Lansell Street making them dark and cold. Also prevent solar cells from working.

Refer to above discussion in the table.

Taking privacy away from existing residents (noted as ‘disgusting’)

The site is separated from existing residences by Lansell Street itself, which is a 30m reserve. As the residences face the street, a public realm, it is perplexing how privacy will be diminished.

Infrastructure is at its maximum, including the supermarket being full and swimming pool.

No authorities or neighbouring facilities, including the swimming pool have objected to the proposal.

Bowls club park in the street and block road and driveways.

This is not a planning matter and specific issues can be logged with the City’s customer requests system so issues can be tracked over time and amended if necessary.

Keep the original cap of 65, as this was put on in 2004 to suit the urban growth of the area.


Blue Bondi P/L knew of the restrictions when they purchased and are now being

The applicant/owner is able to make a request to change the planning controls.


PAGE 32



greedy. This is the current process being undertaken.

Devalue properties. Refer to above discussion in the table.

Doesn’t meet East Bendigo Character Policy Clause 22.12


Belinda Harvey, 40 Lansell Street, East Bendigo


Objects Preformatted objection with additional comments as below. Safety concerns with additional traffic, parking and intersection at Lansell Street and Charleston Road (Kennedy Street).

Refer to Panel Refer to above issues discussion. Refer to above issues discussion.

This type of development will bring trouble such as gangs, hooning and bad language.

The correlation between density and crime is not substantiated. Issues such as this would be a matter for the Police if and when they arise.

Devaluation of properties. Refer to above discussion in the table.

Overshadowing existing residences and lack of privacy.

Refer to above discussion in the table.

Encourages a ‘getto style’ neighbourhood.

The correlation between this development proposal and ‘getto style’ neighbourhood, is not substantiated.

Petition - 101 signatures


Objects on the grounds below. (most signatories also made a submission)

Refer to Panel

There is no evidence of any logical and any other reason for this particular site to be used as an experimental location for an intensive 104 lot subdivision, the beneficiary being the developer.


The Amendment fails to protect the important community Residential Character for the community.



PAGE 33

Petition - 101 signatures


There are many other smaller sites suitable for the ‘compact city’ concept rather than creating a large site susceptible to particular social, ethnic concentration that have occurred in other parts of the State.

There are several other sites within Bendigo identified as key development sites, this happens to be the first site to be considered. The assertion that the site is ‘susceptible to particular social, ethnic concentration’ is not substantiated. The future occupants of the dwellings have not been determined and are not relevant to the planning merits of this proposal.

Peter Vucinic (3 separate submissions), 28 Kennedy Street, East Bendigo


Objects Refer to Panel.

Preformatted objection Refer to above issues discussion.

Less than 70% of dwellings meet the solar efficiency orientation in the Planning Scheme.

It is not mandatory to have a compliance of 70% if there are site specific circumstances which mean this is unattainable. The Planning Scheme only requires the objective to be met, which is specified as ‘to provide good solar orientation of lots and solar access for future dwellings.’ For this site, restrictions that may be taken into account include the retention of the large concrete slab as per the Environmental Management Plan, the size and orientation of the lot, and the topography.

No evidence that the development will improve housing affordability.

The proposal includes a range of dwelling sizes to accommodate a range of demographics, in a location that is close to services and facilities. This creates diversity in the property market, which in turn adjusts pricing. Having a location that minimises travel and therefore expenses helps with the overall cost of living. These characteristics therefore assist in affordable living.

Suggests the site is being rezoned to the The site is within the commonly applied


PAGE 34

Peter Vucinic (3 separate submissions), 28 Kennedy Street, East Bendigo


Residential Growth Zone. General Residential Zone, and is not proposed to be rezoned.

The proposal fails to address car parking on neighbouring properties, in the street and for the disabled.

The proposal is not required to address these issues.

How will car parking be supplied on small lots?

This is required to be demonstrated at the planning permit stage and the applicant has advised that it will meet the requirements of the Planning Scheme for dimensions and number of spaces.

Should retain two of the river red gum trees on site.

It is not possible to retain these trees due to the topography of the site and the earthworks required to develop. Refer to the exhibited biodiversity assessment report which addresses this, and includes details of the offsets that must be provided.

Specific issues listed regarding Clauses 54, 55 and 56 of the Planning Scheme

These clauses relate to siting and amenity of new dwellings (Cl 54 – for a single dwelling, Cl 55 for multiple dwellings on one site) and the subdivision requirements (Cl 56). The clauses are assessed at the planning permit stage. Some clauses have specific circumstances that can be taken into consideration if the standard can’t be met. It is not mandatory for every standard in the Clause to be met.

Bendigo Kangan Institute, Charleston Road Campus

No objection Refer to Panel

Advises of future uses and development of their site for a Food and Fibre centre, which may be constructed close to the boundary with residential uses. Requests Council consider what step may be required to ensure minimisation of conflict.

There are no requirements for this proposal to consider future adjoining land uses. However, the applicant is agreeable to work with the Bendigo Kangan Institute. The onus is on the party requiring the future use to ensure offsite amenity impacts are minimised.


PAGE 35

McCorkell Properties Pty Ltd


No objection Refer to Panel

Concern that the Development Plan may not meet some clauses (Rescode) of the Planning Scheme.

The clauses referred to (Rescode) are assessed at the planning permit stage. Some clauses have specific circumstances that can be taken into consideration if the standard can’t be met. It is not mandatory for every standard in the Clause to be met.

Requests that the Development Plan Overlay be amended to require notification of a development plan to neighbouring properties and allow formal submissions.

The City of Greater Bendigo already has a policy to informally advertise Development Plans. There is no change necessary.

Adrian Holdsworth, 44 Lansell Street, East Bendigo

Objects Refer to Panel.

Preformatted objection Refer to above issues discussion.

The development will result in residents being flooded.


CFA


No objection Note submission.

DEDJTR (Transport for Victoria) & VicRoads


Supports Note submission.

EPA



DELWP



PAGE 36

DELWP



NCCMA


No objection Note submission

Blue Bondi P/L (applicant)


Various submissions in response to issues raised by those which attended the drop in sessions, and comments.

Refer to Panel.

Conclusion

Submitters have requested for the Amendment to be abandoned, leaving the maximum number of dwellings at 65 under the existing Development Plan Overlay. The reasons for opposition vary and have been discussed above. The exhibition period showed that the relevant authorities were satisfied with the proposed Amendment and Development Plan. To abandon the amendment would be against our recently completed Residential Strategy, the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme, State policies, and the Loddon Mallee Regional Growth Plan. It is recommended that Council resolve to refer the Amendment to an Independent Panel for consideration of the unresolved submissions. As the submissions also relate to the Development Plan, it is recommended that the same member(s) of the Panel provide an Advisory Committee role to make recommendations on the Development Plan to ensure the issues are considered for the whole of the project.

Options

Section 29(1) & (2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 states that a planning authority may adopt an Amendment or part of an Amendment with or without changes. If a planning authority adopts part of an Amendment the Amendment is then split into two parts. 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

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.

Resource Implications

Officer time will be required to prepare the Amendment documentation for Panel and liaise with the Minister for Planning. The proponent has agreed to pay for the statutory fees and extra costs incurred by the City for holding the Panel (estimated at $10,000) as per the Policy for Private Planning Scheme Amendments adopted by Council.

Attachments

• Copy of submissions (101) • Explanatory report • Proposed Development Plan


PAGE 38

2.2 PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C223 - WHITE HILLS AN D EAST BENDIGO HERITAGE STUDY, STAGE 2 - CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS AND REFER TO PANEL


Author Morgan James, Planner Amendments Responsible Bernie O’Sullivan, Director Strategy an d Growth Director

Summary/Purpose

Amendment details: The Amendment implements the White Hills and East Bendigo Heritage Study – Stage 2, 2016 by:

• Applying the Heritage Overlay to: o Five new heritage precincts (Bridge Street North,

Buller Street, Gleeson Street, Norfolk Street, White Hills and Hamlet precincts).

o Extending two existing heritage precincts (Baxter Street and Tomlins Street precincts).

o Sixteen places of individual heritage significance. o Three miners’ cottages that will be added to the

existing miners’ cottages serial heritage listing in the planning scheme.

• Including the Study as a reference document at Clause 21.10.

• Applying the amended Greater Bendigo Heritage Incorporated Plan - Planning permit exemptions to the affected properties to remove permit requirements for minor works.

No. of submissions: 17 (5 supporting or seeking minor change, 12 opposing)

Key issues: • Determining heritage significance • Defining a heritage precinct • Integrity of heritage places • Accuracy of heritage citations • Impact on development potential


PAGE 39

RECOMMENDATION

That the Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to:

1. Accept the late submission;

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

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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Policy Context

City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013 – 2017 (2016-2017 Update) 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.

Presentation & Vibrancy • Greater Bendigo is a community that values its heritage, arts facilities and major

events and supports arts and cultural experiences. Sustainability • The history, unique heritage, streetscapes and buildings of Greater Bendigo are

conserved, restored, celebrated and managed wisely for the long term.


The Greater Bendigo Thematic Environmental History, 2013 identified East Bendigo and the White Hills corridor as the highest priority areas requiring a heritage study. The City subsequently commenced the White Hills and East Bendigo Heritage Study in 2013-2014. At this time, due to development pressure, the study area was expanded to include the areas affected by the Hospital Precinct Structure Plan, which had never had a comprehensive heritage study. Due to a greater than expected number of individual places being identified during the initial steps of the study, it was decided that the heritage study should be split into two stages, with Stage 1 containing heritage places identified in the Hospital Precinct area and 5 large industrial type sites. These places were included in Planning Scheme Amendment C201: New Heritage Places and Efficiency Review, which was approved by the Minister for Planning in May 2016. These places are now covered by a Heritage Overlay.


PAGE 40

Stage 2 (current stage) of the White Hills and East Bendigo Heritage Study was undertaken by heritage consultants Context Pty Ltd during 2015-2016 and considered places of potential cultural heritage significance using historical research, community consultation and site surveys. The key steps in the Amendment process are summarised below:

Previous Council Decisions 20 August 2014 – Council resolved to adopt the White Hills and East Bendigo Heritage Study – Stage 1, 2014 and request the Minister for Planning to authorise Amendment C201 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme, and when authorised, exhibit the Amendment. 4 March 2015 – Council resolve to adopt the recommendations for each submission and request the Minister for Planning appoint an independent Panel to consider all outstanding submissions. 26 August 2015 – Council resolved to adopt Amendment C201 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme and request approval from the Minister for Planning.


PAGE 41

20 July 2016 – Council resolved to adopt the White Hills and East Bendigo Heritage Study - Stage 2, 2016 and request the Minister for Planning to authorise Amendment C223 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme, and when authorised, exhibit the Amendment.

Report

An Explanatory Report is attached and details the purpose and effect of the Amendment and provides the strategic justification for the Amendment as required. Land affected by the Amendment The Amendment affects approximately 467 properties in the suburbs of White Hills, Bendigo, Ascot and Epsom (see attached explanatory report for full address list). However almost 300 of these properties are considered to be non-contributory places within a heritage precinct and will be subject to additional planning permit exemptions than those places identified as contributory or of individual heritage significance. What the Amendment does The Amendment implements the White Hills and East Bendigo Heritage Study – Stage 2, 2016 by:

• Applying the Heritage Overlay to:

o Five new heritage precincts (Bridge Street North, Buller Street, Gleeson Street, Norfolk Street, White Hills and Hamlet precincts);

o Extending two existing heritage precincts (Baxter Street and Tomlins Street precincts);

o Sixteen places of individual heritage significance;

o Three miners' cottages that will be added to the existing miners' cottages serial heritage listing in the planning scheme.

• Including the Study as a reference document at Clause 21.10.

• Applying the amended Greater Bendigo Heritage Incorporated Plan - Planning permit exemptions to the affected properties to remove permit requirements for minor works.

Consultation

Exhibition Procedures The Amendment was publically exhibited for one month from 17 November to 19 December 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.


PAGE 42

• Public notice of the Amendment in the Bendigo Advertiser on 16 and 19 November 2016.

• Publication of the notice of the Amendment in the Government Gazette on 17 November 2016.

• Access on-line. • Drop-in information session on 29 November 2016 held in White Hills with

approximately 25 attendees from the community. Submissions 17 submissions were received to the Amendment with 5 supporting or seeking minor changes and 12 opposing; of these 2 submissions have been resolved through negotiation. These submissions are discussed in the following tables: White Hills and Hamlet Heritage Precinct (HO897) Submissions 1 to 6 relate to the White Hills and Hamlet Heritage Precinct (citation attached and map below). This precinct is of local historic, aesthetic and social significance as it comprises the original street layout for a hamlet as laid out in 1856 by Surveyor Richard Larritt. It’s also significant because it contains a number of significant residential, commercial and institutional buildings from the Victorian, Edwardian, Inter-war and Post-war periods of development.


PAGE 43

Submitter 1: VicRoads

Supports/Objects + Issue Officer Response & Recommendation

Supports the Amendment but requests changes.

Change the Amendment as requested per the below.

The Explanatory Report diagram does not include the road reserves in the proposed new heritage Overlay. However the Amendment map does.

The map in the explanatory report is indicative to show all the affected areas together. The planning scheme map is the official control and was exhibited with the Amendment, showing the road reserves within the proposed Overlay.

The proposed White Hills and Hamlet precinct (HO897) is central to the VicRoads Napier Street Upgrade Project. The proposed Overlays may delay the project via the need to obtain planning permits. Requests the following changes: 1. Remove the Heritage Overlay from all arterial road reserves. 2. Where the Napier Street duplication works encroach into the local roads within the White Hills and Hamlet Precinct, that the project is exempted from requiring a planning permit.

This request is not supported as it is standard State-wide planning practice where two sides of a street are affected by an Overlay that the road between is also included in the Overlay. The inclusion of the road within the Overlay is of particular importance for the proposed White Hills & Hamlet heritage precinct (HO897) as the road layout is an important part of the history of White Hills. It is also important for other precincts such as Bridge Street North and Buller Street to recognise and protect significant heritage elements such as street trees and blue stone gutters etc. The City acknowledges the importance of the State funded Napier Street duplication project for ongoing arterial road works and does not wish to hinder VicRoads from carrying out its work program. It is recommended that roadworks not require a planning permit under the Permit Exemptions Incorporated Plan if they meet the following conditions:


PAGE 44

Submitter 1: VicRoads


This roadworks exemption will allow VicRoads to carry out its function in these precincts with planning permits required only when a significant feature is to be altered or removed. VicRoads has subsequently indicated that they are satisfied with these changes and have no outstanding issues.

Submitter 2: Department of Health & Human Services (various properties in White Hills)


Objects No change to the Amendment. Refer submission to Independent Planning Panel.

The White Hills and Hamlet Heritage Precinct (HO897) contains a large proportion of non-contributory places. The proposed precinct is not intact or coherent enough to warrant a Heritage Overlay in its current form.

Whilst there are a number of non-contributory properties included within the proposed precinct, it represents the area of White Hills including the original street layout from surveyor Richard Larritt as laid out in 1856. Both the City and the study's heritage consultants agree that


PAGE 45

Submitter 2: Department of Health & Human Services (various properties in White Hills)


the precinct meets the threshold of heritage significance. Wherever possible, non-contributory places have been excluded from the Heritage Overlay. However, some are included where they form part of a streetscape in order to manage future development, and where it is not practical to remove them.

Expressed concern about the impact of the Heritage Overlay on a number of Director of Housing owned properties in White Hills.

All the affected properties have been identified as non-contributory to the heritage precinct. The Planning Permit Exemptions Incorporated Plan will exempt most works including demolition and external alterations etc. from requiring a planning permit. Also under Clause 52.24 of the Planning Scheme a permit is not required for Department of Health and Human Services self-contained accommodation if it is located in a residential zone and accommodates no more than 20 clients.

Further correspondence from the Department asked that the exemptions for non-contributory places within the precinct should be amended to allow rear additions that are closer than 3 metres to the side and rear boundaries.

This request is not supported. The purpose of the permit exemptions is to remove planning permits for works which will have minimal impact on heritage places. The 3 metre condition has been applied to provide a sufficient buffer to adjacent heritage places. This permit exemption has been applied successfully across most existing places in the Heritage Overlay with no issue.

In further correspondence the Department stated that it remains concerned that the Precinct is not particularly intact. However, recognises that the Heritage Overlay is unlikely to create a significant impact in terms of additional permits and will not challenge the proposed Amendment at a Planning Panel hearing.


PAGE 46

71 Raglan Street, White Hills

Submitter 3: A. Loveland, 71 Raglan Street, White Hills


Objects. Change the Amendment as below. Refer submission to Independent Planning Panel.

The property is not pivotal to the White Hills precinct because it is not originally from White Hills. The house was moved to the site and is not intact.

The submitter supplied a copy of the building permit and plans for the relocation of the house to 71 Raglan Street, White Hills. This new information meant we had to re-evaluate the heritage assessment of the property - It was initially identified to be of contributory heritage significance to the White Hills and Hamlet heritage precinct. The property is now considered to be of non-contributory heritage significance to the precinct, which means it has minimal heritage value. The property will still be included within the proposed Heritage Overlay precinct but now even more planning permit exemptions will apply. Officers have since written to the submitter advising of this change and to determine if they were satisfied with the change, but no response has been received.


PAGE 47

549 Napier Street, White Hills

Submitter 4: L & D Pettersen, 549 Napier Street, White Hills


Objects. No change to Amendment. Refer submission to Independent Planning Panel.

The White Hills and Hamlet heritage precinct has been created on the basis of three individual houses. Three dispersed houses cannot effectively make a precinct. The precinct doesn’t meet the purpose of heritage precincts.

The three properties referred to are HO910, HO911 and HO912 which have been identified in this study as of individual heritage significance as well as contributing to the significance of the precinct. However there are 52 other places identified to be contributory, including the submitters' property. Contributory places are those that contribute to the significance of a heritage precinct, but would not be significant on their own. In addition to the State recognised heritage criteria for determining heritage significance (Planning Practice Note 1), a series of local ‘tests’ were developed for this Heritage Study to determine whether a precinct meets the threshold of local significance. The relevant tests which it is considered the White Hills and Hamlet Heritage Precinct meets are: • The place or precinct is associated

with a key theme identified in the thematic environmental history. The place will have a strong association with the theme and this will be clearly illustrated by the fabric, when compared with other places (Criterion


PAGE 48

Submitter 4: L & D Pettersen, 549 Napier Street, White Hills


A). • The place or precinct has distinctive

aesthetic qualities that set it apart from other places. The design, scale, siting or detailing may impart landmark qualities. Usually, the place or precinct will have a high degree of intactness when compared to other places. (Criterion E)

Refers to a statement from page 5 of the White Hills & East Bendigo Heritage Study, Stage 1 (2014) to support the objection that a precinct is not appropriate.

The quote referred to is from Stage 1 of the White Hills and East Bendigo Heritage Study which predates the current study (Stage 2) and is not relevant to the area of White Hills.

Officers wrote to the submitter with the above responses. The submitter consequently advised that although the precinct has not been created on the basis of three individual houses, they believe the heritage of the area should be recognised as a spattering of isolated places with no unifying theme or significant streetscape and do not support the Overlay over their property.

546 and 550 Napier Street, White Hills

Submitter 5: Conceptz on behalf of Holy Rosary Prim ary School, 546 and 550 Napier Street, White Hills


Objects (but has since advised no outstanding issues).

Change the Amendment as requested.


PAGE 49

Submitter 5: Conceptz on behalf of Holy Rosary Prim ary School, 546 and 550 Napier Street, White Hills


Holy Rosary Primary School has developed a Masterplan for the site that identifies 546 Napier Street, White Hills as the area for a new Multi-Purpose Building. It is therefore requested that this site not be identified as contributory to the heritage precinct to allow for the future development of the school.

A building application (RC/569/2016) for the demolition of the dwelling was lodged by the school on 16 December 2016. The application was considered by the City’s Heritage Advisor and Planning Manager and the merits of the heritage significance weighed up with the net community benefit of the ongoing improvement of the school and the Masterplan. The application for demolition was approved on 9 January 2017. This site should be changed to be of non-contributory significance to the heritage precinct.

The dwelling at 550 Napier Street, White Hills was demolished in 2014 and has since been replaced by a modern school building. Therefore it should not be identified as contributory.

Since the initial heritage assessment was undertaken the demolition and new construction has occurred. The demolition was approved on 22 May 2014 and planning permit DP/517/2015 was issued for the use and development of 550 Napier Street as an educational centre for the expansion of the school in August 2015. This site should be changed to be of non-contributory significance to the heritage precinct.

Officers wrote to the submitter advising of the above. The submitter subsequently advised they were satisfied and had no outstanding issues.

506-508 Napier Street, White Hills, Uniting Church (HO897 & HO910) Submission 6 relates to the Uniting Church Complex at 506-508 Napier Street, White Hills (citation attached). The complex is of local historic, aesthetic and social significance and comprises a 1860s vestry, c.1870 brick church, 1903 timber hall and 1953 timber kindergarten building.


PAGE 50

Submitter 6: Tomkinson Group on behalf of the Uniti ng Church, 508 -508 Napier Street, White Hills (late submission)



Do not object to the inclusion of the site in the White Hills and Hamlet Precinct Heritage Overlay (HO897).

The support of the inclusion in the proposed heritage precinct is acknowledged.

Object to the inclusion of the Uniting Church and Hall into an individual place Heritage Overlay (HO910).

The application of the individual Heritage Overlay to the site is the City carrying out its mandatory function required by the Planning Scheme. The Overlay will enable a planning permit process where the significance of the heritage place can be considered.

The Uniting Church is planning to consolidate their congregations from north Bendigo to this site, to be known as Uniting Place. Architects have prepared a concept layout for the site which recognises the historical value of the old

The City acknowledges and supports the ongoing work of the Uniting Church to redevelop this site. We would like to work with the Church group in this redevelopment project and help them achieve the contemporary redevelopment they seek whilst retaining the 3 key significant buildings on site (1860s vestry, c.1870 Brick church and 1903 timber hall shown in the above photo). The City’s Heritage Advisor is available to work with the Church and their architects to achieve a contemporary but sympathetic


PAGE 51



vestry/ church, and incorporates them into a new site design.

redevelopment for the site.

The site analysis identified that the current massing of buildings is problematic for the reconfiguration and contemporary rejuvenation of the site.

The subject site is large at 5,065m2, with approximately one third encumbered by existing buildings. There is a vacant open area of approximately 200m2 (shown below in red) between the two significant heritage buildings which could be developed for a contemporary new building to integrate with the significant buildings.

An option that has not been considered by the Church is that the side of the timber hall could be opened up to integrate with the new space. The timber hall could also be retrofitted to provide for the offices, meeting rooms or multiple auxiliary spaces the Church seeks. Internal building controls do not apply to the site under the Heritage Overlay, so this project would have no implications on the internal use of the building.

Of the two existing buildings, it was considered that the timber hall was more appropriate for removal for a number of reasons including: • White ants • Uneven and sinking floors

No evidence has been put forward to support the claims that the building is structurally unsound. It has been repeatedly concluded by Planning Panels Victoria that structural integrity and the condition of a place are generally not deciding considerations in the application of a Heritage Overlay.


PAGE 52



• Building is structurally unsound

• High maintenance and operating costs

• No future tenant • Building has no cultural

value to current congregation

The hall was internally inspected by the City’s Heritage Advisor and it appeared to be in reasonable condition and not structurally unsound. If the timber hall was renovated the maintenance and operating costs would be similar to that of a new build. No evidence has been put forward that the building has no cultural value to the congregation. It’s also important to note that heritage is not just about the significance to site owners but the community as a whole. These buildings have been located on the site for over 100 years and had many users and observers who will value these buildings.

The proposed Amendment does not adequately address the environmental, social and economic impacts of Heritage Overlay imposition on the reasonable future functioning of this site.

There is a section of the Explanatory Report which must assess the environmental, social and economics of the Amendment. This is a requirement of all Planning Scheme Amendments. It is considered this assessment has been satisfied. It is acknowledged within the explanatory report that additional costs may be borne by property owners through the need to obtain a planning permit under the Heritage Overlay. However the City has attempted to offset this cost through the implementation of the Permit Exemptions Incorporated Plan. Permit costs can also be offset by the Heritage Restoration Loan Scheme which offers no interest loans to assist with the restoration of heritage buildings.

We will not be able to obtain a planning permit for the proposed development if the proposed Heritage Overlay is implemented in its current form.

As noted above, the Heritage Overlay does not prohibit development; it instead means a planning permit is required where the merits of the development can be considered.

The proposed Overlay does not provide adequate statutory guidance on balancing past cultural/ architectural heritage with the need to adapt and evolve in order for the Uniting Church’s

The Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme has been developed to provide guidance on the management of heritage places. The Heritage Policy at Clause 22.06 of the Scheme advises that Council seeks to “maintain and enhance the significance of heritage places while accommodating the needs of residents to adapt and develop such places.”


PAGE 53



cultural significance to continue into the future.

The policy provides guidance to applicants on various works in the Heritage Overlay including: • Additions and alterations • Car parking • External painting and finishes • Fences • Demolition • Infill development and new buildings The City also offers a free planning pre-application service to residents for their development proposals with advice available from the City’s Planners and Heritage Advisor.

The proposed development is jeopardised by a citation that focuses too heavily on the architectural merits of unsound buildings that no longer have a functional purpose.

The purpose of the Heritage citation is to establish the heritage significance of a property in accordance with Planning Practice Note 1: Applying the Heritage Overlay. 8 criteria are considered including historical significance, rarity, research potential, representativeness, and aesthetic, technical, social and associative significance. The citation details the heritage significance of the site and meets the Practice Note requirements.

The Heritage citation should be amended to better accommodate consideration of the site’s ongoing management.

The citation and proposed permit exemptions are considered sufficient. The future development of the site and its potential impact upon the sites’ heritage value will be considered by a planning permit. The current process is about establishing if the site and its buildings have sufficient heritage value to warrant protection by the Heritage Overlay.


PAGE 54

Epsom Primary School, Howard Street, Epsom (HO907)

Submissions 7 and 8 relate to the Epsom Primary School (citation attached) which is of local historic, aesthetic and social significance for its 1881 red brick school building with 1915 porch and row of elm trees at the front of the site.

Submitter 7: G. Hollyman


Supports the preservation of Epsom Primary School and the proposed Heritage Overlay.

No change to Amendment.

Submitter 8: M. Haring


Supports the preservation of Epsom Primary School and the proposed Heritage Overlay.

No change to Amendment.

Bridge Street North Heritage Precinct (HO893) Submission 9 relates to the Bridge Street North Heritage Precinct (citation attached). This precinct is of local historic and aesthetic significance because it is representative of Bendigo’s inner suburban areas which developed initially as a mixed area combining commercial activities, but consolidated into a residential area with buildings representing a spectrum of growth and development. The suburban areas around Bendigo North, including that of Bridge Street, demonstrate the growth of housing alongside that of the industrial expansion of Bendigo. The precinct is also significant for its established avenue of elm trees.


PAGE 55

62 Arnold Street, 62, 64, 68 and 70 Bridge Street, Bendigo


PAGE 56


PAGE 57

Submitter 9: P. Slattery, 62 Arnold Street, 62, 64, 68 and 70 Bridge Street, Bendigo



The proposed Bridge Street North Heritage Precinct (HO893) conflicts with Design and Development Overlay Schedule 21 – Bridge Street Activity Area (DDO21) which was applied to the area in 2016 via the Hospital Precinct Structure Plan (HPSP) with the aim to have these properties developed at higher densities. The Neighbourhood Character Overlay (NCO) was also removed from the site in that project to allow higher density development. Removal of the properties from

The Overlays don’t conflict; it instead means there are multiple planning issues to be considered in any future permit application. There are many sites in the City Centre with multiple Overlays to allow such issues to be considered. The DDO21 implemented by the Hospital Precinct Structure Plan has the following relevant objectives: • To establish a main street environment and

character along Bridge Street between Bendigo’s City Centre and the Bendigo Hospital Campus.

• To maintain the amenity of adjacent residential areas.

• To ensure new development is complementary to heritage buildings and precincts.


PAGE 58



the proposed precinct will have limited impact on the significance of the precinct overall, because he’s located on the edge of the precinct and the buildings aren’t of individual significance.

The Hospital Precinct Structure Plan (HPSP), which was adopted by Council in 2014, acknowledged that the White Hills and East Bendigo Heritage Study was occurring in the area and stated the following direction: “Retain the existing Heritage Overlay and expand its application based on the recommendations of the White Hills and East Bendigo Heritage Study.” As part of the implementation of the HPSP the properties at 62 and 64 Bridge Street and 62 Arnold Street were rezoned from General Residential Zone to Commercial 1 Zone, the NCO was removed and the DDO21 placed upon the sites. These changes were made to reflect that the corner of Bridge and Arnold Streets is part of the Bridge Street Activity Area and the transition from the City Centre to the Bendigo Hospital. It is important to note that 68 and 70 Bridge Street remain in the General Residential Zone and the Neighbourhood Character Overlay. It is our recommendation that the Bridge Street North Heritage Precinct should apply as proposed across all the submitters’ properties to enable heritage values to be considered in any future development. This is seen as particularly important as the properties form an important entrance point into the heritage precinct. In regards to the planning implications of this, the properties at 62 Arnold Street and 64 Bridge Street (shown in the map below) have been identified as not contributing (i.e. have minimal heritage value) to the heritage precinct therefore no planning permit would be required for their demolition, however a planning permit will be required to allow some input into any redevelopment of the sites.


PAGE 59



The properties at 62, 68 and 70 Bridge Street have been identified to be of contributory heritage significance. In response to the submission we put forward a compromise that the Heritage Overlay should remain as proposed but we would consider changing 62 Bridge Street to be of non-contributory significance, which would in effect allow demolition of the building and further open up the development potential for the properties on the corner whilst ensuring it could be done in a way that appropriately manages the heritage values of the area. This proposal was put forward to the submitter but no outcome has been reached. It is therefore recommend that the submission be forwarded to Panel for consideration.


PAGE 60

Gleeson Street Heritage Precinct (HO896) Submission 10 relates to the Gleeson Street Heritage Precinct (citation attached). The precinct is of local historic and aesthetic significance as a predominantly late nineteenth century development linking White Hills to Bendigo. The hotel and shops are a tangible link with the development of commercial enterprises along the White Hills Road. The Gleeson Street precinct is also significant for its association with hotelier, well-known community member and contractor; Michael Gleeson, licensee of the Suburban Hotel (later Captain Cook Hotel).

362 & 364 Napier Street, White Hills

Submitter 10: M. Cordell, 362 & 364 Napier Street, White Hills

Supports/Objects + issue Officer Response & Recommendation



PAGE 61



Submitter states they would be greatly disadvantaged if any Heritage Overlay was applied to this property.

The Heritage Overlay does not force any action upon an owner; it instead acknowledges that the land has heritage values which must be considered in any future development. The Heritage Overlay does not prevent sale of the site, therefore it does not meet the criteria for compensation under the Planning and Environment Act 1987, which generally relates to land acquisition etc. The City has developed the Heritage Design Guidelines (2015) and Permit Exemptions Incorporated Plan (2015) to remove permits for many minor works to assist owners of heritage places. The City supports the restoration of buildings in the Heritage Overlay and property owners can apply for a Heritage Restoration Loan to assist with restoration.

The dwelling is in average condition and any future development of the site would more than likely involve demolition.

It has been repeatedly concluded by Planning Panels Victoria that structural integrity and the condition of a place are generally not deciding considerations in the application of a Heritage Overlay; instead these are normally issues to be considered in a future planning permit.

The two blocks together (362 & 364 Napier Street) would make a great development site. Not having the option in the future to develop both sites together would further reduce their value.

The Heritage Overlay does not prohibit the development of a site; it instead provides an assessment process for the development where heritage values of the site can be considered. The financial cost of development for an owner may be a relevant consideration in a future planning permit application. However at this stage in the planning process, it’s about establishing if there is sufficient heritage significance to warrant inclusion of the property in the Heritage Overlay, as well as any net community economic impacts of this.


PAGE 62



Submitter originally invested in this area because there were no heritage restrictions.

The City has an ongoing program for heritage studies and it is unfortunate that some areas still remain unstudied.

Norfolk Street Heritage Precinct (HO895) Submissions 11 and 12 relate to the Norfolk Street Heritage Precinct (citation attached). This Precinct is of local historic and aesthetic significance as it represents part of the story of change as the gold boom subsided and the areas once occupied by mining became available for residential expansion. Within the North Bendigo locality, Norfolk Street forms an unusually consistent group of late nineteenth and early twentieth housing of high quality, complemented by the three palm trees.

Submitter 11: S & R Young, 17 and 19 Norfolk Street, North Bendigo


Objects to the proposed heritage precinct.

No change to Amendment. Refer submission to Independent Planning Panel.


PAGE 63



The City’s policy supports more units being built in the street. Most of the street has already been infilled with units built behind the existing premises. Number 9 and 11 have had substantial building behind them. More units are already planned and should be underway at 22 & 23 Norfolk Street.

The City’s policy does support infill development in urban Bendigo. Heritage does not prohibit this. Instead it acknowledges that the land has heritage values which must be considered in any development. If designed sympathetically, infill is in fact encouraged. No’s 9 and 11 Norfolk Street have been substantially altered and are not considered to be heritage significance. Neither is 22 & 23 Norfolk Street.

Some of the older houses like number 10 and 25 have been demolished and units built, or in the process of being built.

Both number 10 and 25 Norfolk Street were proposed to be included within the Heritage Overlay, but unfortunately applications for their demolition were lodged prior to the exhibition of the heritage study.

It’s most likely that units will be built in front of number 17 due to it being located so far back in the block. States that “as the house was not mentioned for any specific features, it could well be demolished for better land development.”

As noted above, the Heritage Overlay does not prohibit infill development. It just means that a planning permit would be required where the impact of the proposed new dwelling could be considered.

Both number 19 and 21 have a very appealing heritage look from the street, but behind the facade is different, with no heritage features and the rooms changed over the years. The veranda posts, rails and decorations on both houses need to be replaced soon as they are both in a state of rotting and almost unsafe.

The Heritage Overlay is only concerned with external features of these properties, no internal controls apply. As discussed previously, generally structural integrity and the condition of a place are not deciding considerations in the application of a Heritage Overlay. The houses are considered to meet the threshold of heritage significance which is the issue at hand.

The house at 20 Norfolk Street has been renovated and altered; the citation is out of date.

The owner of 20 Norfolk street has lodged a separate submission (no.10) which will be discussed in the next section.

States that whilst the intentions are good to create an area of Contributory Heritage significance, I do not think that a few palm trees and lace work meet the

Within the context of Heritage Overlays throughout Bendigo, Norfolk Street is a small and isolated grouping of a particularly high integrity. In the context


PAGE 64



criteria. of North Bendigo, this small group is notable for its degree of intactness and close spatial relationship to one another. Whilst there are individual isolated places of equivalent quality in North Bendigo, the locality generally has a lower integrity than in other inner suburban areas of Bendigo.

20 Norfolk Street, North Bendigo

Submitter 12: J. Dharmaratne, 20 Norfolk Street, North Bendigo


Objects to the proposed heritage precinct.

No change to Amendment. Refer submission to Independent Planning Panel.

Has renovated and improved property over the last three years. Photo in citation is old and significant features have since been removed.

We acknowledge the renovations done to the property over recent time, including the replacement of the roof and removal of gables (some of which can be seen in the photo above compared to the photo in the attached citation). It is important to note that a heritage study is conducted at a point in time and things change. The fieldwork for the Norfolk Street Precinct was conducted in early 2015, prior to these renovations.


PAGE 65

Submitter 12: J. Dharmaratne, 20 Norfolk Street, North Bendigo


Since the submission has been received Officers have inspected the dwelling and noted the changes. Advice was also sought from the Study’s heritage consultants who confirmed that although the dwelling has been altered since the assessment, the significance of the dwelling has not changed. It is still considered to be of contributory heritage significance to the Norfolk Street Heritage Precinct.

As per other precinct owners, is concerned about the impact of the precinct on future investment potential of the properties.

As discussed previously, the Heritage Overlay does not prohibit the development of a site; it instead provides an assessment process for the development where heritage values of the site can be considered. The financial cost of development for an owner may be a relevant consideration in a future planning permit application. However at this stage in the planning process, it’s about establishing if there is sufficient heritage significance to warrant inclusion of the property in the Heritage Overlay, as well as any net community economic impacts of this.

14 Heinz Street, White Hills, Residence & stable complex (HO908)


PAGE 66

Submission 13 relates to the house and stables complex at 14 Heinz Street, White Hills. This site is of local historic, aesthetic, rarity and associational value as a rare and substantially intact example of a late nineteenth century residence and c.1920s horse stable complex that operated as a racehorse training facility from c.1914 through until 2009.

Submitter 13: D. Torpy, 14 Heinz Street, White Hills



Submitter has previously worked with the City to work around heritage issues at great time and expense by subdividing around several buildings.

The submitter’s ongoing good will towards the heritage of the site is to be commended and the City is appreciative of how the submitter worked with Officers to achieve an acceptable subdivision outcome for the site. Unfortunately these previous agreements were missed in the heritage citation for the property.

State that any horse training facility over an extended period would ultimately have a similar history therefore the property is not historically unique.

The property contains an important combination of residence and stables to the area of White Hills, we are not considering the heritage significance to the whole of Victoria. A place does not have to be ‘unique’ (one of a kind) to be of heritage significance. There are in fact 8 heritage criteria used in Victoria to determine heritage significance The stable complex is of Criteria D (representativeness), B (rarity), A (historical) and H (associative) significance to the City of Greater Bendigo. This is because the complex was built before World War 2, remains in almost original condition and was associated with local horse racing identities Harry McCalman and Tom Torpy.

The 2001 study commissioned by the City of Greater Bendigo: Heathcote-Strathfieldsaye Heritage Study Stage One 2001 Potential Places of Cultural Significance listed 14 Heinz Street at a lowly 324 of 325 places within the B List of Potential Places of Cultural Significance.

The list of potential heritage places in Heathcote – Strathfieldsaye Heritage Study Stage One 2001 is not in order of significance, as can be demonstrated by the Bendigo racecourse grandstand listed at no. 323 which is included within the Heritage Overlay and is of potential State heritage significance.

Within this B list only minimal property detail was referenced.

The list was an overview list of heritage sites which are always developed during the initial


PAGE 67



stage of a heritage study. This list provides the starting point for the next stage of the heritage study which includes detailed site investigation and historical research.

14 Heinz Street, White Hills is not referred to at all in the C201, White Hills and East Bendigo Heritage Study, Stage 1 revised November 2015. Belatedly there is now a Planning Scheme Amendment to include the 'House and Stables' at 14 Heinz Street, White Hills into the Heritage Overlay.

The White Hills and East Bendigo Heritage Study was split into 2 stages due to an expansion of the study area to include areas around the new hospital and a greater than expected number of individual places being identified during the initial steps of the study. Stage 1 contained heritage places identified in the Hospital Precinct area and 5 large industrial type sites. These places were included in Planning Scheme Amendment C201: New Heritage Places and Efficiency Review, which was approved by the Minister for Planning in May 2016.

What has not been shown within the Amendment documentation is the location of the house and stables, nor the fact that the proposed Overlay intends to include two further buildings that are at most of secondary interest. (Specifically the small horse stalls at the rear of the property described previously in heritage documents as in 'fair' condition and an ancillary utility outbuilding described within the same Heritage documents as being in 'poor' condition).

The proposed Heritage Overlay only extends over the area agreed to by the submitter during the subdivision of the site and includes the house, stables, rear stables and appropriate curtilage. The applicant’s plan of subdivision was given to the heritage consultants to map the extent of the Overlay. We do acknowledge that the heritage citation could be clearer about what elements of the site are significant and propose the inclusion of the below site sketch within the citation.


PAGE 68



The City has previously supported the demolition of some of the non-significant outbuildings to help facilitate the redevelopment of the site; therefore we wish to only retain the important heritage elements. The submitter was also given an exemption from paying the required public open space contribution for the subdivision of the land (DSD/392/3014) at his request, based on the agreement for retention of the heritage elements and application of the proposed Heritage Overlay.

The disused irrigation dam on the Ross Street road reserve at the rear of 14 Heinz Street has been omitted from the proposed Heritage Overlay. During the process to subdivide the land a request was made to fill in the 8 to 10 foot deep dam for community safety reasons. The City rejected this request and advised that the dam was of heritage interest, and would be

Omission of the irrigation dam in the Ross Street Reserve was an oversight; we therefore propose to amend the Heritage Overlay and citation to include it. The concern about the safety of the structure has been forwarded to the City’s Engineering Unit for action.


PAGE 69



retained but filled in to a safe level.

249a Napier Street, Bendigo

Submitter 14: J & B Pascoe, 249a Napier Street, Bendigo


Requests a minor mapping change. Change the Amendment as requested.

Requested that an area of non-significant common property (containing a driveway and modern car port) be removed from the existing individual Heritage Overlay (HO869). Do not object to the application of the precinct Overlay.

HO869 should be removed from the area of common property (shown below in red) as requested as it relates to 249 Napier Street which is the house at the front. The precinct Overlay will ensure that any development of the driveway is sympathetic to the adjoining heritage places.

125-133 McIvor Road, East Bendigo (HO905) Submission 15 relates to the residence and garden at 125-133 McIvor Road, East Bendigo. This property is of historic and aesthetic significance because of its associations with the Beischer family, many of whom were prominent community members in Bendigo during the late nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. The first photos below are from the heritage assessment fieldwork in 2015 and the second set of photos were taken in 2017 after the renovation to the property.


PAGE 70

Submitter 15: P & S Snow, 125-133 McIvor Road, East Bendigo



The house and gardens have been substantially altered since the heritage assessment in 2015. The assessment is now out of date.

We acknowledge the recent alterations to the property. The fieldwork for this site was conducted in early 2015, prior to the renovations. The submission and detail provided will enable the citation to be updated and corrected.

Heritage listing is unnecessary to protect the newly renovated house. The owners are nearing completion of a substantial architect-designed extension and renovation. They state the house has been rebuilt to last for another ninety years.

Regardless of the current owners’ renovations and intentions; the Heritage Overlay should be applied to ensure the protection and management of the dwelling into the future, regardless of ownership.

The garden is not of sufficient significance to warrant heritage listing in

The gardens were considered to be of heritage significance in association with


PAGE 71

Submitter 15: P & S Snow, 125-133 McIvor Road, East Bendigo


its own right. A Heritage Overlay will add costs, delays and hamper our efforts to rebuild.

the dwelling. Officers acknowledge the impact to the gardens from recent works and drought. It is recommended that the study’s heritage consultants and the City’s arborist revisit the site and determine the impact of these changes on the significance of the gardens and the site. These findings and our recommendation can then be presented at the Panel hearing.

The substantial renovation of the property negates the principal argument that the property is in a state of higher integrity.

As discussed previously, the fieldwork for this site was conducted prior to the renovations. The study’s heritage consultants will be engaged to review the alterations to the property and the impact on the integrity. These findings and recommendation can then be presented at the Panel hearing.

The report recommending heritage listing contains factual errors

We acknowledge that there are some errors in the citation and agree to correct them.

In the comparative assessment on p.85, no mention is made of the very significant property at 123 McIvor Road.

The City acknowledges that 123 McIvor Road has unfortunately been missed in this heritage study. We are seeking to get in touch with the property owners to examine the property for inclusion within our next heritage study.

Submitter 16: Dja Dja W urrung Clans Aboriginal Corporation


Supports No change to Amendment. Refer submission to Independent Planning Panel.

Questions if there are any heritage places that are proposed for removal from the Heritage Overlay?

There are no places to be removed from the Heritage Overlay as part of this project.

Discusses the removal of permit These are separate legislative


PAGE 72

Submitter 16: Dja Dja W urrung Clans Aboriginal Corporation


requirements for specified minor works. Although a planning permit may not be required by Council, it is important that applicants be made aware of the requirements of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 as Amended, in relation to reporting the discovery of Aboriginal cultural heritage and to avoid harm to Aboriginal places and objects.

requirements. The removal of planning permit requirements will not remove the duty of an applicant to comply with the Aboriginal Heritage Act.

Submitter 17: Department of Environm ent, Land, Water & Planning


Supports the Amendment. No change to Amendment.

Conclusion

Through negotiation we have resolved 2 submissions. We will continue to liaise with submitters but recommend that Council resolve to request an Independent Planning Panel be appointed to consider the 10 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 submissions to an Independent Panel appointed by the Minister; or • Abandon the Amendment, or part of the Amendment. Section 22(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 advises that Council has the option of accepting late submissions, but must do so if requested by the Minister for Planning.


The Amendment will increase the number of properties included within the Heritage Overlay and this will result in an increase in the number of planning permit applications. However, the Amendment also proposes to introduce the Permit Exemptions Incorporated Plan to these places to reduce the number of planning permit applications under the Overlay. Officer time will be required to prepare the Amendment documentation for Panel and to liaise with the Minister for Planning.


PAGE 73

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 $35,000 in association with holding a panel, including an estimated $15,000 for expert witnesses. Resources for these costs have been included in the 2016/17 budget.

Attachments

• Heritage citations (8) and submissions (17) • Explanatory report


PAGE 74

2.3 8 HALTER COURT, JUNORTOUN 3551 - 2 LOT SUBDIVI SION AND REMOVAL OF NATIVE VEGETATION


Author Liz Commadeur, Subdivision Planner Responsible Bernie O’Sullivan, Director Strategy an d Growth Director

Summary/Purpose

Application details: Approval of Development Plan for 2 Lot subdivision and removal of native vegetation

Application No: DS/945/2016

Applicant: CSI Engineers

Land: 8 Halter Court, JUNORTOUN 3551

Zoning: Low Density Residential Zone

Overlays: Development Plan Overlay 4 Vegetation Protection Overlay 2

No. of objections: 2

Consultation meeting:

21 February 2017 - attended by both objectors, the owner, the assessing planner and one Ward Councillor. The issues were not resolved.

Key considerations: Central to an assessment of the application is the concern of tree removal on the site and the small size of both proposed lots relative to the character of the Halter Court area where low density residential allotments predominate. The proposed subdivision does not satisfy the requirements of the Development Plan Overlay 4.

Conclusion: This report recommends that Council oppose the approval of a Development Plan on neighbourhood character grounds, and that no permit be granted.


PAGE 75

RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to Section 61 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, Greater Bendigo City Council resolves the following with respect to the land at 8 Halter Court, JUNIORTOUN 3551: 1. To refuse to grant approval for the submitted development plan. The proposed

development plan does not satisfy the requirements of Schedule 4 to the Development Plan Overlay because:

1.1 The lot sizes shown on the plan do not accord with the preferred 1 hectare minimum lot size specified for the Halter Court area.

2. To refuse to grant a permit allowing the subdivision of the land into two lots for the

following reasons:

2.1 A permit cannot be granted in the absence of an approved development plan.

2.2 The proposed lot sizes are incompatible with the existing character of the area, in particular the removal of vegetation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Policy Context



housing choices.


events and supports arts and cultural experiences.






PAGE 76

Report

Subject Site and Surrounds

The subject site is comprised of one parcel located on the eastern side of Halter Court in Junortoun, north of the McIvor Highway. The site is irregular in shape with an area of 4,082 square metres (0.4 hectares) and has a very slight slope to the western end of the site. The vacant site has a number of trees located over the land. Access to the site is via an existing crossover to Halter Court. Halter Court is a sealed road, with open drains either side. A rural post and wire fence delineates the site to the adjoining properties to the south and east. A colorbond fence runs along the northern boundary.

The site is described as Lot 8 on Plan of Subdivision 639793W. The site was created as part of an eight lot subdivision in 2011, that included the approval of a development plan. A covenant is registered on the land title but has no effect on this application. The site can be fully serviced by water, sewerage, electricity and telecommunications supply systems. Halter Court is comprised of eight lots, all of which are greater than 4,000 square metres. Five of these lots have been developed, each with a large dwelling and associated outbuildings. Halter Court is accessed via a service road from McIvor Highway. Lords Raceway and the Catholic College Junortoun Campus are located south of McIvor Highway. The Junortoun Store/Post Office is located approximately 150 metres east from the site. The character of the area is defined by the semi-rural setting and a bushland backdrop associated with the Bendigo National Park.


PAGE 77

Figure 1 : Location map showing subject site. Objectors’ properties are marked with a star. Proposal

This application seeks the approval of a development plan and subsequent issue of a permit to subdivide the land into two residential lots and removal of native vegetation.

• Lot 1 will have an area of 2,000 square metres. • Lot 2 will have an area of 2,082 square metres. • Access to the lots will be from Halter Court. • Both lots are vacant. • Seven trees are designated for removal.


PAGE 78

Figure 2 : Proposed plan of subdivision.

Planning Controls - Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme

The site is in the Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ) and is covered by the Development Plan Overlay Schedule 4 (DPO4) and Vegetation Protection Overlay 2 VPO2). A permit must not be granted to subdivide land, until a development plan has been prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. A permit is required to subdivide land in the LDRZ and remove vegetation in the VPO2 and pursuant to Clause 52.17 provisions. 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)


PAGE 79

• Movement networks (clause 18.02) Municipal Strategic Statement: • Municipal profile (clause 21.01) • Key issues and influences (clause 21.02) • Vision - strategic framework (clause 21.03) • Strategic directions (clause 21.04) • Settlement (clause 21.05) • Housing (clause 21.06) • Environment (clause 21.08) • Infrastructure (clause 21.09) • Reference documents (clause 21.10) Local Planning Policies: • Salinity and erosion risk policy (clause 22.04)

Other relevant provisions: • Low Density Residential Zone (clause 32.03) • Development Plan Overlay (clause 43.04) • Vegetation Protection Overlay (clause 42.02) • Native Vegetation (clause 52.17) • Land Adjacent to a Road Zone Category 1 (clause 52.29) • Decision guidelines (clause 65) • Referral and notice provisions (clause 66)


Referrals The following internal departments have been consulted on the proposal:

Referral Comment

Traffic & Design No objection subject to standard conditions

Drainage No objection subject to standard conditions

Public Notification The application was informally advertised by way of notice on the site and letters to adjoining and nearby owners and occupiers. As a result of advertising, two objections were received, with the grounds of objection being:

• Proposed lot sizes not in keeping with the character of Halter Court;

• Concern about tree removal;

• Increased traffic.

The objections are discussed below.


PAGE 80

Planning Assessment

Development Plan Overlay Schedule 4 The DPO4 requires that lots in this area are to be at least one hectare in area. The proposal is to subdivide the land into lots of approximately 2,000 square metres in area. Lots under the minimum lot size of one hectare may be approved following consideration of the three matters discussed below. Will the subdivision be compatible with the general character of the area?

Halter Court is comprised of lots that range in area from 4,000 to 6,000 square metres in a semi-rural character setting. The site is situated in an area zoned for low density residential purposes. In the context of the wider neighbourhood, the lots range between 0.21 to 2.6 hectares and are characterized with large dwellings and gardens. Many of the landowners are involved with the racing industry due to the location of Lords Raceway south of the highway. The proposal fails to meets the fundamental requirements of maintaining and strengthening the semi-rural qualities of the area. The proposed lots, being just in excess of 0.2 hectares, are 20% of the area desired by the DPO. The subject site is already 4,082 square metres in area, which fits well with the rest of Halter Court. It is difficult to imagine how any new dwelling on each of the lots could strengthen the site’s semi-rural setting given the modest size of the lots. The intent of the DPO4 is to maintain the semi-rural of the area by managing the density of future development on generously sized lots. It is imperative that Council supports areas designated with specific minimum lot sizes under the DPO4, to protect the future integrity of the area, particularly Halter Court. Can the lots be appropriately serviced? The proposed lots are capable of connection to reticulated water, sewer and power and telecommunication services. Can remnant vegetation be retained? There are a number of trees located on the site, including a remnant patch in the northern part of the site and scattered trees along the eastern and southern boundaries. The application to subdivide the land includes the removal of this remnant patch, which comprises seven trees. Both objectors are concerned that the removal of these trees will compromise not only the ecological perspective, but also the aesthetic perspective of the area. It is interesting to note that when the original application to create the Halter Court subdivision was submitted, the application included the removal of vegetation on Lot 8. The application was presented to a Council Meeting for a decision. Council adopted the Planning Officer’s recommendation for the approval of the subdivision, but deleted the removal of the vegetation component. There is a notation on this permit that states “This permit does not allow native vegetation to be removed from the site”. The rationale for


PAGE 81

keeping the vegetation was that a dwelling could be positioned on this lot without compromising the sensitive nature of the site. With regard to the current application, the proposed removal of the remnant patch of vegetation is the same patch identified in the original application. The purpose of retaining these trees is to protect the existing character of Halter Court.

Figure 3 : location of the trees designated for removal

Figure 4 : Looking across the site, showing the location of the seven trees designated for removal In conclusion, the proposed subdivision is not in keeping with this neighbourhood's character for the following reasons:

• Both proposed lots are 20% of the area desired by the DPO4. • The Halter Court neighbourhood has developed a strong sense of place due to the

nature of the semi-rural landscape character. The creation of smaller lots would undermine this existing character.


PAGE 82

• The subdivision will set a poor precedent that would undermine the intent of the DPO4.

Vegetation Protection Overlay 2 The site is affected by the VPO2 (Significant Vegetation). The applicant proposes to remove seven trees, which have been assessed in the low risk-based pathway. The applicant has provided a Biodiversity Assessment Report which refers to the requirements for a vegetation offset. The offset must: • Contribute gain of 0.084 general biodiversity equivalence units; • Be located within the North Central Catchment Management Authority boundary or

Greater Bendigo municipal district; • Have a strategic biodiversity score of at least 0.658. However, as explained earlier in the report, the existing vegetation contributes to the character and appearance of the area. One of the purposes of this overlay is to protect existing trees and other vegetation. The removal of trees to allow future development on Lots 1 and 2 will compromise the existing setting. Traffic The objectors are concerned that the future construction of dwellings on the proposed lots will generate extra traffic and exacerbate congestion where Halter Court intersects with the service road and also where the service road intersects with the McIvor Highway near the Junortoun Store. The City of Greater Bendigo's Asset Planning and Design Unit has considered the proposal and has commented that the traffic likely to be generated by one additional lot at this location will not cause unacceptable traffic congestion within the area or the nearby road network. Permit Application As stated earlier, a development plan must be approved prior to the issue of a planning permit. The assessment of the application for the approval of a permit in a LDRZ area is very similar to that of the development plan. Issues of neighbourhood character have been addressed earlier in the report. The proposed subdivision would undoubtedly create lots that are far removed from the intent of the DPO4, and subsequently not meet the requirements of the LDRZ, in particular ‘the protection and enhancement of the natural environment and character of the area” (clause 32.03-6).

Conclusion

Based on the assessment of the character of the low density residential area, the area of both proposed lots does not meet the minimum lot size of one hectare and subsequently does not accord with the existing or desired neighbourhood character of Halter Court in the manner required by the Development Plan Overlay 4.


PAGE 83

Options

Council, acting as the responsible authority for administering the Planning Scheme, may resolve to: approve a development plan prior to the issue of a planning permit with conditions or refuse a development plan prior to the issue of a refusal to grant a planning permit.

Attachments

• Objections


PAGE 84

2.4 72 MARONG ROAD, WEST BENDIGO 3550 - DEMOLITION OF DWELLING AND OUTBUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION OF DWELLING


Author Bryce Kilian, Statutory Planner Responsible Bernie O’Sullivan, Director Strategy an d Growth Director

Summary/Purpose

Application details: Demolition of dwelling and outbuildings and construction of dwelling

Application No: DR/658/2016

Applicant: B J Green

Land: 72 Marong Road, WEST BENDIGO 3550

Zoning: General Residential Zone Road Zone 1

Overlays: Heritage Overlay 26

No. of objections: No objections were received.

Consultation meeting:

A consultation meeting was not required.

Key considerations: • Whether the proposal is consistent with the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme;

• Whether the demolition of the existing dwelling will have a detrimental impact on the heritage of the site and greater area;

• Whether the replacement design and orientation is appropriate.

Conclusion: The applicant has appealed to VCAT for 'failure to determine'. This report recommends Council establish the position of not supporting the proposal at the upcoming VCAT hearing. It is the opinion of the assessing officer and the Heritage Advisor that the heritage significance of the place would be lost if the orientation of the existing building is altered.


PAGE 85

RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to section 61 of the Planning and Environment Act (1987), Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to establish the position of refusal, to present to VCAT for the demolition of a dwelling and outbuildings and construction of a dwelling at 72 Marong Road, WEST BENDIGO 3550 for the following reason:

1. The proposal would, by reason of its loss of heritage significance and original siting, be detrimental to the heritage significance of the place contrary to clause 22.06 and 43.01 of the City of Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Policy Context



housing choices.


events and supports arts and cultural experiences.






City records indicate two prior enquiries seeking in-principle approval from a heritage perspective for the demolition of the existing dwelling. On both occasions it was recommended the dwelling be retained due to its heritage significance; the most recent of which was December 2014 and reads as follows:


PAGE 86

“The building is included within the Victoria Hill Mining and Residential Area precinct of the Eaglehawk and Bendigo Heritage Study, 1993. The precinct is of significance due to its mix of residential and mining related structures. The association of the miners’ homes with the mines is an important element. The existing dwelling, or a substantial part of it, should be retained in order to maintain as much as possible any examples of miners’ cottages in the precinct. It would be acceptable to allow the demolition of the lean-to structures on the west side and at the rear of the building and, subject to closer analysis and preparation of an acceptable design for additions, the demolition of the former kitchen. This would retain the main components of the building viewed from Marong Road and allow investment in their conservation whilst allowing development to the rear.

Due to the heritage significance of the building, the City of Greater Bendigo does not support its demolition at this time. However, if you decide to pursue demolition you must apply for a planning permit to demolish the building. Your application must include a heritage assessment prepared by qualified professionals to demonstrate that it cannot and should not be retained.”

Report

Subject Site and Surrounds

The subject site is a sloping, irregular shaped allotment with a frontage to Marong Road (a Category 1 Road Zone – VicRoads road) of approximately 27 metres and a depth varying between 50 and 61 metres, with a total area of 1,235 square metres. The existing dwelling and outbuilding are accessed via a sealed driveway from Marong Road along the eastern boundary of the site. The adjoining lots on Marong Road are zoned General Residential and contain dwellings and are affected by the Heritage Overlay 26 (Calder Highway Precinct) with land to the rear zoned Public Use Zone 7 managed by the City of Greater Bendigo and affected by the Heritage Overlay 27 (Ironbark Precinct).


PAGE 87

Figure 1 : Location map showing subject site. Proposal

The proposal is for the demolition of a dwelling and outbuildings and construction of a new dwelling. Demolition The proposal seeks approval to demolish the existing dwelling on the site in its entirety, including some small ‘lean to’ structures attached to the western side of the dwelling. The existing dwelling, as seen in the aerial photo above and the demolition plans shown below, is not oriented to be ‘square’ to the property boundary with Marong Road, the significance of this will be detailed later in this report.


PAGE 88

Construction of a dwelling The application details the construction of a ‘replication’ dwelling of similar size, proportions, location and look to what is currently in place on the site.

Planning Controls - Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme

The site is in the General Residential Zone and affected by a Heritage Overlay Schedule 26. The demolition and construction of a dwelling requires planning approval as per Clause 43.01 Heritage Overlay.


PAGE 89

State Planning Policy Framework

• 11.05 Regional planning • 11.12 Loddon Mallee South Regional Growth Plan • 15 Built Environment and Heritage • 15.03 Heritage Municipal Strategic Statement

• 21.05 Settlement • 21.06 Housing Local Planning Policies

• 22.06 Heritage Policy Overlay

• 43.01 Heritage Overlay Schedule 26 (Calder Highway Precinct) Other Provisions

• 32.08 General Residential Zone; • 36.04 Road Zone • 65 Decision Guidelines


Referrals The following internal department has been consulted on the proposal:

Referral Comment

Heritage Advisor Support the proposal on the condition that the orientation of the building and the site chimney is retained. The retention of the rear chimney is also preferred.

Public Notification The application was advertised by way of notice on the site and letters to adjoining and nearby owners and occupiers. No objections were received to the proposal.


PAGE 90

Planning Assessment

Does the existing dwelling have heritage significance? The dwelling has been assessed by not less than two separate Heritage Advisors and is mentioned in the relevant heritage study being the Bendigo and Eaglehawk Heritage Study, 1993. The study indicates that the property was constructed circa 1880 placing it amongst the oldest houses in the area. The subject site is also within the Heritage Overlay. The most relevant purposes of the overlay to this proposal are:

• To conserve and enhance those elements which contribute to the significance of heritage places.

• To conserve and enhance heritage places of natural or cultural significance. The decision guidelines of the Heritage Overlay reflect this, with the most relevant being:

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

• The significance of the heritage place and whether the proposal will adversely affect the natural or cultural significance of the place.

• Any applicable statement of significance, heritage study and any applicable conservation policy.

The contributing factor of the dwelling to the significance and heritage nature of the street and planning controls relates to the way the house sits and is oriented on the block in that it is well setback (approximately 22.5 metres), and sits askew. The importance of this orientation is that it indicates that the dwelling was constructed at a time that predated the current property boundaries and road alignments, giving it its heritage significance. Has the demolition been adequately and appropriately justified and will its removal be detrimental to heritage? The proposal seeks demolition of the existing dwelling and in essence a replica of this dwelling constructed as its replacement, though oriented to be ‘square with the front boundary of the allotment. Under normal circumstances, strict application of heritage principles would discourage a proposal to demolish an existing dwelling with heritage significance and reconstruct an almost identical building, however, there are other factors at play in this situation which are detailed below. The condition of the dwelling is quite dilapidated and it would need significant work if it were to be used for habitation again. In determining whether the building is “beyond repair”, consideration was given to a recent Bendigo VCAT decision - CBA Building Designers v Greater Bendigo CC [2010] VCAT 2088 (23 December 2010) - where the tribunal found the following:


PAGE 91

“The tribunal has held that to support demolition of a building with heritage values and a reasonable level of significance, its physical condition should be beyond repair, both physically and economically. It should be in a ruinous condition. Whilst this is not defined, it would reasonably mean that parts of the building would be likely (50% probability) to collapse within the short to medium term if no remedial works are undertaken. The applicant is required to demonstrate the building has reached this threshold of disrepair. The assessment should also be undertaken by heritage practitioners...” (Council’s emphasis added through underlining)

As previously mentioned, the proponents have provided a structural engineer’s report dated 2014 which concludes that;

“….potentially, under severe wind loadings, the existing damage and defects to structural timber framing elements of the overall structural system could lead to collapse or partial collapse of the dwelling…. ….the extent of repair works required to the dwelling to rectify defects and damage to comply with current NCC and Australian Standard requirements is most significant and would effectively constitute a complete re-build from scratch, starting with excavation rectification works. In its current condition, the dwelling presents a significant OH&S risk with regards to the condition of structural framing elements, as discussed above. Such risks will increase with further deterioration of the dwellings condition. Given such risks, and given the extent of rectification works required, it is my opinion that the dwelling should be completely demolished. Given the very poor condition of the dwelling, suitable safety precautions and measures shall be taken by any persons entering the building”

At the time of the above report in 2014 the then Heritage Advisor suggested that the damage was, to an extent, that a significant portion of the dwelling could be demolished though went on to say that the front, original section of the miners' cottage should be retained and made good. In this particular case, the current Heritage Advisor has indicated that the setting of this dwelling, primarily its setback and orientation that has predated the current road alignment is of primary significance. The current advice from the Heritage Advisor suggests that due to the condition of the dwelling, along with further deterioration over the past 2 years, demolition may be supported but that support is conditional. The conditional position put forth by the Heritage Advisor, supported by the Planning officer, was that the demolition and subsequent reconstruction of the dwelling in a replica fashion would only be supported if the significant orientation of the existing dwelling is retained in the new plans. The reasoning behind this was that as long as the primary form and orientation of the dwelling could still be read as original from the street, the significance itself would not be lost therefore the proposal would be appropriate. If the orientation was lost, the significance of the building and site would also be lost.


PAGE 92

This application documentation was also put to the City’s Heritage Advisory Committee (HAC) for their comment and advice. In this instance, the HAC determined that the proposal did not have sufficient merit to warrant support, as such they resolved that the proposal should not be supported. This position was put to the proponents with the justification included in the Heritage Advisor's assessment however no changes to the original plans were made. This being the case, if the form and orientation of the dwelling were lost, the significance of the site would also be lost which does not accord with either the Heritage Policy or the Heritage Overlay of the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme.

Conclusion

The proposal in its current form would result in a detrimental impact on the heritage value of the site and greater heritage precinct through loss of an original dwelling whose positioning pre-dated the current road alignment. For this reason, the proposal is deemed inappropriate and it is recommended Council establish the position of not supporting the proposal at the upcoming VCAT hearing.

Options

In this case, being that the application is to be determined by the Tribunal, Council has the options of establishing a position of either supporting the proposal or not supporting the proposal as presented.

Attachments

• Heritage Advisor's report 2014 • Heritage Advisor's report 2016 • Heritage Advisory Committee Minutes • Structural Engineers report • Plans


PAGE 93

2.5 BENDIGO AIRPORT STRATEGIC PLAN (2017)


Author Rachel Lee, Major Projects Manager Responsible Craig Lloyd, Director Presentation a nd Assets Director

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to endorse the Bendigo Airport Strategic Plan (2017); acknowledge the contribution of the Bendigo Airport Advisory Committee (2013 – 2017) and support the formation of an interim Bendigo Airport Working Group to advise Council on future governance options.

Summary

The renewed Bendigo Airport Strategic Plan (2017) has been developed to provide a clear set of actions and associated tasks to guide development at Bendigo Airport over the next five years (until 2022). The Plan provides strategic guidance to enable the Bendigo Airport to successfully transition from a registered airport with general aviation activities, to a certified and commercially viable airport that includes Regular Passenger Transport (RPT) services. It also outlines opportunities for the ‘non-airside’ land, which underpins Bendigo Airport’s long term commercial viability. The Bendigo Airport Advisory Committee, appointed by Council in 2013 has recently completed its term and this report seeks to acknowledge their commitment and contribution over the past four years. Recommendations for the successful implementation of the renewed plan, including a focus on a change to governance requirements, are also addressed.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to: 1. Endorse the renewed Bendigo Airport Strategic Plan (2017). 2. Acknowledge the contribution of the Bendigo Airport Advisory Committee (2013-

2017). 3. Support the formation of a Bendigo Airport Governance Working Group.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


PAGE 94

Policy Context

Council Plan Reference: City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013-2017 (2016-2017 Update): Theme 2 Planning for Growth

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

Action 2.1.3 Complete the expansion and upgrade of the Bendigo Airport Stage Two, and continue planning and attraction of funding to progress Stage Three, the Business Park.


Bendigo Airport is located four kilometres north-east of the Bendigo CBD and is a registered airport and home to Bendigo Flying Club, HEMS 3 Air Ambulance helicopter service and DELWP temporary emergency service during fire season, as well as commercial operations including jet charter services and a flying school. Previous development, completed in 2014, included the creation of 25 hangar sites, three taxiways and upgrades to road access and drainage. With the development of the new 1,600m runway complete, opportunity exists to allow 70-seat aircraft to fly in and out of Bendigo and encourage further economic development to the region. The third stage in developing the Bendigo Airport will include the addition of a business park, expected to include airside commercial (five lots), airport compatible business (16 lots) and private hangars (68 lots). The Bendigo Airport Master Plan (2007) and current Bendigo Airport Strategic Plan (2009) have driven key actions to date including: • Purchase of three neighbouring properties to accommodate the development of a

new high capacity north-south runway. • Adopting new property lease arrangements for Bendigo Airport to improve business,

investment certainty and revenue generation. • Attracting a number of new tenants including the new charter company My Jet, which

has invested more than $1.5M at Bendigo Airport. • Construction of 25 new hangar sites in Precinct 1 – General aviation. • Appointing a dedicated Airport Manager for the first time in the life of Bendigo Airport.


PAGE 95

• Improving the main road entrance, erecting new fencing, and installing new apron line markings and signage in accordance with Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) requirements.

• Refurbishment of the former airport terminal building – currently vacant and ready for

first stage of Regular Passenger Transport (RPT) operation. • Reviewing and amending the planning scheme and associated strategic direction to

ensure capital works and future services are supported by land use planning. • Completing detailed (tender ready) engineering design and preliminary costing on

the proposed business park. • Attracting co-funding support from all three levels of government for the Stage 2,

$15M runway realignment and associated capital works, and works completed. A renewed Strategic Plan for Bendigo Airport is required to ensure the appropriate resources are in place to enable the next phase of project delivery, operational management and investment attraction. Previous Council Decision(s) Date(s): June 2005 Resolved Airport location

June 2009 Adopted Bendigo Aerodrome Master Plan (2007-2022) and Bendigo Airport Strategic Plan (2009)

March 2011 Adopted Bendigo Airport leasing policy

February 2012 Adopted preferred new runway alignment and indicative budget

March 2013 Appointed Advisory Committee members for project

February 2014 Resolved to request Minister to Authorise and Exhibit Planning Scheme Amendment C175 and planning permit

March 2014 Supported Bendigo Airport financial sustainability recommendations

December 2014 Resolved to request the Minister to appoint an independent Panel to consider submissions

November 2015 Acknowledgement of 2014/15 Annual Summary of Operations Report

January 2016 Appointment of Head Contractor – Runway Development

October 2016 Acknowledgement of 2015/16 Annual Summary of Operations Report

Report

Establishing and expanding Bendigo Airport as a key transport hub is a priority for the region and strongly supports its aspiration for Greater Bendigo to be the world’s most liveable community.


PAGE 96

Cities the size of Bendigo require sophisticated transport methods and there is a long-held local ambition for Bendigo Airport to support the movement of residents and visitors, and the freight of goods and services both nationally and internationally. Strong growth in Bendigo’s diverse economic base, including health care, financial and insurance services, and professional services continue to drive job creation, population expansion and established business activity. These factors underpin the importance of continued investment in Bendigo Airport. As Bendigo Airport expands its own services and Bendigo as a destination, there is a mandate to ensure it is financially sustainable and profitable. This renewed Strategic Plan sets out a clear vision, objectives and priority actions to drive this transformation of Bendigo Airport. Bendigo Airport’s vision is: To link passengers and freight within the Loddon Campaspe region to national and international destinations. Objectives in the renewed Plan include: • Becoming a transformative community asset, acknowledged as a pivotal community

resource that supports a diverse and robust economy underpinned by prosperous and connected communities.

• Ensuring delivery of the highest levels of safety and security in regard to airport

operations. • Creating value (financial and in-kind) that is aligned with the regional economy

through a range of credible, profitable and viable economic activities supporting a range of passenger, freight and general aviation services.

• Extending essential community services for emergency and natural disaster

responses. • Engaging proactively with the community to ensure Bendigo becomes a thriving

transport hub that is valued by the community. • Being the preferred travel method for interstate and international visitors travelling to

and from Bendigo and the Loddon Campaspe region. • Being a major generator of employment and other economic benefits for Bendigo

and the Loddon Campaspe region through providing quality transport facilities and services including freight.

• Ensuring we continue to enhance the range of facilities, products and services

offered to meet customer expectations.


PAGE 97

The vision and objectives will be achieved through a range of actions aligned to the following strategic directions: Strategic Direction 1 Connected and active regional transport hub Infrastructure investment at Bendigo Airport is central to repositioning the asset to a transport hub that links passengers and freight within the Loddon Campaspe region to national and international destinations. Engagement through a co-ordinated marketing and investment attraction strategy will be critical in achieving this objective. Opportunities exist to explore Public Private Partnership investment opportunities, particularly for regular travellers or regular freight customers. Ensuring the terminal building is fit for purpose and meets the needs of increased use of visitors to the region will be critical for future investment. Strategic Direction 2 Transformative operations and project delivery The future of Bendigo Airport will result in increased complexity of operations. Adaptive resourcing strategies will be required to support the increasing level of operational intensity across the Bendigo Airport. Ensuring Bendigo Airport meets regulatory compliance standards as it transitions from a registered to a certified airport with increased CASA involvement is fundamental to manage ongoing operations and attract new investment. The development of the business park is currently limited by site constraints, particularly provision of adequate infrastructure services. Actions that de-risk Precinct 3 and ensure development can proceed as planned will be important for attracting future investment. Strategic Direction 3 Ongoing financial viability Bendigo Airport precinct must operate with a sustainable economic focus and be financially viable into the long term. Benefit to the community must be clearly reflected, accounted and appreciated in any regular review of Bendigo Airport. During the construction phase, there were limited income growth opportunities, compared with outgoing operational and capital expenditure. Revenue from existing tenants provides an important annual contribution to Bendigo Airport’s operations. Opportunities exist to further investigate and define a fees and charges structure to diversify and extend income through new revenue sources. Increasing alignment between Bendigo Airport and the business community will be important to strengthen freight-related business activity through Bendigo Airport and within the proposed Precinct 3 business park.


PAGE 98

Strategic Direction 4 Governance for the future The current operational structure for Bendigo Airport resides with the City of Greater Bendigo, supported until now by Bendigo Airport Advisory Committee. This paring co-ordinated alignment between the Council’s economic vision for the Bendigo Airport and specialist community, aviation and airport advice. Existing governance arrangements have been effective in planning and attracting significant investment for the redevelopment of the Bendigo Airport (Stage 2). However pressure points are forecast for the Bendigo Airport, specifically associated with RPT service delivery, Stage 3 Land Development and ultimately the most appropriate ownership/management structure to benefit Bendigo Airport long term. Consideration to be made to establish a Board of Management to ensure that Bendigo Airport is supported in its immediate and ongoing need for commercial and technical development. An interim working group including a Councillor is proposed to discuss range of governance models for Council consideration. Timelines: A summary of the actions arising from the development of the plan is provided within the body of the document, which details key actions, dates and a process for monitoring and review. Risk Analysis: A renewed Strategic Plan for Bendigo Airport is required to ensure the appropriate resources are in place to enable the next phase of project delivery, operational management and investment attraction.


The Bendigo Airport Strategic Plan (2017) was developed in close consultation with Bendigo Airport Advisory Committee and key City of Greater Bendigo staff, including the Airport Manager.


PAGE 99


The preparation of this Plan was covered in Bendigo Airport’s annual operations budget. Resourcing for the implementation phase of this Plan will be through operational budgets, capital bids, commercial partnerships and grants. Ultimately, the focus on sustainable economic management of Bendigo Airport that lessens the requirement for government support is a priority of this renewed Strategic Plan.

Attachments

1. Bendigo Airport Strategic Plan (2017)

Presentation and Vibrancy / Productivity / Sustainability - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 17 May 2017

PAGE 100

3. PRESENTATION AND VIBRANCY

Nil.

4. PRODUCTIVITY

Nil.

5. SUSTAINABILITY

Nil.

Leadership and Good Governance - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 17 May 2017

PAGE 101

6. LEADERSHIP AND GOOD GOVERNANCE

6.1 CONTRACTS AWARDED UNDER DELEGATION


Author Lee Taig, Contract Support Administrator, C ontract and Project Coordination Unit

Responsible Kerryn Ellis, Director Corporate Perfo rmance Director

Purpose/Summary

The purpose of this report is to provide information on contracts recently awarded under delegation.

RECOMMENDATION

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

Policy Context

Delivery of programs, projects and services that respond to community needs. Council Plan Reference: City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013-2017 (2016/2017 Update): Theme: 1 Leadership and good governance Strategic Objective: 1 Council demonstrates leadership in its decisions to meet

future needs and challenges Strategy 1.1 Good governance principles are used to guide strategic decision-making


PAGE 102

Report

Contract No Project Successful Contractor Value (GST Excl)

Delegated Officer Date Signed

Capital Contracts

CT000310

Bendigo Indoor Aquatic Project – Design & Construct Water Main Upgrade

Regional Management Group Pty Ltd

$114,839.92 Craig Lloyd 01 March 2017

CT000314 Myers Flat Road Bridge Replacement

North East Civil Construction Pty Ltd

$188,437.64 Craig Lloyd 03 March 2017


PAGE 103

6.2 RECORD OF ASSEMBLIES


Author Peter Davies, Manager Executive Services Responsible Craig Niemann, Chief Executive Offic er Officer

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.

RECOMMENDATION

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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Policy Context

Council demonstrates leadership in its decisions to meet future needs and challenges.


The Local Government Act provides a definition of an assembly of Councillors where conflicts of interest must be disclosed. A meeting will be an assembly of Councillors if it considers matters that are likely to be the subject of a Council decision, or, the exercise of a Council delegation and the meeting is: 1. A planned or scheduled meeting that includes at least half the Councillors (5) and a

member of Council staff; or 2. an advisory committee of the Council where one or more Councillors are present. The requirement for reporting provides increased transparency and the opportunity for Councillors to check the record, particularly the declarations of conflict of interest.


PAGE 104

Report

Meeting Information Meeting Name/Type

Councillors' Briefing

Meeting Date 27 March 2017 Matters discussed 1. Further induction to Statutory Planning (gaming

applications and consultation meetings) 2. Epsom-Barnadown Road 3. Victoria Lane 4. Four Seasons Waste 5. Aspinall Street flooding 6. Heritage Strategy and Review of Terms of Reference for Heritage and Advisory Committee 7. Development Contributions Plan 8. Restructure 9. Insurance matter 10. Draft Community Plan 11. Creative Victoria

Attendees/Apologies

Councillors Cr Margaret O'Rourke Cr Jennifer Alden Cr Matt Emond Cr George Flack Cr Rod Fyffe Cr Julie Hoskin Cr Andrea Metcalf Cr James Williams Cr Yvonne Wrigglesworth

Staff/ Community Representatives

Mr Craig Niemann Mr Bernie O'Sullivan Mr Craig Lloyd Ms Kerryn Ellis Ms Vicky Mason Mr Peter Davies Mr Ross Douglas

Conflict of Interest disclosures

Matter No.

Councillor/officer making disclosure Councillor/officer left meeting

Nil


PAGE 105

Meeting Information

Meeting Name/Type

Sustainability and Environment Advisory Committee

Meeting Date 4 April 2017 Matters discussed 1. Mine de-watering

2. Committee membership 3. Community grants 4. Committee Terms of Reference 5. Bushcare Incentive Program 6. Council Plan Environmental Sustainability section 7. Bendigo Sustainability Awards 8. Simon Corbell Roadshow 9. State Biodiversity Strategy 10. Wanyarram Dhelk Project 11. Curly Pond Weed and Ibis - Lake Weeroona 12. Fruit Fly 13. CoGB Public Health and Wellbeing Plan

Attendees/Apologies

Councillors Cr Rod Fyffe Cr Andrea Metcalf Cr Jennifer Alden


Mr Bernie O'Sullivan Mr Anthony Sheean Ms Nycole Wood/ Mr Geoff Caine Ms Jess Milroy Ms Kathryn Stanislawski Mr Chris Weir Mr James Shaddick Ms Pamela Beattie Mr Colin Smith Apologies: Ms Robyn Major/ Mr Greg Butler


Matter No.


Nil


PAGE 106

Meeting Information

Meeting Name/Type


Meeting Date 5 April 2017 Matters discussed 1. Insurance matter

2. Protected disclosure 3. Restructure 4. CBD public disorder 5. Draft Ordinary Agenda review and planning matters 6. Community Plan 7. External Budget final review 8. Community buildings, reserves and facilities 9. Outcomes of Whipstick Ward Tour 10. Campaspe Street, Elmore

Attendees/Apologies

Councillors Cr Margaret O'Rourke Cr Jennifer Alden Cr Matt Emond Cr George Flack Cr Rod Fyffe Cr Julie Hoskin Cr Andrea Metcalf Cr James Williams Cr Yvonne Wrigglesworth


Mr Craig Niemann Mr Bernie O'Sullivan Ms Vicky Mason Mr Craig Lloyd Mr Michael Smyth Mr Peter Davies Apologies: Ms Kerryn Ellis


Matter No.


Nil


PAGE 107

Meeting Information

Meeting Name/Type


Meeting Date 12 April 2017 Matters discussed 1. Community Grants Program Round 2

2. Meeting with the Youth Council 3. Health and Wellbeing Planning 4. Presentation on the Bendigo Soldiers Memorial Project 5. Bendigo to Kilmore Rail Trail 6. Presentation on All Saints Church and the Boardwalk at Lake Weeroona 7. Discussion with Federal Member for Bendigo, Lisa Chesters 8. Junortoun Community Plan 9. Community Plan 10. Meeting with developers 11. Regional City Commonwealth Games Bid 12. NDIS Expo 13. Policing in CBD 14. Timber seats in Hargreaves Mall 15. Hackathon

Attendees/Apologies

Councillors Cr Margaret O'Rourke Cr Rod Fyffe Cr George Flack Cr Andrea Metcalf Cr James Williams Cr Jennifer Alden Cr Julie Hoskin Cr Matt Emond Cr Yvonne Wrigglesworth


Mr Craig Niemann Mr Bernie O'Sullivan Mr Craig Lloyd Mr Michael Smyth Ms Vicky Mason Mr Peter Davies Apology: Ms Kerryn Ellis


Matter No.


Nil


PAGE 108

Meeting Information

Meeting Name/Type

Heritage Advisory Committee

Meeting Date 20 April 2017 Matters discussed 1. Plan Greater Bendigo briefing

2. Heritage Advisory Committee presentation to Council 3. 'Heritage through the lens' photo competition 4. Heritage Advisory Committee Terms of Reference review 5. Councillor update 6. Strategy update 7. Remembrance Parks Victoria and Trades Hall

Attendees/Apologies

Councillors Cr Matt Emond Staff/ Community Representatives

Dr Dannielle Orr Ms Trudy Rickard/ Ms Helen Ashby Mr Laurie Brown Ms Elaine Doling Mr Jordan Grenfell Ms Kay MacGregor Dr Di Smith Mr Rod Spitty Mr Calum Walker Apologies: Ms Emma Bryant Mr Trevor Budge/ Mr David Bannear Mr Darren Wright


Matter No.


Nil


PAGE 109

Meeting Information

Meeting Name/Type

Consultation meeting

Meeting Date 7 March 2017 Matters discussed Planning application DR/912/2016

42-44 Galvin Street, BENDIGO 3550 Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a four storey building comprising 8 dwellings

Attendees/Apologies

Councillors Cr Margret O’Rourke Cr Yvonne Wrigglesworth Cr George Flack


Shannon Rosewarne Applicant Objectors


Matter No.


Nil

Attachments

Nil


PAGE 110

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

Nil.

agenda ordinary meeting of council - city of greater bendigo...page 1 venue: can be obtained online...

Documents