m3 - 3 april 2012 - minutes - alpine shire council · ordinary council meeting m3 – 3 april 2012...

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES

M3 – 3 April 2012

Bright Council Chamber

7:30pm

Ordinary Council Meeting M3 – 3 April 2012

94

The next Ordinary Meeting of the Alpine Shire Council was held in the Bright Council Chambers, Great Alpine Road, Bright on 3 April 2012 and commenced at 7:30 pm.

PRESENT

COUNCILLORS

Cr Peter Roper – Mayor

Cr Jan Vonarx – Deputy Mayor

Cr Nino Mautone

Cr Tony Keeble

Cr Narda Cain

Cr Daryl Peace

OFFICERS

Mr Ian Nicholls – Chief Executive Officer

Mr Ian Ellett – Director Infrastructure Services

Ms Heather Green – Director Sustainable Development

Ms Lisa Hood – Executive Assistant to Director Corporate and Community


95

TABLE OF CONTENTS / AGENDA

1 OPENING PRAYER AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF TRADITIONAL CUSTODIANS . .................................................................................................................................... 97

2 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES .................................................................................. 97

2.1 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING – M2 .............................................................. 97

3 APOLOGIES ............................................................................................................... 97

4 OBITUARIES / CONGRATULATIONS ........................................................................ 97

5 DECLARATIONS BY COUNCILLORS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST ....................... 97

6 QUESTION TIME ........................................................................................................ 98

7 PRESENTATION OF REPORTS BY OFFICERS........................................................ 99

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER – IAN NICHOLLS ....................................................... 99

7.1.1 Contracts Approved by the CEO ............................................................... 99

7.1.2 Procedural Policy Exceptions Contracts Approved by the CEO ............. 102

7.2 DIRECTOR CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES – TREVOR BRITTEN .......................................................................................................................... 104

7.2.1 Youth Council ......................................................................................... 104

7.2.2 Council Plan review 2012/13 .................................................................. 106

7.3 DIRECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES – IAN ELLETT ........................... 108

7.3.1 Invitation to Tender CT 12/016 – Supply and delivery of Emulsion to the Alpine Shire Council .......................................................................................... 108

7.4 DIRECTOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT – HEATHER GREEN ............... 110

7.4.1 Use the land for the purpose of extracting groundwater in bulk at 58 Glandford Road, Buffalo River and exporting the water off site for bottling ....... 110

8 ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS .............................................................................. 141

9 PRESENTATION OF REPORTS BY DELEGATES .................................................. 142

10 GENERAL BUSINESS .............................................................................................. 143


96

11 MOTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN GIVEN ....................... 143

12 RECEPTION AND READING OF PETITIONS .......................................................... 143

13 DOCUMENTS FOR SEALING .................................................................................. 144


97

1 OPENING PRAYER AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF TRADITIONAL CUSTODIANS

The CEO read the opening prayer and acknowledged the traditional custodians.

2 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

2.1 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING – M2

Cr Tony Keeble Cr Jan Vonarx

That the minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting No 2 held on 6 March 2012 as circulated be confirmed.

Carried

3 APOLOGIES

Mr Trevor Britten – Director Corporate and Community

4 OBITUARIES / CONGRATULATIONS

Cr Jan Vonarx – Obituary Cr Jan Vonarx on behalf of Council extended sympathies to the family of Mr Bob Crisp who passed away after a short illness. Mr Crisp was a local business owner in Myrtleford and Bright and an keen sportsperson. Mr Crisp served as a Councillor under the former Shire of Myrtleford. Cr Peter Roper – Congratulations Cr Peter Roper congratulated Cr Jan Vonarx on behalf of fellow councillors and Council on her appointment as Chair of Timber Towns Victoria. Cr Tony Keeble – Congratulations Cr Tony Keeble extended congratulations to both the Mount Beauty Girls Soccer Team and to Mount Beauty 1st and 3rd Division Cricket team on their win.

Cr Peter Roper requested that letters of congratulations be sent to the Mount Beauty Girls Soccer Team and to the Mount Beauty Cricket Club.

5 DECLARATIONS BY COUNCILLORS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Nil.


98

6 QUESTION TIME

Cr Peter Roper read out the question received earlier during the day from Derek and Barb Butler with respect to the Code Share facility enabling V-line travel by bus from Bright in the afternoon linking with the XPT at Wangaratta to be discontinued.

CEO Ian Nicholls advised that Council officers could investigate the claim and that Council would send a letter in support of the service continuing.

Bernece Delany Questioned what Council would do to support the proposed Bright Hospital Redevelopment?

CEO Ian Nicholls responded and stated that Council would write a letter of support for the redevelopment and would assist in lobbying where possible. Ray Dyer Questioned who was responsible for the recording of the minutes at Council. Mayor Peter Roper responded and stated that a council officer prepares the minutes and that the CEO and Councillors accept them to be a fair and true reflection of the minutes prior to them being released. Ray Dyer Requested permission from the Mayor to approach the bench to hand over a document. Mayor Peter Roper responded and asked Ian Ellett Director Infrastructure Services to address the matter regarding leaking cistern at Jubilee Amenity Block. Cr Daryl Pearce advised the gallery that Councillors had given a commitment to getting the Customer Request Management System (CRM’s) working. Mayor Peter Roper stated that CRM system not currently working as well as intended and once it was working members of the public would be notified. Stuart Hargreaves Was Council aware of the issues regarding the bus timetable outside the Alpine Hotel and they were in the process of being cut. CEO Ian Nicholls responded by stating that the question was raised by Mr and Mrs Butler and that it was being responded to. Ray Dyer Raised that the Rail Trail in Myrtleford was missing from the new edition of the Yellow Pages. Mayor Peter Roper and CEO Ian Nicholls responded and noted.


99

7 PRESENTATION OF REPORTS BY OFFICERS

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER – IAN NICHOLLS

7.1.1 Contracts Approved by the CEO

Cr Nino Mautone Cr Narda Cain

That the Contracts approved by the CEO be noted.

Contract No.:

1200401 Process: Invitation to Tender

Title: Construction of leachate rising main replacement, Myrtleford Landfill

Tenderer Harrington Plumbing Service Pty Ltd

$ (excl. GST) Schedule of rates

Funding: This project is funded from the Capital Works Landfill budget. The estimated budget for this project was $123,900.

Contract No.:


Title: Replacement of roof at the Myrtleford Memorial Hall and Supper Room, Myrtle Street, Myrtleford

Tenderer Muraca Plumbing

$ (excl. GST) $81,208.27

Funding: This project is funded from the Building Projects – Renewal Building Projects – Myrtleford Hall Roof budget. The estimated budget for this project was $75,615, the shortfall will be funded from the Building Maintenance Hall budget and the Community Services budget for works to the Myrtleford Neighbourhood Centre (which is housed in the Supper Room).


100

Contract No.:


Title: Design and construction of upgrade to Nug Nug Bridge to 25T Load Capacity

Tenderer Murray Valley Piling Pty Ltd

$ (excl. GST) $98,800.00

Funding: This project is funded from the Capital Works – Bridges – Nug Nug Bridge upgrade R2R budget line. The estimated budget for this project was $120,000.

Contract No.:


Title: Development of the Alpine Shire Recreation and Open Space Plan

Tenderer Winning Options Pty Ltd trading as Sykes Consulting

$ (excl. GST) $49,971.00

Funding: This project is funded as follows:

50% from DPCD Community Facilities Funding Program 50% from Council’s Capital Works – Strategies and Reviews – Review Recreational Strategy budget line.

The estimated budget for this project is $50,000.

Contract No.:

1201201 Process: Request for Quotation

Title: Supply, delivery and installation of lighting system for one soccer field at the Savoy Soccer Club, Myrtleford

Tenderer Part A- Supply and delivery and Part B – Installation

Bright and District Electrical Service

$ (excl. GST) $26,658.00

Funding: This project is funded from the New Recreational and other Projects – Soccer Facilities Development Projects budget line. The estimated budget for this project was $30,000.


101

Contract No.:


Title: Repairs and rehabilitation of joints in concrete roads at Dinner Plain

Tenderer National Concrete Solutions Pty Ltd

$ (excl. GST) $57,578.60

Funding: This project is funded from the Dinner Plain renewal Projects – Kerb and Road Replacement budget line. The total available budget for these works is $80,000.

Contract No.:


Title: Supply and delivery of emulsion to the Alpine Shire Council

Part B – Supply and delivery of Bitumen Premix

Tenderer Fulton Hogan Industries Pty Ltd

$ (excl. GST) $163.90 per Tonne

Funding: This contract is funded from the Local roads, seal maintenance budget line. The estimated budget for the supply of Bitumen Premix is $11,200 per annum.

Carried


102

7.1.2 Procedural Policy Exceptions Contracts Approved by the CEO


That the Procedural Policy Exception Contracts approved by the CEO be noted.

Contract No.:

1201701 Process: Procedural Exception

Title: Buffalo Creek Road Intersection Stabilisation Works

Tenderer Jasla Pty Ltd

$ (excl. GST) $31,435.00

Funding: This project is partially funded by a developer with a contribution of $27,000. VicRoads will fund the remainder.

Reason: Due to timing and availability of contractor no other quotations were sought.

Contract No.:


Title: Cadastral and feature surveying at the Myrtleford and Porepunkah Landfills

Tenderer Esler and Associates

$ (excl. GST) $13,000.00

Funding: This project is funded from the Waste Renewal Capital expenditure budget.

Reason: Esler and Associates have previously undertaken cadastral and feature survey therefore no further quotes obtained.

Contract No.:


Title: Concrete floor resurfacing and coating, Myrtleford Baling Facility

Tenderer Integral Coatings and Systems

$ (excl. GST) $32,485.00


Reason: Quotes were obtained. Specialised service with limited suppliers. Works required to run concurrently with Waste Baler Maintenance.


103

Contract No.:


Title: Major baler maintenance, Myrtleford Baling Facility

Tenderer Wastedrive Equipment Pty Ltd

$ (excl. GST) $34,346.00


Reason: Only company in Australia which supports the baler machine.

Carried


104

7.2 DIRECTOR CORPORATE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES – TREVOR BRITTEN

7.2.1 Youth Council

File Number: 1081.07

INTRODUCTION

The Youth Council convened for its second meeting on 14 March 2012. A copy of the minutes is attached as attachment 7.2.1 (c).

Cr Jan Vonarx Cr Tony Keeble

That the minutes of the Youth Councils March 2012 meeting be received.

Carried

BACKGROUND

Matters discussed at the meeting included:

Events

A report of recent youth events included: � The success of the ‘Mount Beauty Skate Jam’. � Due to inclement weather the ‘150 Minutes of Music’ which was due to be held

in Bright was cancelled. This event has been rescheduled and will take place on April 1.

The youth councillor in charge of the events portfolio discussed future events in 2012 and elected a ‘Facebook Group Coordinator’ to facilitate the Events Management and Organisations Team Facebook meetings.

Finally, the Ovens and King Community Health Youth Worker reported on the success of the ‘Pushover’ event. Twenty-four young people were bussed to the Pushover music festival which is an annual event held in Melbourne.

Council Consultation

� Proposed changes to the Social Networking Guidelines were presented for comment. A copy of the amendment document is attached as 7.2.1 (a).

� Proposed changes to the Youth Council Charter were presented for comment. A copy of the amended charter is attached as 7.2.1 (b).

Youth Council’s response to the Outdoor Smoking Policy was raised and generated a lot of discussion. Primary issues identified for youth included whether smoking should be banned or limited in public spaces such as ski-fields, playgrounds and public transport facilities. In addition, there was much discussion as to what constituted a ‘public’ and a ‘private’ space and what these spaces represented in terms of safety, public relations (with specific reference to Council Chambers) and


105

current legislation. The floor was divided on whether smoking should be banned or limited in these areas. A conclusion was not reached.

On Going Project

The Youth Council has received funding for an ongoing youth project which in 2012 will occur within Youth Week and be focused on Climate Change. In response to key themes identified in the 2011 Youth Climate Change Forum Framework, the project will focus on the ‘Tea Chest to Timor’ which provides recycled items for use by kindergarten children in Timor. The project was discussed and a committee of management was formed. Subsequently, planning will be undertaken in preparation for this event.

Changes to Meeting Venues

This issue was raised due to several factors including travel time and available facilities. Following a vote, it was agreed that Youth Council meetings be held at the Bright Council Chamber for a six months trial period and reviewed at the end of this period.

CONCLUSION

Youth Council were pleased with the success of the two events held this year and are looking forward to future events.

Proposed changes to the Social Networking Guidelines and the Youth Council Charter were presented for comment by Junior Council delegates.

Discussion was generated regarding the Outdoor Smoking Policy. A conclusion was not reached, this matter requires further consideration.

It was agreed that for the next six months Youth Council meetings would be held at the Bright Council Chambers.

DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Under Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989, officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest. Both the Manager of Communities and Youth Development Officer declare that they have no disclosable interests in providing this report.

ATTACHMENT(S)

7.2.1 (a) Amended Social Networking Guidelines. 7.2.1 (b) Amended Youth Council Charter. 7.2.1 (c) Youth Council Minutes 14 March 2012

DISCUSSION

Cr Jan Vonarx extended her congratulations to Youth Councillors in relation to portfolios which they had been assigned to. Cr Peter Roper queried Youth Council Mayor the debate regarding the Outdoor Smoking Policy.


106

7.2.2 Council Plan review 2012/13

File Number: 600.03

INTRODUCTION

According to the Local Government Act 1989, the 2009-2013 Council Plan has been reviewed, with minor adjustments proposed. The reviewed document should now be made available for public comment.

Cr Jan Vonarx Cr Narda Cain

That Council:-

1. Notes the proposed adjustments to the 2009-2013 Council Plan, made under Section 125(7) of the Local Government Act 1989, as outlined in Attachment 7.2.2.

2. Gives public notice of the review of the 2009-2013 Council Plan, inviting submissions to be considered in accordance with Section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989.

3. Forms a committee according to Section 223 (1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1989, if required, consisting of Councillors and Directors for the purpose of hearing submissions in relation to the Council Plan review.

Carried

BACKGROUND

The Local Government Act 1989 (the Act) requires Council to prepare and approve a Council Plan after each general election. The Plan must include:

� the strategic objectives of the Council;

� strategies for achieving the objectives for at least a four year period;

� strategic indicators for monitoring the achievement of the objectives; and

� a Strategic Resource Plan.

Section 125(7) of the Act requires Council each financial year to consider whether the current Council Plan requires any adjustment in respect of the remaining period of the Plan. The current review is for the final year of the Council Plan, being 2012/13.

ISSUES

In the process of reviewing the 2009-2013 Council Plan, the adjustments proposed for this review are primarily updating the indicators and outputs for the 2012/2013 financial year. The strategies and initiatives remain unchanged. This provides the community with some of the key activities that Council will be undertaking during the 2012/13 year.


107

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The development of a Council Plan is governed by the Local Government Act 1989. Along with the 2030 Community Vision, it is a major strategic document, outlining the future direction of Council.

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

In accordance with the Act a Strategic Resource Plan forms part of the Council Plan. The Strategic Resource Plan is a four year forward projection of the resources required to deliver Council’s functions, services and capital projects.

CONSULTATION

Section 125(9) of the Act establishes that a person has a right to make a submission on a proposed adjustment to the Council Plan where the adjustment relates to the objectives, strategies and monitoring indicators in the Plan. Given this, Section 223 of the Act requires Council to publish notice of the adjustment to the Council Plan and allow a minimum of 28 days for submissions to be made.

CONCLUSION

According to Sections 125(a) and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989;

• a 28 day period will be allowed for community submissions, and

• persons that make a submission will be given the opportunity to be heard in support of their submission at a Council meeting or by a committee determined by Council.

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1989, the reviewed 2009-2013 Council Plan should now be made available for public comment.


Under Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989, officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest. Both the Director Corporate and Community and Governance Officer declare that they have no disclosable interests in providing this report.

ATTACHMENT(S)

7.2.2 Alpine Shire Council Plan 2009-2013 – Review 2012

DISCUSSION

Cr Jan Vonarx spoke in favour of Council having a five year plan and of its importance and urged members of the community to read the Council Plan.

Cr Narda Cain concurred with Cr Vonarx.


108

7.3 DIRECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES – IAN ELLETT

7.3.1 Invitation to Tender CT 12/016 – Supply and delivery of Emulsion to the Alpine Shire Council

File Number: CT 12/016

INTRODUCTION

This report details the recommendation of a contractor for the supply and delivery of emulsion to the Alpine Shire Council (Council).

Cr Daryl Pearce Cr Nino Mautone

That Downer EDI Works be awarded Contract No: 1201601, for the supply and delivery of emulsion to Council for 3 years for the unit rate price (excl. GST) of $0.980 per litre in year one.

Carried

BACKGROUND

A contractor is required for the supply and delivery of emulsion to Council. Current volumes of CRS Emulsion used is approximately 80,000 litres per year with a storage capacity of 12,000 litres at the Churchill Avenue depot Bright Victoria.

The Invitation to Tender was advertised in the Herald Sun on Wednesday 7 March 2012, and on Council web-site. The tender documents were issued to five contractors.

Two offers were received.

The evaluation panel consisted of the Procurement Coordinator, Procurement Officer, Development Engineer and Manager Public Works and Services.

Tenders were evaluated according to the selection criteria listed in the Invitation to Tender including:

� price

� previous performance

� delivery

� social impact

Following a detailed evaluation a confidential report has been prepared and provided to Council.

ISSUES

The cost of emulsion required for periodic maintenance works on sealed roads and paths is estimated at $80,000 per annum depending on weather conditions.


109

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The Tender was advertised and evaluated according to the Contracts Policies and Procedures Manual.

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

The supply of this product forms part of the works funded from the Local Roads, Sealed Road Maintenance budget. The approximate value of the contract over 3 years is estimated to be $240,000 (excluding GST). The contract is subject to CPI increases.

CONSULTATION

Maintenance sealing works are predominantly carried out as per our Road Management Plan. This includes proactive works from our inspections and reactive works through the Customer Request Management System (CRM’S).

Beyond the general maintenance we also carry out Black Grading works which is a method of dust suppression and addressing some of our problem areas on unsealed roads.

CONCLUSION

Acceptance of the tender from Downer EDI Works is considered to be the best value option for the Alpine Shire Council.


Under Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989, officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest. The Procurement Coordinator, Procurement Officer, Works Coordinator, Manager Public Works and Services and Director Infrastructure Services declare that they have no disclosable interests in providing this report.

ATTACHMENT(S)

7.3.1 Confidential Tender Evaluation Report

DISCUSSION

Cr Daryl Pearce queried how process worked.

Ian Ellett – Director Infrastructure Services responded.

Cr Jan Vonarx queried cost of previous tender.

Ian Ellett – Director Infrastructure Services to make enquiries and report back.


110

7.4 DIRECTOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT – HEATHER GREEN

7.4.1 Use the land for the purpose of extracting groundwater in bulk at 58 Glandford Road, Buffalo River and exporting the water off site for bottling

File Number: Planning Application 5.2012.15.1

Application Number:

5.2012.15.1

Applicant’s Name: Steven Pitts – Mountain H2O

Owner’s Name: Pietro & Angelina Cunico

Address: Lots 1, 2 & 3 PS341560 at 58 Glanford Road, Buffalo River 3737

Land size: 21 hectares

Current use and development:

Dwelling located on Lot 1 setback approximately 100m from Glanford Road. Behind and to the east of the dwelling is shedding and other farm structures which are remnant from the former tobacco production.

Site features: The site is cleared and used for beef cattle grazing.

Why is a permit required?

To use the land for the purpose of extracting groundwater in bulk and exporting the water for offsite bottling. The Alpine Planning Scheme defines this as Utility Installation which is a Section 2 use under the Farming zone which requires a planning permit. A planning permit is also required to undertake alterations to the Glanford Road and Buffalo River Road intersection as Buffalo River Road is in a Road Zone 1.

Zoning: Farming zone (FZ) and Road Zone 1 (RDZ1) at proposed location of intersection works.

Overlays: Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO)

Restrictive covenants on the title?

Nil

Date Received: 17 January 2012

Statutory Days: 63

Planner: Sam Porter


111

Cr Narda Cain Cr Mark Steven

That Council issues a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit for the use and development of land for a Utility Installation (bulk water extraction) and alteration to a Road Zone 1 Access on Lots 1, 2 & 3 PS341560 at 58 Glanford Road, Buffalo River, and at the Intersection of Glanford Road and Buffalo River Road in accordance with the conditions outlined in Appendix A.

Condition 7 be changed to read:

Truck movements to and from the site must only take place between:

• 7am and 7pm Monday to Friday

• No truck movements on Saturday, Sunday or public holidays


No more than 10 truckloads (20 movements) of water to occur in a single day without prior written consent of the responsible authority.


Truck movements must not occur along Buffalo River Road during school bus travel times.

Condition 23 be changed to include the words:-

…………except as described below: before the use commences…………

Carried

A division was called for by Cr Daryl Pearce by show of hands:-

For: Cr Tony Keeble, Cr Peter Roper, Cr Mark Steven and Cr Nino Mautone

Against: Cr Narda Cain, Cr Jan Vonarx and Cr Daryl Pearce

REASONS FOR THE RECOMMENDATION

The proposal is an appropriate use within the Farming zone.

The impacts of the proposal and the effect on the amenity of the nearby residents and the rural residential properties along Buffalo River Road can be minimised through conditions on the planning permit.

Glanford Road and its intersection can be suitably upgraded to cater for the use of B-Double trucks prior to the commencement of the use.


112

PROPOSAL AND BACKGROUND

It is proposed to extract groundwater from the subject land in bulk. The water will be extracted from existing bores and then directed to proposed storage tanks which are to be housed within a new shed. Four tanks, each containing 50,000l of ground water and associated pump and filtration equipment will be housed in the newly proposed shed. The shed will be 21m long and 10m wide. The shed will also have a 5m wide canopy running the entire length of the shed to provide a covered formalised loading area.

The extraction of water in bulk falls within the meaning of Utility Installation.1 Clause 74 of the planning scheme defines a Utility Installation as:

‘Land used … to collect, treat, transmit, store, or distribute water’.

The use of the term “utility” conjures up a perception that the use is to be undertaken by a public entity, however, the Tribunal stated in Learmonth Springs Pty Ltd v Yarra Ranges Shire Council [2002] VCAT 564 that:

‘29. Although the use of the term ‘utility’ can infer that this is a public installation

to be used as a public service such as for gas or electricity, the term ‘utility’ also has the meaning of something useful, having the capacity to satisfy a human want, the ability of a thing to satisfy the needs or gratify the desires of a majority, a useful thing. There is nothing within the definition in the planning scheme that indicates it should be strictly referred to only in terms of a public service. What is proposed is the collection treatment, storing and distributing

of spring groundwater for sale to the public, a utility installation.’

The subject land currently holds two water licences, a 39mega litre (ML) ground water licence and a 81ML surface water licence. As a separate process to the planning permit application, the applicant will be required to apply to Goulburn-Murray Water (G-MW) for the amendment of ground water licence to allow commercial use. It is also understood that the applicant intends to pursue the conversion of the existing surface water licence into a second commercial ground water licence. This is done by the surface water licence being surrendered and a ground water licence issued in its place. Should this occur GM-W will have approved a total of 120ML for commercial extraction.

It is proposed to transfer the water offsite to Albury for bottling and human consumption. Water will be transferred using B-Double trucks. The applicant has proposed the use of B-Double trucks to reduce movements.

1 The Tribunal has supported this definition for similar proposals in Learmonth Springs Pty Ltd v Yarra Ranges Shire Council, Bennett v Macedon Ranges Shire Council and Valentine v Baw Baw Shire Council and Myrtleford Springs Pty Ltd v Alpine SC (19 July 2011).


113

A new entry into the subject land will be constructed to enable the access and exiting of trucks in accordance with the VicRoads Guidelines for Truck Access to Rural Properties. The access will be located 30m east from the western boundary of the subject’s land or 450m east of the Glanford and Buffalo River Road intersection.

An internal ring road which will allow the trucks to enter and exit the site in a forward motion is proposed. Upon entering the site, the trucks will turn left and move in a clockwise direction. In doing this, the trucks will pull up beneath the proposed shed canopy for filling. Figure 1.1 below shows the proposed layout and access of the proposed utility installation.

It is known that the water will be delivered to Albury. The haulage route beyond Myrtleford has not been detailed in the planning application submission, however, the approved B-Double roads as shown on the VicRoads website would suggest that the route would be Myrtle Street (Great Alpine Road), Prince Street (Myrtleford-Yackandandah Road) and Yackandandah-Wodonga Road.

The application proposes a maximum of 12 B-Double trucks (24 movements) per day with an average of 8 trucks (16 movements). The trucks movements are proposed to occur between the following hours:

• 7am to 10pm Monday to Friday • 7am to 7pm on weekends.

Figure 1.1 Above details the proposed site layout for the proposed use


114

In addition to the permit requirements for the utility installation, a permit is also required to modify the Glanford Road intersection. The modification must be undertaken to allow for the entering and exiting of B-Doubles to and from Buffalo River Road. These works are required to be undertaken in conjunction with the upgrade of Glanford Road which includes partial alignment changes. The proposed alignment and works at the Glanford Road intersection are shown below in Figure 1.2.

Figure 1.2: Proposed Glanford Road intersection works


115

SUBJECT LAND AND SURROUNDS

The subject land is located at 58 Glanford Road, Buffalo River, (see Figure 1.3). The land comprises of three lots being Lots 1, 2 and 3 on PS341560.

Lot 1 contains an existing dwelling. Numerous sheds, some specifically built in the past to facilitate the propagation of tobacco, are located on Lot 2. These sheds are closely clustered just to the east of the existing dwelling. The remaining area of Lot 2 is cleared and used for grazing. Lot 3 where most of the utility installation will be set up is currently cleared and also used for grazing purposes.

To the north of the land is the Glanford Road reserve which runs parallel with Sandy Creek. The surrounding land to the north and directly to the east is also largely cleared, slightly undulating and used for the grazing of stock. South of the land is State Park which is completely covered in remnant vegetation and has a northerly aspect. The western abutting land has a number of large dams and has historically been used for a range of horticultural production.

Surrounding the Glanford Road intersection are four small defacto rural living allotments, (see Figure 1.4). Each lot contains a dwelling with little or no association with the surrounding agricultural land uses. The northern edge of the intersection has multiple cypress trees overhanging the road reserve and partially impeding view lines to the north. View lines to the south from the intersection are uninterrupted.


116

Figure 1.3: Subject Land

Figure 1.4: Glanford and Buffalo River Road intersection

SUBJECT LAND

GLANFORD ROAD INTERSECTION


117

The subject land is located approximately 18km south of Myrtleford and 4.5km north of Lake Buffalo. Aside from some rural living zoned land on the high side of Buffalo River Road that stops about 6km south of Myrtleford, the Buffalo Valley is zoned Farming, and agriculture is the predominate land use. Figure 1.5 below shows the zoning of the Buffalo Valley.

Figure 1.5: Buffalo Valley Zoning

FARMING ZONE

PUBLIC CONSERVATION AND RESOURCE ZONE

RURAL LIVING ZONE

ROAD ZONE 1


118

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

The application was advertised in accordance with Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Notice of the application was sent to 12 surrounding landowners and occupiers, and a notice was published in the Myrtleford Times newspaper.

Fourteen objections and one submission by Indigo Shire Council were received (see Figure 1.6 for location of objectors).

A planning forum was conducted on 19 March 2012 with the majority of objectors attending.

During the forum, a short summary of the proposal, the relevant planning provisions, the objections and application process were presented.

G-MW was invited to attend the meeting as it was foreseen that many questions would be more relevant to the water licensing process under the Water Act 1989. GM-W declined to attend the planning forum. Opportunity was given to participants to ask questions and make statements. Council officers answered questions and clarified issues and the forum provided an opportunity for those Councillors in attendance to hear the communities’ views and concerns about the proposal.

The applicant also attended the meeting. The applicant answered a wide range of questions and clarified a number of concerns objectors held about the development.

The application has been dealt with in an open and transparent manner with all the applicant’s submitted information being publicly available on Council’s website.


119

Figure 1.6: Shows the location of objectors in relation to the subject site


120

REFERRALS

Referrals/Notice Advice/Response/Conditions

Section 55 Referrals The application was referred under Section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and Clause 66.02-6 of the Alpine Planning Scheme to G-MW as the subject land is located within a Special Water Supply Catchment Area as listed in Schedule 5 of the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994. The role of G-MW in planning permit referrals is to consider the impact of a use or development on water quality; as such G-MW has consented to the grant of a permit subject to the inclusion of three permit notes.

The application was referred under Section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and Clause 66.03 of the Alpine Planning Scheme to VicRoads as an alteration of an access to a RDZ1 (Buffalo River Road) is proposed. VicRoads has provided conditional consent subject to the inclusion of five conditions.

Internal/ external referrals The application was referred to Council’s

Development Engineer. The Development Engineer reviewed the Traffic Impact Assessment Report and supporting information and consented to the grant of the permit subject to conditions, which are proposed to be included in the Notice of Decision.

The application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health Department. Council’s Senior Health Officer has reviewed the submitted information, visited the site and granted conditional consent.


121

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

State Planning Policy Framework

The State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) provides little guidance to the assessment of applications for water extraction and use. This is largely due to the fact that the Victoria Planning Provisions (planning schemes) are not the tool or legislation that controls the taking and/or use of water. The Water Act 1989 (the Water Act) is the legislation that controls the taking use of groundwater within Victoria. Section 1 of the Water Act states that the relevant purposes are:

‘(c) to promote the orderly, equitable and efficient use of water resources;

(d) to make sure that water resources are conserved and properly managed for sustainable use for the benefit of present and future

Victorians.’

Section 51 of the Water Act provides for applications to be made by persons for a licence to ‘take and use’ water including groundwater. The Minister for Water or a delegate (G-MW acts as the delegate to the Minister for Water within the Alpine Shire) is to make the decision whether or not such a licence is to be granted or refused under Section 55(1) of the Water Act.

An application to take and use groundwater requires consideration of a wide range of matters set out under Section 40(1)(b) to (m), Section 53 and Section 55 of the Water Act.

Section 40(1)(b) to (m) states:

‘(b) the existing and projected availability of water in the area;

(ba) the permissible consumptive volume, if any, for the area;

(c) the existing and projected quality of water in the area;

(d) any adverse effect that the allocation or use of water under the entitlement is likely to have on-

(i) existing authorised uses of water; or

(ii) a waterway or an aquifer; or

(iii) the drainage regime within the meaning of section 12(1); or

(iv) the maintenance of the environmental water reserve in accordance with the environmental water reserve objective;

(e) any water to which the applicant is already entitled;


122

* * * * *

(g) the need to protect the environment, including the riverine and riparian environment;

* * * * *

(i) the conservation policy of the government;

(j) government policies concerning the preferred allocation or use of water resources;

(ja) whether the proposed source of water is within a heritage river area or natural catchment area within the meaning of the Heritage Rivers Act 1992 and whether there is any restriction on the use of the area under that Act;

(k) if appropriate, the proper management of the waterway and its surrounds or of the aquifer;

(l) the purposes for which the water is to be used;

(m) the needs of other potential applicants.’

In assessing planning applications for bulk water extraction, the criteria of the Water Act cannot be considered. These matters can only be considered by GM-W or the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) if an appeal is lodged with regards to a licence application. This issue was discussed by the Tribunal in Learmonth Springs Pty Ltd v Yarra Ranges Shire Council [2002] VCAT 1043:

‘23. The Tribunal considers that in relation to the extraction of groundwater there

is no requirement for a planning permit under the planning scheme. There is specific legislation namely the W A [Water Act] that deals with water and in particular the extraction of groundwater. Because there is no reference within the planning scheme to the extraction of water this does not result in the need to treat extraction as a use that does require a permit. There is a specific authority and specific legislation which has been enacted by Parliament to deal with the taking and use of water and this is dealt with by way of a licence system. The Responsible Authority in relation to the planning scheme is not the responsible authority in relation to the consideration of issues associated with the taking and use of water under the

W A.’

The SPPF at Clause 14.02 states that planning is ‘[t]o assist the protection and, where possible, restoration of catchments, waterways, water bodies, groundwater, and the marine environment.’

If the planning system is to assist in the protection of groundwater, it is important to consider the context in which the SPPF refers. As such, further analysis of the


123

strategies underneath this objective must be undertaken as an objective should not be interpreted in isolation. The relevant strategies include:

‘Ensure that land use activities potentially discharging contaminated

runoff or wastes to waterways are sited and managed to minimise such discharges and to protect the quality of surface water and groundwater resources, rivers, streams, wetlands, estuaries and marine environments.

Discourage incompatible land use activities in areas subject to flooding, severe soil degradation, groundwater salinity or geotechnical hazards where the land cannot be sustainably managed to ensure minimum impact on downstream water quality or flow volumes.

Prevent the establishment of incompatible land uses in aquifer recharge or saline discharge areas and in potable water catchments.

Encourage the siting, design, operation and rehabilitation of landfills to

reduce impact on groundwater and surface water.’

From the reading of these strategies it can be ascertained that the reference to groundwater within Clause 14.02 is in regards to the protection of it from contaminates. Clause 14.02 is concerned with land use and development and ensuring that it does not affect the quality of groundwater; it is not concerned with the use of groundwater.

As an example of reinforcement of this position, G-MW received a Section 55 referral (mandatory) as required by the Alpine Planning Scheme. As a result of this referral, G-MW has given unconditional consent to the proposal and only required the inclusion of three notes to be placed at the bottom of any permit potentially issued. Furthermore G-MW’s letter of response contained the following context statement:

‘G-MW’s areas of interest are surface water and groundwater quality, use

and disposal. G-MW requires that development proposals do not impact detrimentally on the flow and quality of surface water and groundwater, and that any required water supplies are available from an approved

source’

The issue of water conservation is addressed at Clause 14.03 of the SPPF. The objective is:

‘To ensure that water resources are managed in a sustainable way.’

Common issues raised from both the written objections and the planning forum was around the use of the water; more specifically the bulk extraction process, transportation to Albury and the bottling for human consumption. The use of groundwater for human consumption is not a foreign concept; there are 80 cities and towns across Victoria that use groundwater as their water supply. Despite this however, the SPPF through its strategies does not mention water use in this regard. The strategies outlined are:


124

‘Encourage the use of alternative water sources such as rainwater tanks,

stormwater and recycled water by governments, developers and households.

Ensure the development of new urban areas and green spaces takes advantage of any opportunities for effluent recycling.

Protect areas with potential to recycle water for forestry, agriculture or

other uses that can use treated effluent of an appropriate quality.’

A submission was received from a neighbouring primary producer against the proposal raising the issue of the taking of water from agriculture. Some form the view that water should only be used for agriculture and that the extraction of water in bulk is akin to an industrial use. This issue was considered by the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) in Learmonth Springs Pty Ltd v Yarra Ranges Shire Council [2002] VCAT 564. The Tribunal, which consisted of Senior Member Rickards and Hewet, stated:

‘34. The Tribunal considers that the intent of the policy is that a commercial or

industrial use ought only be established in a Rural zone if it is directly associated with an agricultural activity being conducted on land. In this respect the Tribunal considers that the reference to agricultural activity could encompass the concept of extracting spring groundwater from its source. In this respect the reference in the planning scheme to agricultural production as being any form of primary production of renewable commodities could encompass the using of a natural resource that is found specifically on this

land.’

Therefore, it is considered that the extraction of water, being agricultural production, is consistent with the state policy for agriculture.

The planning scheme at Clause 72 defines agricultural production as:

‘Any form of primary production of renewable commodities. It does not

include extractive industry, mining, or timber production from native

forest.’

The issue of using water at its source and the sustainable use of water has become more relevant during the extended period of drought which Victoria recently experienced. Many Victorian and Australian government strategies and reports support the notion of the sustainable use of water at its source. The planning scheme however is not the regulatory framework that deals with the taking and use of water; this is controlled by the Water Act and therefore by G-MW.

Local Planning Policy Framework

The Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) contains little direction and policy for the use of water within the Alpine Shire. Clause 21.03-5 does include the strategic direction to:


125

‘maintain and protect the Shire’s agricultural land resources and promote

sustainable expansion in rural products and value adding at the source.’

It has been established that the extraction of water does constitute agricultural production and therefore the question is whether or not this proposal fails to value add at the source.

Value adding at the source could mean that the water must be bottled onsite or at a minimum within the Shire. This would then increase the economic benefit to the community as it would require a larger workforce to operate compared to the current proposal which can be operated by the driver of the truck.

Zone

The subject land is zoned Farming pursuant to the Alpine Planning Scheme. The purpose of the zone is:

‘To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local

Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

To provide for the use of land for agriculture.

To encourage the retention of productive agricultural land.

To ensure that non-agricultural uses, particularly dwellings, do not adversely affect the use of land for agriculture.

To encourage use and development of land based on comprehensive and sustainable land management practices and infrastructure provision.

To protect and enhance natural resources and the biodiversity of the

area.’

A Utility Installation is a use which falls within the Section 2 of the Farming zone (FZ) Tables of Uses and therefore requires a planning permit. A planning permit is also required to construct or carry out building or works associated with a Section 2 use. Therefore, the construction of the building (the utility installation) and its subsequent infrastructure such as the new access and driveway also require a planning permit.

The zone contains decision guidelines under five headings. The relevant decision guidelines include:

How the use or development relates to sustainable land management.

Whether the site is suitable for the use or development and whether the proposal is compatible with adjoining and nearby land uses.

Whether the use or development will support and enhance agricultural production.

Whether the use or development will permanently remove land from agricultural production.


126

The impact of the proposal on the natural physical features and resources of the area, in particular on soil and water quality.

These decision guidelines raise some important issues to consider:

Is the taking of groundwater for bottling and human consumption sustainable and is this something that the planning scheme can control?

The issues of the amount of water and its use, particularly as bottled water, and the effect of extraction on groundwater supply are matters that are not relevant or within the discretion of consideration. G-MW is the relevant authority to consider such issues in the assessment of the application of the licence required under the Water Act.

Is the proposal compatible with the surrounding area?

The subject land and freehold surrounds are zoned Farming. However, at the Glanford Road intersection in particular, it is apparent that a number of small properties exist. This cluster of small FZ properties have little to no association with any agricultural production. Properties of this nature are often referred to as ‘defacto rural living lots’, in that their ability to primary produce has been taken away. Therefore, is it reasonable to consider the impacts of agricultural activities on small rural land holders?

A recent decision also within the Alpine Shire specifically dealt with an issue like this. However, it was even more significant as the Rural Living Zone (RLZ) was a direct interface with the subject land and also along much of the initial haulage route. This matter was considered before VCAT in Myrtleford Springs Pty Ltd v Alpine SC (Correction) [2011] VCAT 1267 (19 July 2011) where members E. Bensz and David stated:

18 We consider this fundamental to our decision. The Rural Living Zone is one of four rural zones, with the Farming Zone, the Rural Conservation Zone and the Rural Activities Zone. We consider that it is not reasonable for residents in the Rural Living Zone to expect to dictate how land use in adjoining farming land is conducted through to the use of rural roads by trucks.

VCAT found that it was unreasonable to consider agricultural impact upon RLZ residents. It is therefore concluded that the agricultural land use concerns of the residents of defacto rural living properties at the Glanford Road intersection in particular are difficult to consider.

The proposal intends to operate seven days a week between 7am and 10pm Monday to Friday and 7am to 7pm Saturday to Sunday. The only other commercial activity in the valley that operates extensive hours is HVP with its harvesting of softwood plantations. HVP presently operates trucks along Buffalo River Road without any planning permit restrictions. Is it therefore reasonable to restrict commercial activity and haulage of produce along a series of roads already approved for the use of B-Double freighting. But it is important to note that HVP trucks do not operate all year round.


127

It is important to put into context the dominant use of the Buffalo River Valley. The area is in the FZ and agricultural in nature and contains a major arterial road through the middle. The Alpine Planning Scheme must facilitate orderly planning and development rather than obstruct. It is considered unreasonable to place substantial restrictions on a commercial entity that needs a degree of flexibility to operate viably and will ultimately be controlled by the availability and licensing constraints on the water. It is noted that VicRoads has not raised any other comment on the basis of more truck movements along Buffalo River Road.

Amenity can be impacted upon by noise. It is considered that the noise generated from the proposal will be negligible and Council has been provided with an acoustic report that demonstrates that noise emissions will be consistent with the relevant EPA guidelines given the proposed operation hours.

Will the proposal permanently remove the land from agricultural production?

The area of accessway works catering for visiting trucks and the utility installation building will be confined to a fenced off area measuring approximately 80m by 65m. This equates to an area of around 5,200m2. The remaining acreage of property will be able to continue to operate in its current capacity. As the development is considered a form of agriculture and the remaining farmland will continue to be grazed no agricultural land is being removed. It is considered that the proposal can be viewed as diversification of agriculture. It may even give rise to a more financially stable agricultural enterprise resulting in ongoing improvements to land management and further investment opportunities.

Will the proposal impact on the resources of the area?

The resource in this instance is water. As previously discussed, the Planning and Environment Act 1987 does not contain the legislation that deals with water in this context. This is dealt with by the Water Act and therefore the impact of the proposal on water resources cannot be considered as part of this planning permit application.

Road Zone 1

The intersection works are within RDZ1 and must be considered via a planning permit process. Clause 52.29 lists the following relevant decision guidelines:

‘The views of the relevant road authority.

The effect of the proposal on the operation of the road and on public

safety.’

The application as referred to VicRoads and conditional consent has been granted with some conditions requiring more design detail. The VicRoads proposed conditions are included under Appendix A at the rear of this report.

Whilst the site lines at the intersection are acceptable based on the relevant standards, VicRoads verbally suggested to Council that the trees to the north of the intersection be pruned to improve site lines. The level of pruning likely to occur will be taken into consideration by Council Engineers should a permit be issued and


128

final design drawings submitted. All tree pruning would take place within the bounds of the road reserve. Images of the works area in the RDZ1 are shown in Appendix B at the rear of this report.

Overlays

The entire subject land is covered by the Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO). Under the requirements of Clause 44.06-1, a planning permit is not required under the overlay for either the construction of a utility installation or alteration to an accessway to a RDZ1.

General Provisions

Clause 65 of the Alpine Planning Scheme provides the decision guidelines that must be considered before deciding on an application. The decision guidelines that are appropriate to consider in this instance include:

‘The orderly planning of the area.

The effect on the amenity of the area.’

The orderly planning and amenity of the area are discussed within the FZ section in considering the suitability of the use within the FZ and what restrictions should apply to the development.

RESPONSE TO GROUNDS OF OBJECTION

Fourteen objections and one submission from Indigo Shire Council were received. Each submission has been considered. There has been a range of issues brought to Council’s attention. The planning system however has limited scope to consider all these issues. The issues which cannot be considered as part of the planning permit process are:

• effects on the quantity of groundwater;

• property depreciation; and,

• economic benefit to the community.

The issues which can be considered are detailed below:

Noise

Pre-application advice to the applicant recommended that an acoustic report be prepared for the proposed use and development.

Noise Consulting and Management Pty Ltd was commissioned by the applicant.

The potential noise emissions were assessed against the EPA N-3 “Interim

Guidelines for Control of Industrial Noise from Industry in Country Victoria” and the


129

Draft Guidelines for Noise from Industry in Regional Victoria (this document is proposed to supersede the EPA N-3 guidelines).

The report considered the dwellings around the Glanford Road intersection and others are listed below:

• 1682, 1715, 1724, 1722, 1751 Buffalo River Road

• Dwelling opposite 1751 Buffalo River Road

• 58 Glanford Road

The report compared the two guidelines to determine which provides the most stringent noise limits. In this instance the most stringent noise limits are (based on the relevant recommended operation approval periods):

• Day 7:00am – 6:00pm (1:00pm on Saturday) – 38dB(A)

• Evening 6:00pm - 10:00pm or 1:00pm – 10:00pm on Saturday – 37dB(A)

Noise levels taken at both 1751 Buffalo River Road and 58 Glanford Road were (effective noise level)

• Day – 23dB(A)

• Evening – 36dB(A)

It is therefore concluded that noise levels will be compliant for surrounding landholders residents in accordance with the most stringent noise limits of both the

‘EPA N-3 “Interim Guidelines for Control of Industrial Noise from Industry in Country

Victoria” and the Draft Guidelines for Noise from Industry in Regional Victoria.

Traffic

One of the most significant issues for the objectors is the proposed level of truck movements along Buffalo River Road and the movement of slow trucks at the Glanford Road intersection.

The planning application stated intentions to have a maximum of 18 trucks per day operate. The applicant stated at the planning forum that this number was in actual fact intended to be only a maximum of 12 trucks (24 movements) per day.

As previously stated the applicant supplied a traffic impact assessment report as a part of the submitted planning documentation. The assessment report found that the proposed truck movements (now reduced) are able to be safely accommodated along Glanford Road subject to some isolated widening. It has also been previously stated that Council’s Engineering Department is satisfied that suitable upgrades can occur to Glanford Road ensuring it is suitable for B-Double truck traffic. Once a truck is on Buffalo River Road it is able to maintain a haulage route along an approved B-Double route all the way to the bottling plant at Albury.


130

Having established that suitable road ways are either available or can be upgraded to cater for the proposal it is appropriate to consider truck movement numbers. Twelve trucks between 7am and 7pm Monday to Saturday is considered satisfactory for the following reasons:

• The commercial activity is for agricultural produce to be freighted through an agricultural area (FZ).

• The transportation route will be contained to a VicRoads approved B-Double route and Glanford Road, which is capable of being upgraded.

• 7am to 7pm is representative of what residents in Myrtleford for example would generally experience in regards to truck movements.

• Should the applicant gains water licences for the extraction of a 120ML, the reduction of applied for hours to 7pm rather than 10pm and the exclusion of Sunday (and public holidays) will still permit the complete use of any issued water licences.

• The permit if issued will include conditions controlling the use of exhaust brakes on trucks along Buffalo River Road, and disallowing truck movements along Buffalo River Road between its intersection with Buffalo Creek Road and Back Creek Road during school bus run periods.

Hours of Operation

In considering whether the hours of operation are appropriate Council should consider the context of the area that is farming. In the Farming zone agricultural production can occur 24 hours a day, however, it is rare that an agricultural use operates 24 hours a day 365 days per year, it is normally a seasonal operation and therefore amenity impacts are not extended throughout the year. The proposed operation does not operate on a seasonal basis and the extraction and transfer of water could operate 24 hours a day if permitted.

Previously Council granted a planning permit for bulk water extraction in 2009 for a property in Mount Beauty area. The recommended hours of operation by officers was 7am to 6pm Monday to Saturday. The permit also allowed 12 truck loads (24 truck movements) per day within these hours.

VCAT also considered the recent nearby water extraction proposal in Buffalo Creek Road where the FZ and Rural Living zone interface was a contentious issue. In Myrtleford Springs Pty Ltd v Alpine SC, members Bensz and David considered 7am to 7pm Monday to Friday and 7am to 5pm on Saturday’s acceptable. No truck movements were permitted on Sundays or public holidays.

Having considered the farming context of the area, the applied for maximum of 12 truck loads per day is deemed appropriate. The operation hours are proposed to be reduced given the close proximity of a large number of dwellings to Buffalo River Road. The business operator will still have the ability to condense and cart the required amount of water in each twelve hour block. Sunday is generally observed as a period of decreased business activity even in a rural setting. Should the applicant accept the time operation restrictions, then it is considered that the level of amenity within the Buffalo River Valley will be retained for residents.


131

Impact on road surface

The applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Assessment Report. Council’s Engineering Department has reviewed the independent assessment and has consented to the traffic movements occurring based on the inclusion of conditions. Council’s Development Engineer in addition to the recommendation of the submitted report is requiring Glanford Road to be upgraded with a suitably designed road base and seal. This will allow for the safe travel of trucks to and from the subject land along Glanford Road.

Rural lifestyle properties V’’’’s agricultural land use interface

The issue of amenity due to the location of various defacto rural living properties at the Glanford Road intersection in particular have been addressed earlier in this report. It is considered that the changes in operation hours as suggested earlier is a satisfactory outcome. Given the FZ status of all the surrounding freehold land this adjustment in the proposals operation is sufficient.

Land holders and residents within the FZ particularly those not associated with agriculture must accept the surrounding commercial nature of the FZ. A high level of residential amenity cannot be guaranteed in the Farming Zone.

Glanford Road Intersection safety concerns

During the planning forum many residents expressed a concern for the safety of road users in the Glanford Road intersection area and generally along Buffalo River Road. Concerns raised in most instances were in part impacted by the proposed truck movements in conjunction with existing poor road use practices. The correct road use and enforcement of those disobeying road rules is enforced by the Victorian Police. The planning permit process is unable to be used to solve these issues.

The road safety now and in the future was heavily emphasised by attendees of the planning forum. On behalf of these residents Council intends to take up the issue with VicRoads as a separate matter.

VicRoads has verbally suggested the pruning of vegetation on the road side north of the intersection around the Sandy Creek Bridge. Vegetation pruning in this area would improve sight lines through this section of road and reduce any likely incidents occurring. A condition will be placed on any permit issued to require the applicant to undertake suitable vegetation pruning.

CONCLUSION

It is concluded that the proposal is compliant with the Alpine Planning Scheme and can be supported subject to conditions. In summary this decision has been arrived at given the following statements:

The objections have been considered and they are either not able to be considered within the bounds of the planning system or don’t hold enough significance to justify the refusal of the planning permit application.


132

Glanford Road will be upgraded to Council’s standards in order to cater for the proposed B-Double traffic.

The utility installation area will be landscaped to soften the visual impact of the facility.

The maximum daily truck numbers will not exceed 12. This number of daily truck movements in a rural production area is not unreasonable.

Trucks must not operate beyond 7pm or on Sundays and public holidays.

The works to the RDZ1 entrance are able to be dealt with by a set of VicRoads conditions and Council will work with the applicant to assist with the improvement of northerly sight lines.

The report outlines clearly what can and cannot be considered according to the requirement of the Alpine Planning Scheme. In the context of this planning application these distinctions are very important to understand.


Under Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989, officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest. Both the Director of Sustainability and Senior Statutory Planner declare that they have no disclosable interests in providing this report.

DISCUSSION Cr Narda Cain spoke of her concerns regarding the extraction of water from the aquifers and where it goes and eventually no water will flow into the rivers. Water cannot continually be taken away from its source. Cr Mark Steven stated that it had no economic benefit to Council. Cr Jan Vonarx spoke on the impact and amenity of the residents and reduced truck movements and no movements on weekends and public holidays. Cr Daryl Pearce expressed concern about the impact on amenity to concerned residents. Steven Pitts – General Manager Mountain H2O was given the opportunity to respond to concerns raised by Councillors. Mr Pitts requested a change to hours of operation to include Sundays and Public Holidays (with exception of Christmas and Good Friday) to ensure the viability of the business. Cr Daryl Pearce acknowledged Mountain H2O’s contribution to sporting clubs. Cr Nino Mautone put forward to the mover that trucks be allowed to operate until 12:00 midday on Saturday. This was not accepted by Cr Narda Cain.


133

Appendix A

1) The layout of the site and the size of the proposed use and buildings and works must be generally in accordance with the endorsed plans which form part of this permit. The endorsed plans must not be altered or modified (whether or not to comply with any statute statutory rule or local law or for any other reason) without the consent of the responsible authority.

2) Before the development starts, a landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plan must show vegetation to soften the developments appearance from Glanford Road and prevent headlight spill onto neighbouring land. The plan must include:

• A survey (including botanical names) of all existing vegetation to be retained and/or removed.

• Buildings and trees (including botanical names) on neighbouring properties within three metres of the boundary.

• Details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways. • A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers,

including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant.

• Landscaping and planting around the subject shed and new internal access road.

• The means of watering/irrigation proposed to be used.

All species selected must be to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

3) The use and development must be managed so that the amenity of the area is not detrimentally affected, through the:

(a) transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land;

(b) appearance of any building, works or materials;

(c) emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil; and,

(d) presence of vermin.

4) Noise emissions from the use and development must not exceed those required

under the stricter of the requirements of either the EPA N-3 “Interim Guidelines for

Control of Industrial Noise from Industry in Country Victoria” or Draft Noise from

Industry in Regional Victoria.

5) Storage tanks must only be contained within the proposed shed.

6) Water must not be bottled on site.

7) Truck movements to and from the site must only take place between:

• 7am and 7pm Monday to Friday. • 7am and 7pm Saturday • No truck movements on Sunday or public holidays


134

8) External lighting must be designed, baffled and located so as to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

9) No more than 12 truck loads (24 truck movements) of water are to occur in a single day without the prior written consent of the responsible authority.

10) Vegetation north of the proposed intersection around the Sandy Creek Bridge must be pruned to improve sightlines through this section of roadway. All pruning must be done with both the approval and permission of the responsible authority and Vicroads.

11) Truck movements must not occur on Buffalo River Road between its intersection with Buffalo Creek Road and Back Creek Road during school bus travel times on that road.

12) Unless in the case of an emergency all trucks must not use exhaust brakes along the entire length of Buffalo River Road.

13) Silt fencing material or straw hay bales (staked and keyed into the ground surface) must be placed at the bottom of the construction area prior to the commencement of construction to prevent storm water runoff entering a drainage line. Batters steeper than 2:1 (horizontal : vertical) must have a layer of straw over the entire batter to retain the topsoil.

14) An area for the storage of construction materials must be designated prior to the arrival of equipment and materials onsite. Wherever possible, disturbed areas should be used rather than areas of good quality indigenous vegetation and significant stands of trees. At the completion of construction all excess materials must be removed and the site should be regenerated to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

15) The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.

16) Before the development starts, the areas set aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be:

• constructed • properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with

the plans • surfaced with an all-weather-seal coat • drained • clearly marked to show the direction of traffic along access lanes and

driveways

to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Car spaces, access lanes and driveways must be kept available for these purposes at all times.

17) The loading of trucks must only occur from beneath shed canopy.

18) All car parking spaces and driveways must be designed to allow all vehicles to drive forwards both when entering and leaving the property.

19) Access to the site shall only be at the nominated crossing shown on the endorsed

plan. The access must be constructed in accordance with VicRoads ‘Guidelines for


135

Truck Access to Rural Properties’. The crossing and road pavement works are to be

constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

20) The applicant must ensure no foreign material is carried from the site and deposited on the surrounding public roads by vehicles leaving the site.

21) Within six months of the commencement of the use a public water standpipe must be erected at the entrance to the property to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The standpipe must have the appropriate CFA fixtures so that it can be used by the CFA in an emergency.

COUNCIL ENGINEERING CONDITIONS

Drainage

22) Drainage works associated with this development must be in accordance with the requirements of the relevant authority.

Glanford Road

23) Glandford Road is to be upgraded to accommodate the anticipated the anticipated

traffic generated by this proposal, generally in accordance with the O’Brien Traffic

report of 19 October 2011, except as described below:

• The drawings are to show horizontal geometry and typical cross sections of the road formation and pavement.

• Roadside drainage swales are to be kept as far from the road pavement as practical.

• All new road signs are to be size B.

24) The developer is to have a pavement assessment carried out and is to design the road pavement for a 40 year design life, or use a 300mm pavement thickness, whichever is the greater.

25) The seal is to be a minimum of double coat 14/7 mm with a design life of 12 years and minimum width of 3.7m.

26) A set of construction drawings is to be submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval before any work is carried out on Glanford Road. The drawings are to take into account and show the following:

• The horizontal geometry and typical cross sections of the road formation and pavement.

• Roadside drainage swales are to be kept as far from the road pavement as practical.

• All new roadsigns are to be size B.

27) Once approved and endorsed, construction is to take place in accordance with the drawings, and no changes are to be made without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

28) A specification or extract showing intended construction hold points is to be submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval, in conjunction with the drawings. Once approved, hold points are to be observed.


136

29) At the completion of roadworks, a set of as constructed drawings are to be submitted for filing. These may be in hardcopy to original scale, or in electronic .pdf, .dwg, .dwf or .dxf format.

Access Driveways

30) At the junction of Glanford Road and the property driveway, the geometry is to minimise the shear forces generated by turning vehicles, and/or the junction is to be surfaced with an appropriately selected asphalt or fibredec wearing surface, or approved equivalent, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

General

31) Any work within a road reserve will require a “works within road reserves” permit

from the Responsible Authority [VicRoads for Buffalo River Road (including the Glanford Road intersection), and Council for the balance of Glanford Road].

VICROADS CONDITIONS

32) Before the use and development starts, amended plans must be submitted to and approved by VicRoads. When approved by VicRoads, the plans may be endorsed by the Responsible Authority and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans included as

part of the Transport Impact Assessment prepared by O’Brien Traffic. The plans

must show the intersection between Buffalo River Road and Glanford Road to be modified to include:

(a) Intersection widening and sealing to cater for the proposed B-Double movements.

(b) Rural Basic Left Turn treatment in accordance with Figure 8.2 of the

Austroads ‘Guide to Road Design – Part 4A: Unsignalised and Signalised

Intersection’ in accordance with the findings of the Traffic Report.

33) Before the use commences the intersection must be upgraded as per endorsed plans in accordance with and to the satisfaction of VicRoads and the Responsible Authority.

34) Prior to the commencement of construction of the mitigating works within the arterial road reserve the applicant shall submit an application for consent, in accordance with the Road Management Act (Works and Infrastructure) Regulations 2004, including payment of the prescribed fee (telephone 03 5761 1888 or visit www.vicroads.vic.gov.au for further information). Detailed design plans and specifications shall be submitted with the application for consent, and VicRoads written approval of the plans and specifications shall be obtained prior to commencement of works within the arterial road reserve.

35) Works at the intersection shall be at no cost to VicRoads and shall be completed to VicRoads satisfaction.

36) Works on Glanford Road are to be in accordance with the requirements of Council.


137

EXPIRY CONDITION

37) This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

a) the development and use is/are not started within two years of the date of this permit.

b) the development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.

The responsible authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within three months afterwards.

Goulburn-Murray Water Notes

In accordance with the Water Act 1989 groundwater licence authorised purpose will need to be amended in order for the proposed commercial extraction purpose.

In accordance with the Water Act 1989 surface water licence authorised purpose

will need to be amended in order for the proposed commercial extraction purpose. Application must be made to Goulburn-Murray Water prior to construction of any

dams on the subject land. A licence must be obtained where surface or groundwater supplies are taken and used for commercial irrigation purposes or if a dam is to be constructed on a waterway as defined under the Water Act 1989. For further information, the applicant should contact Goulburn-Murray Water Diversion Operations on (03) 5833 5500.


138

Appendix B


139


140


141

8 ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS

INTRODUCTION

Section 80A of the Local Government Act 1989 defines the requirements for a written record of Assemblies of Councillors to be reported at an ordinary meeting of the Council, and to be incorporated in the minutes of the Council meeting.


That summary of the Assemblies of Councillors for February / March 2012 be received.

Carried

BACKGROUND

The written records of the assemblies held during the previous month are summarised below. Detailed assembly records can be found in Attachment 8.0 to this report.

Date Meeting

28 February 2012 Briefing Session

6 March 2012 Briefing Session

13 March 2012 Briefing Session

19 March 2012 Planning Forum

20 March 2012 Budget Discussion

ATTACHMENT(S)

8.0 Assemblies of Councillors – February / March 2012


142

9 PRESENTATION OF REPORTS BY DELEGATES

INTRODUCTION

Councillor portfolios include representation on various committees where Council has an interest. Delegate reports contain information about meetings attended, and the outcomes from those meetings that affect Council.

Cr Jan Vonarx

Cr Daryl Pearce

That summary of the presentation of reports by delegates for March 2012 be received.

Carried

BACKGROUND

The written records of the delegates reports held during the previous month are summarised below. Detailed delegates reports can be found in Attachment 9.0 to this report.

Date Meeting Councillor

9 March 2012 Rural Land Use Planning Forum Cr Peter Roper

9 March 2012 Timber Towns Cr Jan Vonarx

9 March 2012 Rural Councils Victoria Cr Jan Vonarx

ATTACHMENT(S)

9.0 Presentation of Reports by Delegates – March 2012


143

10 GENERAL BUSINESS

Cr Narda Cain requested that a planning report be prepared and presented to the May Council Meeting outlining how the Planning Scheme can be amended through a Local Planning Policy to provide guidance on the location of bulk water extraction facilities.

Cr Tony Keeble concurred with Cr Narda Cain.

Cr Nino Mautone advised that he would be on holiday for seven weeks.

11 MOTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN GIVEN

In accordance with Councils Local Law No: 1 - Council administration, Cr Daryl Pearce gave notice on 27 March 2012 of a motion to rescind the decision made on item number 7.4.4 “Request to Establish a Deciduous Tree Park in Bright” at Meeting M1 – 7 February 2012.

Cr Daryl Pearce Cr Nino Mautone

Cr Daryl Pearce gave notice on 27 March 2012 of a motion to rescind the decision made on item number 7.4.4 “Request to Establish a Deciduous Tree Park in Bright” at Meeting M1 – 7 February 2012.

The motion to rescind was lost.

A division was called for by Cr Daryl Pearce by show of hands:-

For: Cr Daryl Pearce

Against: Cr Nino Mautone, Cr Tony Keeble, Cr Jan Vonarx, Cr Peter Roper, Cr Mark Steven and Cr Narda Cain

The original motion as presented to M1 – 7 February 2012 meeting remains unchanged.

12 RECEPTION AND READING OF PETITIONS


144

13 DOCUMENTS FOR SEALING

Cr Narda Cain Cr Daryl Pearce

That the following documents be signed and sealed.

1. Contract No: 1106801 in favour of Bridge and Marine Australia Pty Ltd for the Design and Construction of a new concrete road bridge over Glen Creek Dederang.

2. Contract No 1200201 in favour of Barton St Developments Pty Ltd for the Redevelopment of the Pool Hall at the Bright Sports Centre, Bright.

3. Section 173 Agreement between Alpine Shire Council and Border Plant Hire regarding subdivision at Maddisons Lane Mount Beauty.

Carried

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed at:-

8:37 pm

…………………… Chairperson

m3 - 3 april 2012 - minutes - alpine shire council · ordinary council meeting m3 – 3 april 2012...

Documents