ordinary meeting of council agenda 11 december 2012

Agenda for the Ordinary Meeting of Council – Mount Alexander Shire Council – 11 December 2012 Pg 1

AGENDA

FOR THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY 11 DECEMBER 2012

COMMENCING AT 7.30 PM AT THE CASTLEMAINE SENIOR CITIZEN’S CENTRE.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PRESENT 4

2. APOLOGIES 4

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST / CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 4

4. MINUTES 4

4.1. ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL – 27 NOVEMBER 2012 4

5. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 4

6. PETITIONS AND JOINT LETTERS 4

7. COMMITTEE REPORTS 5

NIL. 5

8. ASSEMBLIES OF COUNCILLORS 5

8.1. ASSEMBLIES ON 13, 20, 22 AND 27 NOVEMBER 2012 5

9. OFFICER REPORTS 14

9.1. STRENGTHENING OUR COMMUNITY (COM) 14 COM 33 PROPOSAL FOR COUNCIL TO AUSPICE CASTLEMAINE OUT OF SCHOOL CHILD

CARE 14 COM 34 AWARDING OF GRANTS UNDER COUNCIL’S STRENGTHENING OUR COMMUNITY

GRANTS SCHEME 2012/2013 17 COM 35 AWARDING OF TENDER FOR CONTRACT M908-2012 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF

TENNIS AND NETBALL COURTS AT GUILDFORD 21

9.2. PARTNERING FOR BETTER SERVICES (PAR) 25 PAR 34 APPOINTMENTS TO SPECIAL COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL (SECTION 86

COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT) – CHEWTON COMMUNITY AND SENIOR CITIZENS CENTRE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT 25

PAR 35 APPOINTMENTS TO SPECIAL COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL (SECTION 86 COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT) – METCALFE HALL COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT 27

9.3. ENSURING A PROSPEROUS AND DIVERSE LOCAL ECONOMY (ECO) 29 ECO 09 ADOPTION OF THE CASTLEMAINE COMMERCIAL CENTRE STUDY AND

COMMENCEMENT OF PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C68 29 ECO 10 ADOPTION OF RESTRUCTURE PLANS – GOWER, POLLARD (BRADFORD),

TARILTA, AND WALMER AND COMMENCEMENT OF PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C69 35

ECO 11 CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS AND ADOPTION OF MOUNT ALEXANDER PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C65 (ERROR CORRECTION) 59

9.4. CREATING A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE (FUT) 69 FUT 094 CROWN LAND ADJACENT TO THE BRIDGE STREET RESERVE HARCOURT 69 FUT 095 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 134/2012 – DEVELOPMENT OF A SECOND

DWELLING AT LOT 3 PS043400, 6 MURPHY STREET, CASTLEMAINE (PA134/2012) 73


FUT 096 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION PA051/2012 – THREE LOT SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THREE DWELLINGS, LOT 2 PS615922X, 34A ETTY STREET, CASTLEMAINE 83

FUT 097 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 164/2012 – TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF LAND AT LOT 1 TP14886M, 47 FLETCHER STREET, CASTLEMAINE (PA164/20120) 97

FUT 098 UPDATE ON FLOOD RECOVERY PROGRAM 2012 NUMBER 2 105

10. DELEGATES REPORTS 108

11. NOTICE OF MOTION 108

12. URGENT SPECIAL BUSINESS 108

13. MEETING CLOSE 108

SEPARATE ATTACHMENTS: Confidential Attachment COM 34A: Community Grants Scheme 2012/2013 Panel Assessment of Applications. Confidential Attachment COM 35A: Tender Evaluation Report M908-2012 Guildford Tennis/Netball Court Construction. Separate Attachment ECO 09A: Final Castlemaine Commercial Centre Study, SGS Planning & Economics, 31 October 2012. Separate Attachment ECO 10C: Tarilta Restructure Plan 2012. Separate Attachment ECO 10E: Planning Report September 2012 Restructure Plans for Gower, Pollard, Tarilta and Walmer Restructure

Overlay Areas (PLN Planning).


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

To start the official proceedings I would like to acknowledge that we are meeting on Jaara country

of which the members and elders of the Jaara Jaara community and their forebears have been custodians for many centuries

and have performed age old ceremonies of celebration, initiation and renewal. We acknowledge their living culture and their unique role in the life of this region.

1. PRESENT

2. APOLOGIES

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST / CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

4. MINUTES

4.1. ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL – 27 NOVEMBER 2012

The unconfirmed minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Mount Alexander Shire Council held at 7.30 pm on 27 November 2012 at the Baringhup Community Hall have been circulated to Councillors. The unconfirmed minutes have also been posted on the Mount Alexander Shire Council website, pending confirmation at this meeting.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Mount Alexander Shire Council held on 27 November 2012 be confirmed.

5. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

6. PETITIONS AND JOINT LETTERS


7. COMMITTEE REPORTS

NIL.

8. ASSEMBLIES OF COUNCILLORS

8.1. ASSEMBLIES ON 13, 20, 22 AND 27 NOVEMBER 2012

RECOMMENDATION

That the Records for the following Assemblies of Councillors for the meetings held on 13, 20, 22 and 27 November 2012 be noted (Attachments 8.1, 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4).


9. OFFICER REPORTS

9.1. STRENGTHENING OUR COMMUNITY (COM)

COM 33 PROPOSAL FOR COUNCIL TO AUSPICE CASTLEMAINE OUT OF SCHOOL CHILD CARE

Responsible Officer: Director Economic and Social Development Original Document: DOC/12/98713

1. Purpose

This report requests Council to consider a proposal to provide support for the Castlemaine Out of School Hours Care service to ensure its ongoing viability.

2. Background

Castlemaine Out of School Hours Care is a not for profit association which has provided after school and holiday programs for primary school children for more than ten years. It is the only service of this kind in the Shire. For the past ten years, the service has operated as an incorporated association, run by a volunteer Committee of Management with the support of Council to auspice the processing of staff salaries and benefits. Council has also carried a debt incurred by the service to purchase a bus and has continued to pay staff wages during times of reduced income. The service has been well supported over the years by volunteers, the community and the Winters Flat and Castlemaine Primary Schools. In 2009, after repeated disruptions due to relocation whenever the host school could not afford to allocate a dedicated space for the service, the Committee of Management voted to use its available resources to purchase and refurbish its own premises on a site provided by the Winters Flat Primary School. Recent changes have unfortunately seen the service become progressively less viable under what was formerly a successful model. Attempts to recruit new members to the volunteer Committee of Management have failed to produce the number and capacity of volunteers required to fill all positions required under the constitution for the Association. The increasing burden of mandatory administration and regulations has meant the coordinator and other staff need to spend more time meeting compliance requirements. These additional staff hours, and the loss of volunteer effort that formerly undertook some of the reporting for the service have increased the costs of operating the service and reduced its capacity to pay the existing wages debt to Council. The number of volunteer hours has dramatically reduced in the last six months and also regulatory requirements such as changes to the minimum number of qualified staff required make it difficult to recruit volunteers and sustain a bank of qualified staff required for school holiday programs.

3. Policy and Statutory Implications

Including consideration of Economic, Social and Environmental impacts. Ensuring the viability of the Castlemaine Out of School Hours Care service is consistent with a number of Council strategies, including the Annual Plan. Provision of the service supports families to balance work and child care commitments. Lack of out of hours school care is a barrier to employment or employment flexibility for one and two parent families and can have a negative impact on income levels and on longer term employment prospects as people may have to stay out of the workforce longer than they choose.


Council Plan 2009-2013 The Partnering for Better Services theme includes the strategy “Actively advocate on our community’s behalf to improve service provision and coordination”. The theme Ensuring a Prosperous and Diverse Local Economy includes the intention for people who live in the Shire to be able to work locally or nearby. Health and Wellbeing Plan 2010-2013 One of the four priorities in the Health and Wellbeing Plan is Resilient Local Economies. The goal for this theme is “To create reliant and strong local economies through enhanced skills, a diverse workforce and access to affordable and appropriate housing options.

4. Issues

The Castlemaine Out of School Hours Care Committee of Management has now recognised that the current management model is no longer viable and has been seeking alternative ways for the service to be managed. They have commenced discussions with both Council and Bendigo Regional YMCA (YMCA). The YMCA runs seven out of hours school care programs in Bendigo. They have all the required policies and procedures in place, as well as capacity to support and train staff. The YMCA has been approached by the Committee of Management, and the YMCA CEO has met with the Committee of Management. The YMCA has expressed a willingness and capacity to take on delivery of the service, however they do not want to take over ownership and responsibility for the building or bus currently owned by the service. The possibility of the YMCA delivering the service and leasing the building and the bus from the service was considered, however this would leave the Committee with no income other than rental, and this would make it difficult for the Committee to be able to repay the loan to the Council. A further option is now being proposed which would result in the wind up of the Castlemaine Out of School Hours Inc, once the bus and building ownership had been transferred to Council. The Castlemaine Out of School Hours Care Committee of Management has written to Council requesting that Council take over the overall management of the service and ownership of the assets in lieu of repayment of the outstanding wages debt, and assist in negotiations with the Bendigo Regional YMCA (YMCA) to deliver the program and ensure regulatory and accreditation requirements are met. As the present coordinator has resigned from the position effective from the end of this school term, the Committee of Management needs to resolve the matter of ongoing governance and staffing quickly to provide continuity of service through the school holiday period and beyond. The Committee is therefore seeking a response from Council before any further negotiations can occur. It will take time to negotiate and finalise ongoing management arrangements as well as the transfer of assets. If Council is able to provide an in principle support for the request from the Committee, the Committee will be able to put in place some interim arrangements with the YMCA for the delivery of the service over the summer period until a final management model is in place. Further steps for Council will include a building inspection to determine the ongoing maintenance costs for the building. Negotiation may also be required with DEECD regarding the location of the Out of Hours School Care building at Winters Flat Primary School. Council’s Director Corporate Support has declared an indirect conflict of interest in the preparation of this report, due to her close association with the Castlemaine After School Hours care Services as its Treasurer. Her contribution to this report has been limited to providing financial details from Council’s records and these have been reviewed by the Director Economic and Social Development.


5. Financial and Resource Implications

Castlemaine Out of School Hours Care Inc has net assets of $10,989 as at 30 September 2012. This comprises: • $18,000 current assets; • $25,000 fixed assets (building and motor vehicle); and • $32,000 current liabilities of which $21,000 is a debt to Council for payroll payments, the

balance is staff leave provisions. If Council agrees with the request of the Castlemaine Out of School Hours Care Committee, Council will acquire net assets of $10,989 and will be responsible for the maintenance of the building and the motor vehicle. These costs will be factored into future Council budgets.

6. Consultation

The Castlemaine Out of School Hours Care Committee of Management has met with the CEO of the Bendigo Regional YMCA to discuss the possibility of the YMCA delivering the service. A Committee Member has met with Council’s CEO and Director Economic and Social Development. The Committee has also written to Council outlining proposed arrangements for the delivery of the service. The Committee is seeking the support of Council for this proposal before further consultation with Winters Flat Primary School, existing staff members and the YMCA.

7. Conclusion

The Castlemaine Out of School Hours Care service has been operating in Castlemaine for children from all primary schools in Castlemaine for over ten years. It is an incorporated association with a volunteer Committee of Management. Due to a decrease in the number of volunteer hours being provided to the service, the additional time staff now need to allocate to reporting and the increased costs of complying with the staff model required, the Committee has decided the current management model is no longer sustainable. The Committee has approached Council and the YMCA to consider a model where Council owns the assets of the service and engages the YMCA to deliver the service. The Committee is seeking a response for Council so it can ensure there is continuity of service delivery over the school holiday period and into the new school year for 2013.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. Agree to commence the process to take over the overall management of the Castlemaine Out

of Hours School Care service and ownership of the assets in lieu of the outstanding wages debt with the intention of arranging for the service to be delivered by the Bendigo Regional YMCA;

2. Authorise officers to negotiate these arrangements with the Castlemaine Out of Hours School

Care Committee and the Bendigo Regional YMCA; and

3. Receive a report in March 2013 with the proposed property and management arrangements for the Castlemaine Out of Hours School Care service.


COM 34 AWARDING OF GRANTS UNDER COUNCIL’S STRENGTHENING OUR COMMUNITY GRANTS SCHEME 2012/2013

Responsible Officer: Manager Community Development Original Document: DOC/12/98695

1. Purpose

The purpose of this report is to recommend the awarding of grants to community groups under Council’s 2012/2013 Strengthening Our Community Grants Scheme (CGS). Refer to Confidential Attachment COM 034A: Mount Alexander Shire Council Strengthening Our Community Grants Scheme Panel Assessment of Applications.

2. Background

Each year Council allocates funds to not-for-profit, community organisations through its Strengthening Our Community Grants Scheme (CGS) to support projects and initiatives that provide community benefit to the Shire. There are three funding categories in which Council allocated funds in the 2012/2013 Budget:

1. Community Wellbeing and Culture (total $110,000); 2. Events (total $15,000); and 3. Sustainability and Natural Environment (total $40,500).

Following endorsement of the CGS 2012/2013 funding guidelines by Council at its Ordinary Meeting on 28 August 2012, the funding round opened on 29 August 2012 and closed on 12 October 2012. It was widely promoted through Council’s website, at Council’s customer service locations, through local media and directly to previous grant applicants, Section 86 committees and other groups who expressed interest. A total of three community information sessions were held in Maldon on 11 September 2012 and both day time and after hours sessions in Castlemaine on 13 September 2012.


Including consideration of Economic, Social and Environmental impacts. The objectives of the CGS are informed by the four priorities identified in the Council Plan 2009-2013 as listed below: i. Strengthening our community ii. Partnering for better services iii. Ensuring a prosperous and diverse local economy iv. Creating a sustainable future In addition, there are a number of Council policies and plans that provide a strategic framework for the CGS funding objectives and guidelines: • Health and Wellbeing Plan 2010-2013 • Environment Strategy 2010-2014 • Walking and Cycling Strategy 2010-2020 • Disability Action Plan 2011-2015


• Investing in Sport: A Strategic Plan for Council’s Investment in Sport • Arts Strategy 2011-2015 • Community Services and Facilities Review • Prevention of Violence Against Women In Our Community Project Plan • Heritage Strategy 2012-2016

4. Issues

A total of 101 applications were received by Council when the funding round closed on 12 October 2012. There has been a significant increase in demand across all three funding categories compared to previous years, as reflected through both the number of applications received and the amount sought from Council. The table below provides an overview of the total number of applications received across each funding category, together with recommended funding allocations.

Category No. Applications

Amount Sought

Available Funds

No. Recommended

Recommended Amount

Community Wellbeing and Culture

58 $206,765.95 $110,000 35 $110,574.85

Events 16 $28,300.92 $15,000 12 $14,327.00 Sustainability and Natural Environment

27 $86.353.36 $40,500 14 $37,605.00

Total 101 $321,420.23 $165,500 61 $162,506.85

Of the 101 applications received, a total of $321,420.23 was sought from Council from a total funding pool of $165,500. As the amount of funding that is available is insufficient to meet demand, Council officers reviewed each application on its merits and rejected applications that either were deemed ineligible or insufficiently addressed the selection criteria. Applications that are recommended for approval in Confidential Attachment COM 34A address the selection criteria outlined in the CGS 2012/2013 funding guidelines, including alignment of projects with funding objectives, demonstration of community benefit, capacity to deliver the project and evidence of leveraging funds or resources outside of Council, including provision of in-kind volunteer contributions. Following assessment of applications by Council officers, it is recommended that Council approve a total of 61 grant applications totalling $162,596.85. Under the Community Wellbeing and Culture category, a total of 35 applications are recommended for approval totalling $110,574.85. Under the Events category, a total of 12 applications are recommended for approval totalling $14,327.00. Under the Sustainability and Natural Environment category, a total of 14 applications are recommended for approval totalling $37,605.00. Once Council determines on funding approval, all applicants will be notified of the outcome and funding agreements sent to successful applicants. It is proposed that Council hold a grants celebration ceremony in February 2013 to formally acknowledge grant recipients.


Grant recipients will be required to complete projects and submit acquittals by 30 September 2013, unless agreed otherwise by Council.


In the 2012/2013 Budget, Council approved a total of $165,500 for the 2012/2013 CGS, consisting of a total of $110,000 under Community Wellbeing and Culture; $15,000 under Events; and $40,500 under Sustainability and Natural Environment categories. The funding recommendations are consistent with Council’s budget allocation for 2012/2013.

6. Consultation

A total of three community information sessions were held during the funding round: in Maldon on 11 September 2012 and both day time and after hours sessions in Castlemaine on 13 September 2012. The purpose of the consultations was to provide information about the CGS 2012/2013 funding round guidelines, objectives and eligibility criteria and discuss potential projects and initiatives with community groups. Approximately 30 people attended the community information sessions. An internal Community Grants Working Group met regularly during the course of the year to provide advice on funding objectives and guidelines and the outcomes of the funding round in terms of projects delivered. This group formed the basis of the Grants Assessment Group that met in November 2012 to review grant applications and make recommendations for funding. Council officers involved in the Working Group and the assessment of grant applications include the following: Manager Community Development; Community Development Administration Officer; Community Planner; Rural Access Officer; Recreation Officer; Arts Officer; Youth Officer; Manager Community Activity and Culture; Manager Community Services; Tourism Officer; Economic Development Officer; Manager Economic Development and Tourism; Building Officer; Manager Infrastructure; Environment Officer; Natural Environment Officer; and Manager Healthy Environments.

7. Conclusion

Council’s Strengthening Our Community Grants Scheme (CGS) has been subject to significant changes since 2009 to ensure improved coordination and alignment of Council’s strategic priorities with local community initiatives. The funding round for 2012/2013 saw increased interest from community organisations in the Shire, which has resulted in each funding category being significantly oversubscribed. Officer recommendations have focused on projects and initiatives that satisfy eligibility requirements, address the funding objectives and provide community benefit to the Shire. It is recommended that Council approve a total of 61 grant applications totalling $162,506.85 as follows: a) 35 applications under the Community Wellbeing and Culture category totalling $110,574.85; b) 12 applications under the Events category totalling $14,327.00; and c) 14 applications under the Sustainability and Natural Environment category totalling $37,605.00.


RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Approve the awarding of community grants under the Strengthening Our Community Grants Scheme 2012/2013 as recommended in Confidential Attachment COM 34A;

2. Notify in writing all applicants regarding the outcome of their application; and 3. Arrange a grant presentation ceremony in February 2013.


COM 35 AWARDING OF TENDER FOR CONTRACT M908-2012 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TENNIS AND NETBALL COURTS AT GUILDFORD

Responsible Officer: Recreation Services Team Leader Document Number: DOC/12/96718

1. Purpose

The purpose of this report is to consider and determine the awarding of a contract for tender M908-2012 for Guildford Tennis/Netball Court Construction Project.

Refer to Confidential Attachment COM 35A: Tender Evaluation Report M908-2012 Guildford Tennis/Netball Court Construction.

2. Background

The Mount Alexander Shire Council, supported by funding from the Department of Planning and Community Development and the Guildford Tennis Club, is currently undertaking a major reconstruction project of the existing tennis court facility at Guildford.

The courts were partially improved in 2008 in response to advice received from the Victorian Country Tennis Association advising the Club not to utilise the courts due to their deteriorated condition and non-compliance with standards.

The works will include the appointment of 2MH as Project Managers to oversee demolition of the existing tennis courts and the complete construction of two new tennis courts with one overlaid netball court at the Guildford Tennis Club. The site is located off Ballarat Road Guildford.

Scope of Works

The scope of works included an invitation for the supply and installation of two new asphalt tennis courts and a new overlaid netball court (potentially with an acrylic surface) and all associated works for the reconstruction of the Guildford Tennis Courts.

The specification required that contractors’ submitted price was to include all OH&S requirements, such as documentation preparation, site inspections, audits, and Safe Work Method Statements relevant to each element of the works to be conducted.

The successful contractor is required to complete the entire project. This includes preliminary investigations such as the confirmation of all services within the site, up to final completion of the construction, and approval by Council’s project managers, prior to hand over to Council.

The objectives for this project are as follows:

• The creation of assets within the municipality;

• Design and construction sustainability with respect to materials selection, methodology, and maintenance requirements; and

• Premium quality of construction/installation.

The works within this contract include the following:

• Initial site set-out with Council’s Site Supervisor;

• Completion of site excavations and removal of spoil;

• Construction and compaction of sub-grade and crushed rock base layer;


• Court construction – including total pavement base, drainage infrastructure, root barriers, retaining walls and surface construction works;

• Fence construction works;

• Lighting and electrical conduit works – optional pricing supplied; and

• Ancillary works – supply and install net post, nets and goals.

Tenders closed on Friday 26 October 2012. Five tenders were received for the works.

The works are scheduled to be completed by 30 May 2013.


Including consideration of Economic, Social and Environmental impacts. The tender process has been conducted in accordance to the requirements of Council’s Procurement Policy and Procedures Manual. The adoption of the tender selection criteria within Council’s Procurement Policy and Procedures will increase the completion in the supply of goods, services and products to Council and will ensure the administrative consistency and fairness through transparency in Council’s decision making. Maintaining Council’s recreation facilities is in accordance with the Council Plan 2009 – 2013. The Council Plan includes the following relevant objectives: Creating a Sustainable Future: • to protect our natural environment and minimise our impact on non renewable resources; • to support the overall prosperity of our small towns and communities. Strengthening Our Community: • To enable an active and healthy community by providing appropriate services and facilities.

The Local Government Act 1989 (the Act) provides direction to Local Government Authorities in regards to procurement of goods and services and the awarding of contracts. Section 186 of the Act requires Councils to undertake competitive market testing processes before entering into contracts for goods or services or for the carrying out of works over the value of $150,000. Clause 208 of the Act – Best Value Principles requires Local Government Authorities to comply with the various Best Value Principles, including the need for Council services to meet quality and cost standards. All goods and services purchased by Council must be compliant with the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, the Dangerous Goods Act, Equipment (Public Safety) Act 1987, and associated regulations and codes of practice wherever applicable. As part of Council’s Procurement Procedures, Council officers involved in the tender process including the evaluation of the tender submissions completed conflict of interest and confidentiality declarations to register any perceived or actual conflicts of interests. In this instance no conflicts of interest were declared.


4. Issues

Five tenders were received and the tender evaluation panel undertook a detailed evaluation process to select the preferred tender. Tenders were evaluated using standard Council evaluation criteria, with weightings determined at a pre-tender meeting involving Risk, Finance, Infrastructure and Contracts Units representatives.

Within the tender, two quotes were requested for playing surface finishes. These were:

Option 1 – Acrylic Surfacing; and

Option 2 – Asphalt Surfacing

Four of the five tenders proposed project costs that exceeded the allocated project budget in both pricing options. The fifth tender (Leech Earthmoving), proposed project costs for the asphalt surfacing option that were within project budget parameters.

Leech Earthmoving, in their submission demonstrated the use of sub-contractors with a proven history in the construction of tennis and netball courts.

Based on the tenders received, the evaluation panel reviewed both options for acrylic and asphalt surfacing and determined that based on price, ongoing maintenance and usage of the courts, asphalt was the most cost effective option.

The tender evaluation panel concluded that the experience of the appointed Project Managers 2MH and the identified sub-contractors in the Leech Earthmoving submission would enable a successful outcome.

Refer to Confidential Attachment COM 35A: Tender Evaluation Report M908-2012 Guildford Tennis/Netball Court Construction for the detailed analysis of the tenders submitted.


The preferred tender has a contract value of $169,049.00 (GST exclusive) for Option 2: Asphalt surface. This estimate includes optional lighting work identified in the project specification which is not required to be delivered to meet the conditions for the funding application. These optional works are estimated at $17,645.00 and are not recommended to be included as part of the project deliverables at this time. When the optional lighting work removed from the tender submission the contract value is $151,404.00 (GST exclusive).

In its 2012/2013 Budget, Council has allocated the amount of $100,000.00 and were successful in receiving funding for the amount of $100,000.00 from the Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD).

The delivery of this project has required a pre-tender design process and project management costs to the value of $29,962.70.

Break down of project budget: • Council $100,000.00 • Income received from DPCD $100,000.00 • LESS Expenditure to date ($29,962.70) Sub Total remaining $170,037.30


Therefore Council has $170,037.30 remaining in the 2012/2013 Budget to enable the works to be awarded to the successful tender.

6. Consultation

A tender evaluation committee, consisting of Council officers and two external Recreation and Engineering consultants with extensive tennis and netball court construction experience, assessed the tenders with input from Council’s Procurement Unit and the Risk and Safety Officer. The Committee of Management and representatives of the Guildford Tennis Club were consulted as part of the design process. They were included and kept informed of the progress of the tender specification through onsite meetings, emails and telephone conversations.

7. Conclusion

Council advertised for tenders to construct new tennis/netball courts at Guildford. Five tenders were received. Four were above the budgeted amount for both options. The preferred tender’s option for an acrylic surface was above budget parameters and the second option for asphalt was within budget parameters (GST exclusive). With the optional lighting installation cost removed from the tender, the contract value is $151,404.00 (GST exclusive). Council has resolved to proceed with the tender application for the Guildford Tennis/Netball Court Upgrade. Tenders were evaluated using standard Council evaluation criteria and the preferred tender is Leech Earthmoving for the lump sum contract value, without the optional lighting, of $151,404.00 (GST exclusive).

RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. Award Contract M908-2012 for (Guildford Tennis/Netball Court Construction) to Leech

Earthmoving for a contract price of $151,404.00 (GST exclusive); and 2. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to sign and affix the Common Seal to the contract

documentation for Contract (M908- 2012) for Leech Earthmoving.


9.2. PARTNERING FOR BETTER SERVICES (PAR)

PAR 34 APPOINTMENTS TO SPECIAL COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL (SECTION 86 COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT) – CHEWTON COMMUNITY AND SENIOR CITIZENS CENTRE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT

Responsible Officer: Manager Governance Document Number: DOC/12/96585

1. Purpose

The purpose of this report is to request Council formally appoint the membership of the Chewton Community and Senior Citizens Centre Committee of Management.

2. Background

This Committee is constituted as a Section 86 Committee of Council (pursuant to the Local Government Act 1989 – Section 86 (3) and the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 – Section 41A). The function of this Committee is to control and manage the Chewton Community and Senior Citizens Centre and act as policy development, planning, promotion and coordinating body for the Chewton Community and Senior Citizens Centre. The membership of the Committee, as provided for in its Instrument of Delegation is: 1. The Committee shall comprise of up to twelve members of public appointed by resolution of

Council and one Councillor of Mount Alexander Shire Council. Members are appointed for a five year term, and were last appointed to the Committee in September 2006. The current members are: Phil Mawson President Glenn Braybrook Secretary Rob McNabb Treasurer Richard Johnston Committee Member Dot Pollard Booking Officer Pat Moran Committee Member Patsy Braybrook Committee Member Neil Harrison Committee Member Roy Harbison Committee Member


This Committee was initially formed in order to control and manage Council properties and to act as a policy development, planning, promotion and co-ordinating body for the associated properties. Its powers and administration are governed by an Instrument of Delegation from Council under Section 86 of the Local Government Act (1989).

4. Issues

Council is the only party able to appoint persons to Section 86 committees. Appointment enables insurance coverage from Council’s insurance company and also provides the basis of appropriate governance arrangements for the Committees in accordance with the Local Government Act.


Council wrote to the Committee requesting for updated membership details, as such has subsequently been advised of proposed changes to the Committee membership. At its Ordinary Meeting of 13 November 2012, Councillor Christine Henderson was appointed by Council as the Councillor Representative.


Nil.

6. Consultation

The Chewton Community and Senior Citizens Centre Committee of Management has advised Council of a proposed change to their membership and has requested Council appointment as set out in their Instrument of Delegation.

7. Conclusion

As set out in the Instruments of Delegation, Council appointment of the membership is required. The proposed appointments are consistent with the Committee’s Instrument of Delegation. Only Council can make these appointments.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. Appoint the following persons to the Chewton Community and Senior Citizens Centre

Committee of Management listed for the period ending 15 November 2012 to 14 November 2017;

Name Representative Expiry Date Philip Mawson President 14 November 2017 Roy Harbison Vice President 14 November 2017 Betty Exon Secretary 14 November 2017 Rob McNabb Treasurer 14 November 2017 Patsy Braybrook Committee Member 14 November 2017 Glenn Braybrook Committee Member 14 November 2017 Irene Yerman Committee Member 14 November 2017 Dorothy Pollard Committee Member 14 November 2017 Pat Moran Committee Member 14 November 2017 Tom Taft Committee Member 14 November 2017

2. Write to the Committee confirming these appointments;

3. Write to the returning Committee members being Philip Mawson, Roy Harbison, Rob McNabb

Patsy Braybrook, Glenn Braybrook, Pat Moran and Dorothy Pollard thanking them for their contribution to the Committee and their local community in the last five years;

4. Write to the new Committee members Irene Yerman, Betty Exon and Tom Taft welcoming them

to the Committee; and

5. Write to the retiring members Richard Johnston and Neil Harrison thanking them for their contribution to the Chewton Community and Senior Citizens Centre Committee of Management during their terms of office.


PAR 35 APPOINTMENTS TO SPECIAL COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL (SECTION 86 COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT) – METCALFE HALL COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT

Responsible Officer: Manager Governance Document Number: DOC/12/99093

1. Purpose

The purpose of this report is to request Council formally appoint the membership of the Metcalfe Hall Committee of Management.

2. Background

This Committee is constituted as a Section 86 Committee of Council (pursuant to the Local Government Act 1989 – Section 86 (3) and the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 – Section 41A). The function of this Committee is to control and manage the Metcalfe Hall and act as policy development, planning, promotion and coordinating body for the Metcalfe Hall. The membership of the Committee, as provided for in its Instrument of Delegation is: 1. The Committee shall comprise of up to twelve members of public appointed by resolution of

Council and one Councillor of Mount Alexander Shire Council. Members are appointed for a two year term, and were last appointed to the Committee in August 2010 The current members are: Geoff Smith President Leo Moloney Vice President Dale Rye Secretary Dot Smith Treasurer Ginge Waite Property Officer Phillipa Pleydell Committee Member Max Pleydell Committee Member John Garraway Committee Member Fiona Clapham Committee Member Neil Girvan Committee Member Sue Whittaker Committee Member


This Committee was initially formed in order to control and manage Council properties and to act as a policy development, planning, promotion and co-ordinating body for the associated properties. Its powers and administration are governed by an Instrument of Delegation from Council under Section 86 of the Local Government Act (1989).

4. Issues

Council is the only party able to appoint persons to Section 86 committees. Appointment enables insurance coverage from Council’s insurance company and also provides the basis of appropriate governance arrangements for the Committees in accordance with the Local Government Act. The Metcalfe Hall Committee of Management held its Annual General meeting on 17 August 2012 and has subsequently notified Council of changes to its membership.


At its Ordinary Meeting of 13 November 2012, Councillor Christine Henderson was appointed by Council as the Councillor Representative.


Nil.

6. Consultation

The Metcalfe Hall Committee of Management has advised Council of a proposed change to their membership and has requested Council appointment as set out in their Instrument of Delegation.

7. Conclusion

As set out in the Instruments of Delegation, Council appointment of the membership is required. The proposed appointments are consistent with the Committee’s Instrument of Delegation. Only Council can make these appointments.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. Appoint the following persons to the Metcalfe Hall Committee of Management listed for the

period of 17 August 2012 to 16 August 2014;

Name Representative Expiry Date Geoff Smith President 16 August 2014 Leo Moloney Vice President 16 August 2014 Dale Rye Secretary 16 August 2014 Dot Smith Treasurer 16 August 2014 Ginge Wait Property Officer 16 August 2014 Max Pleydell Committee Member 16 August 2014 Phillipa Pleydell Committee Member 16 August 2014 Fiona Clapham Committee Member 16 August 2014 Neil Girvan Committee Member 16 August 2014 Sue Whittaker Committee Member 16 August 2014

2. Write to the Committee confirming these appointments;

3. Write to the returning Committee members being Geoff Smith, Leo Moloney, Dale Rye, Dot

Smith, Ginge Wait, Max Pleydell, Phillipa Pleydell, Fiona Clapham, Neil Girvan and Sue Whittaker thanking them for their contribution to the Committee and their local community in the last two years; and

4. Write to the retiring member John Garraway thanking him for his contribution to Metcalfe Hall

Committee of Management during his term of office.


9.3. ENSURING A PROSPEROUS AND DIVERSE LOCAL ECONOMY (ECO)

ECO 09 ADOPTION OF THE CASTLEMAINE COMMERCIAL CENTRE STUDY AND COMMENCEMENT OF PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C68

Responsible Officer: Senior Strategic Planner Original Document: DOC12/94607

1. Purpose

The purpose of this report is to enable Council to consider: • Adoption of the Castlemaine Commercial Centre Study (the Study); • Seeking authorisation from the Minister of Planning to prepare Planning Scheme Amendment

C68 to make the changes to the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme to implement the Study; and • Exhibition of the Planning Scheme Amendment C68 once authorisation from the Minister has

been received. Refer to Separate Attachment ECO 09A: Final Castlemaine Commercial Centre Study, SGS Planning & Economics, 31 October 2012.

2. Background

Council has responsibility to plan for the future of the Shire. In order to do this a wide range of strategic studies are undertaken. These studies often overlap and inform each other, and often their implementation involves actions by a number of Business Units across Council. The Walking and Cycling Strategy, for example, has actions spread across Infrastructure, Recreation and Strategic and Statutory Planning and will also have an impact on the Castlemaine town centre.

Council resolved to undertake the Castlemaine Commercial Centre Study as part of the 2011/2012 Strategic Planning program. The Study was predominantly funded by Council, with a contribution from the Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD). After a quotation process, SGS Economics and Planning were appointed to undertake the Study in June 2011.

The two key questions to be answered by the Study were:

• Is there enough land zoned Business 1 Zone (B1Z) in the town centre of Castlemaine to provide for the next 10 to 15 years?

• How can a compact town centre be retained and encouraged?

The Study concluded that there is enough land zoned B1Z in the Castlemaine town centre to meet needs for the next 10 to15 years, but that some land is underutilised. There are two sites, adjacent to the town centre, of adequate size to accommodate future needs. One of these sites is already zoned B1Z, and one could be rezoned if needed. Both of these sites are considered to be consistent with the policy objectives of maintaining the primacy and compactness of the Castlemaine town centre.

The influence of Castlemaine’s context in proximity to the regional City of Bendigo is also recognised in the Study. Key findings of the Study are:

• The Castlemaine population is projected to grow 1.3% annually (an extra 1,643 people) by 2026. • Retailing currently employs approximately 15% of Castlemaine’s residents. • Retailing expenditure per person is projected to increase slowly to 2016 (approximately $10,372

yearly) and then accelerate (to approximately $12,242 yearly) by 2026. • It is estimated that about 6,300m2 of additional retail space could be accommodated in

Castlemaine in the forthcoming 15 year period.


Following an analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to the Castlemaine Commercial Centre the Study recommended six strategies which are detailed in the Issues section of this report.


Including consideration of Economic, Social and Environmental impacts. Mount Alexander Council Plan 2009 to 2013 and Annual Plan 2012 - 2013 The Mount Alexander Council Plan outlines four priorities for 2009 to 2013. These priorities are: • Partnering for better services. • Ensuring a prosperous and diverse local economy. • Creating a sustainable future. • Strengthening our community. The priority of ‘ensuring a prosperous and diverse local economy’ directly relates to the commercial development of Castlemaine, and the Commercial and Retail Strategy for Castlemaine is listed as a potential initiative for the period 2009 to 2013. In addition, under the ‘creating a sustainable future’ priority the Castlemaine Commercial Centre Study is also listed as a potential initiative. Statutory Implications Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act) The purpose of this Act is to establish a framework for planning the use, development and protection of land in Victoria in the present and long-term interests of all Victorians. The Planning and Environment Act 1987 specifies which steps must be undertaken to amend a planning scheme. Section 4(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 sets out the objectives of planning in Victoria, the first of which is to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use, and development of land In order to implement the findings and recommendations of the completed Castlemaine Commercial Centre Study an amendment to the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme will be required. All Planning Scheme Amendments must follow the steps as outlined in the Act and most steps require a Council resolution. The steps are: • Ministerial authorisation; • Notification of land owners, referral agencies and exhibition; • Consideration of submissions; • Appointment of a Planning Panel where required to hear any unresolved submissions; and • Consideration of the Planning Panel Report recommendations and adoption by Council. The final step to include an Amendment in the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme is approval by the Minister for Planning and notification in the Government Gazette.

Mount Alexander Planning Scheme The Mount Alexander Planning Scheme supports the ongoing development of Castlemaine as the highest order centre in the Shire. The Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) at Clause 21.04 - Economic Development states that the role and status of Castlemaine as a regional centre for shopping, business, and community life should be promoted.


The Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) at Clause 22.01 – Castlemaine has the following objectives relating to commercial development: • The primacy of the Castlemaine Central Business District will be protected by reinforcing the

role of the centre and accommodating commercial development within the existing commercial precinct.

• The rezoning of land for business purposes involving substantial retail activities outside the existing commercial business area will not be encouraged.

• The redevelopment of land within the existing retail area will be encouraged. Clause 22.01 notes the following policies for commercial development: • Future commercial development is to be located in Castlemaine town centre so as to strengthen

its role as a regional service centre. • The restoration of shopfronts and sympathetic streetscape design is supported. • Further development of the town centre will need to reflect the existing character of the centre,

especially aspects such as car parking, street furniture, pavements, lighting, tree planting and streetscape aesthetics.

4. Issues

Is there is enough land zoned Business 1 Zone (B1Z) in the town centre of Castlemaine to provide for the next 10 to 15 years? The Study advises that there is sufficient land in the B1Z available to meet projected need. There is a large site, the former bus depot site, adjacent to the commercial centre already zoned Business 1 which is suitable for development but which is currently underutilised. It is proposed that this site be identified in planning and economic policy as the preferred location for major new retail and commercial investment. The Study also identifies the former gasworks site as a site for possible rezoning if required. How can a compact town centre be retained and encouraged? The Study concludes that to maintain the compact nature of the Castlemaine commercial centre, whilst retaining opportunities for convenience shopping, it is necessary to develop and implement a Local Planning Policy to help manage requests for development or rezoning outside of the current town centre. The so called “Retail and Commercial” policy will encourage new commercial development of any size if it is located on land zoned B1Z in the town centre. The policy will also discourage new commercial development within one kilometre of the town centre. It is proposed that a small scale commercial centre (between 200m2 and 1500m2 leasable floor area) should not be established within one kilometre of the town centre. Outside of this buffer, a small scale commercial centre may be established providing it has a catchment of 1500 dwellings, and there are no other small scale commercial centres already located in the catchment. In order to implement these changes to planning policy a Planning Scheme Amendment will be required.


Implementation Plan The table below sets out the strategies proposed and the actions required to implement the recommendations of the Study.

Strategy Action Strategy 1 – Confirm the Castlemaine Commercial Centre as the primary centre in Castlemaine whilst enabling small-scale local commercial centre development outside of the Castlemaine Commercial Centre under certain conditions.

Action 1 – Update the Planning Scheme to reflect the intent and vision of the Strategy by including the text and map shown in section 9.4 (Planning Scheme Policy) of this report in the Planning Scheme.

Strategy 2 – Facilitate more retail and commercial investment along Forest Street.

Action 2 – Identify the former bus depot site and adjacent land in planning and economic policy as the preferred location for major new retail and commercial investment. Action 3 – Prepare a structure plan and design framework to guide future development along the Forest Street and Barker Street corridors.

Strategy 3 – Improve Commercial Centre walkability across Forest and Barker Streets.

Action 4 – In collaboration with traders, the community and VicRoads, undertake a pedestrian access and traffic calming design study to identify ways of better integrating the south side of Forest Street and the west side of Barker Street to the core of the Commercial Centre.

Strategy 4 – Facilitate and support good urban design.

Action 5 – Prepare graphic design concepts and marketing material for Commercial Centre investment possibilities focusing on key sites and redevelopment and restoration opportunities. This should showcase concepts in images to help guide investor thinking. Action 6 – Provide planning and design advice to proponents of retail and commercial developments so as to help facilitate desirable outcomes (request Department of Planning and Community Development’s assistance for this action).

Strategy 5 – Facilitate and support trader co-ordination and small business development.

Action 7 – Establish a Commercial Centre place manager to help trader co-ordination activities and facilitate desired investment outcomes. Action 8 – Provide small business start-up advice and referral services in collaboration with Department of Business and Innovation and regional organisations. Action 9 – Develop an investment attraction strategy to attract retail and business investors to the Commercial Centre including supermarket investment

Strategy 6 – Discourage Commercial Centre land withholding

Action 10 – To explore options to discourage land banking.


Next Steps Seeking authorisation is the first step in the process to change the Planning Scheme. Once authorisation from the Minister for Planning has been received the Amendment will be publicly exhibited and written submissions invited. This involves writing to all affected land-owners and placing advertisements in the local newspaper and Victorian Government Gazette to ensure land-owners affected by the Amendment are aware of its implications. Following exhibition any submissions received are collated and reviewed. The Amendment will then come before an Ordinary Council meeting to decide the next step. If there are no submissions objecting to the Amendment or requesting changes to the Amendment, Council can adopt the Amendment immediately. If submissions objecting to the Amendment or requesting changes are received Council has three choices under the Act. It can: • Abandon the Amendment; • Change the Amendment to satisfy the submissions, and adopt the Amendment; or • Refer the Amendment (along with submissions) to an independent Planning Panel appointed by

the Minister for Planning. If the Amendment is referred to a Planning Panel, the Panel will convene a hearing and provide a report with recommendations to Council. Council will then need to consider the Panel report and adoption of the Amendment. Once Council has adopted an Amendment, it is sent to the Minister for Planning for approval.


The resources to undertake a Planning Scheme Amendment to implement the Study are contained in the 2012/2013 Budget. The implementation of other actions will be dependent on funds allocated in future Council budgets and other sources.

6. Consultation

The Castlemaine Commercial Centre Study was project managed by the Strategic Planning team, and supported by a reference group including Council’s Economic Development and Tourism Unit and the Department of Planning and Community Development. In the first instance, stakeholders were interviewed to canvas the key issues. Once the relevant data was collated Council resolved to proceed with a community engagement process which circulated the study. An information session was held on 3 September 2012 and five people attended. Eight submissions were received as a result of the engagement process. In summary, the issues raised relate to the overall purpose of the Centre; its mix of land uses; the attractiveness and functioning of the Castlemaine Commercial Centre; and potential traffic issues if a development proposal was received for the bus line site. In conclusion there was not enough evidence presented with the submissions to trigger a change in the policy positions recommended in the Study. The policy positions recommended have been based on population growth, employment and household expenditure, retail space available and projected household spending. This data is considered to provide a sound basis for answering the question about whether there is sufficient Business 1 zoned land in the Castlemaine town centre. In response to submissions some clarification of wording relating to potential approaches to trader co-ordination were made.


7. Conclusion

The Castlemaine Commercial Centre Study has canvassed the need and prospects for expanding the commercial area of Castlemaine and has reaffirmed its role as the main activity centre of Mount Alexander Shire. It is considered that, in the first instance, the performance of current business zoned land that is underutilised should be improved. In the longer term, when a need is demonstrated, some expansion of the Business 1 Zone to the south east is supportable (i.e. the gasworks site). The Study recommends that to maintain the compact nature of the Castlemaine Commercial Centre, whilst retaining opportunities for convenience shopping, that a “Retail and Commercial” policy be included in the Planning Scheme to help manage requests for development or rezoning outside of the current town centre. The “Retail and Commercial” policy will encourage new commercial development of any size if it is located on land zoned B1Z in the town centre, but will discourage new commercial development within one kilometre of the town centre. Other recommended measures include urban design, and co-ordination of stakeholders. The first steps in implementing the Study will be for Council to consider adoption of the Study and seeking authorisation from the Minister for Planning to undertake a Planning Scheme Amendment. The Planning Scheme Amendment process will enable further input from the community and will require the matter to be considered again by Council at key steps in the process.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. Adopt the Castlemaine Commercial Centre Study, SGS October 2012; 2. Seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare Planning Scheme Amendment

C68 to change the Local Planning Policy Framework to: • Update the Municipal Strategic Statement at Clause 21 to add the objective of facilitating

more retail and commercial investment along Forest Street, to identify the former bus depot site and adjacent land as the preferred location for major new retail and commercial investment, and to include the Castlemaine Commercial Centre Study, SGS, October 2012 as a reference document;

• Include a Retail and Commercial Policy for Castlemaine at Clause 22 to help manage requests for out of centre development; and

3. Exhibit Planning Scheme Amendment C68 following the receipt of authorisation from the

Minister for Planning


ECO 10 ADOPTION OF RESTRUCTURE PLANS – GOWER, POLLARD (BRADFORD), TARILTA, AND WALMER AND COMMENCEMENT OF PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C69

Responsible Officer: Strategic Planner Original Document: DOC/12/90691

1. Purpose

The purpose of this report is to enable Council to consider: • Adoption of Restructure Plans for Gower, Pollard, Tarilta and Walmer; • Seeking authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare a Planning Scheme Amendment

to introduce the above Restructure Plans into the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme; and • Exhibition of the Planning Scheme Amendment once authorisation from the Minister for Planning

has been received. The final Restructure Plans, and the report associated with these are attached: Attachment ECO 10A: Gower Restructure Plan 2012 Attachment ECO 10B: Pollard Restructure Plan 2012 Separate Attachment ECO 10C: Tarilta Restructure Plan 2012 Attachment ECO 10D: Walmer Restructure Plan 2012 Separate Attachment ECO 10E: Planning Report September 2012 Restructure Plans for Gower,

Pollard, Tarilta and Walmer Restructure Overlay Areas (PLN Planning)

2. Background

Councillors were briefed on the Restructure Plans, and the background to Restructure Plan preparation on 16 October 2012 and on 4 December 2012.

What is a Restructure Overlay? The objectives of the Restructure Overlays are to identify old and inappropriate subdivisions which are to be restructured, to preserve and enhance the amenity of the areas and to reduce the environmental impacts of dwellings and other development. In general where a Restructure Overlay exists, the land cannot be developed at the density or layout of the current subdivision because: • The lots are too small to contain effluent disposal on-site; • A watercourse runs through part of the site, and the required setbacks for effluent disposal fields

from the watercourse cannot be achieved; • The site is within a Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO), and the effluent disposal field

cannot be located outside this overlay; or • Other land related risk issues. The overlay seeks to restructure these lots so that some development may be possible. This is done by preparing a Restructure Plan. The Restructure Plan is a document that sets out the requirements that need to be undertaken before a planning permit can be issued. These requirements are in addition to other provisions of the Planning Scheme such as zones, overlays, and state and local planning policies. The requirements set out in the Restructure Plan may identify: • Lots required for consolidation; • Whether a dwelling may be permitted or not on a particular lot; or • Where a dwelling or effluent disposal field should be located on a lot.


The Restructure Overlay prevents any development from occurring on land where it is applied, unless it is in accordance with a Restructure Plan. If a Restructure Plan has not yet been prepared, no development can occur on the land, excepting for an extension to an existing dwelling. Restructure Overlays in Mount Alexander Shire Restructure Overlays currently apply to nine areas throughout Mount Alexander Shire. Council has been unable to consider planning permit applications for the development of dwellings or subdivisions on land affected by eight of these Restructure Overlays as Restructure Plans for these areas had not been prepared. The introduction of Restructure Plans will remove some of this uncertainty for landowners, however some landowners will not be able to develop their land. The eight areas for which the Restructure Plans are needed are: • Gower • Maldon North (A) • Maldon North (B) • Muckleford South • Pollard • Ravenswood South • Tarilta • Walmer

Four Restructure Plans have already been prepared for Ravenswood South, Muckleford and Maldon North A & B. These are being introduced to the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme by Planning Scheme Amendment C63 which is currently on exhibition. Restructure Plans for the remaining four areas of Gower, Pollard, Tarilta, and Walmer have now been prepared. These Plans were sent to affected land owners for review on 17 October 2012, with land owners invited to provide feedback to staff. It is now proposed to finalise these four Restructure Plans and commence the Planning Scheme Amendment process.


Including consideration of Economic, Social and Environmental impacts. Policy Implications The Mount Alexander Shire Council Plan 2009-2013, Section 4.4, Creating a sustainable future, lists as an objective “To plan land use to meet current and future farming, business and environmental needs”. The adoption and implementation of these four Restructure Plans would be consistent with this objective. Council’s Annual Plan for 2012/2013 lists ‘Commence a Planning Scheme Amendment to implement eight Restructure Plans in the Shire’ as a project to be undertaken. A Planning Scheme Amendment to implement the first four of these is well underway, and commencing this amendment will fulfil this Annual Plan commitment. Statutory Implications Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act) The purpose of this Act is to establish a framework for planning the use, development and protection of land in Victoria in the present and long-term interests of all Victorians. The Planning and Environment Act 1987 specifies which steps must be undertaken to amend a planning scheme. Section 4(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 sets out the objectives of planning in Victoria, the first of which is to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use, and development of land.


In order to implement the four Restructure Plans an amendment to the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme will be required. All Planning Scheme Amendments must follow the steps as outlined in the Act and most steps require a Council resolution. The steps are: • Ministerial authorisation; • Notification of land owners, referral agencies and exhibition; • Consideration of submissions; • Appointment of a Planning Panel where required to hear any unresolved submissions; and • Consideration of the Planning Panel Report recommendations and adoption by Council. The final step to include an Amendment in the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme is approval by the Minister for Planning and notification in the Government Gazette.

Mount Alexander Planning Scheme State Planning Policy Framework 11.05 Regional Development The strategies listed in 11.05-3 (Rural Productivity) to manage land use change and development in rural areas to promote agriculture and rural production include the following: • Prevent inappropriately dispersed urban activities in rural areas. • Limit new housing development in rural areas, including:

o Directing housing growth into existing settlements. o Discouraging development of isolated small lots in the rural zones from use for

single dwellings, rural living or other incompatible uses. o Encouraging consolidation of existing isolated small lots in rural zones.

• Restructure old and inappropriate subdivisions. Clause 13 – Environmental risk This includes objectives and strategies relating to floodplain management (Clause 13.02-1), erosion and landslip (Clause 13.03-2), salinity (Clause 13.03-3) and bushfire (Clause 13.05-1) which are relevant to Restructure Plan preparation. Clause 14 – Natural Resource Management The objective of Clause 14.01-1 (Protection of Agricultural Land) is to protect productive farming land. In considering a proposal to subdivide or develop agricultural land, the following factors must be considered: • The desirability and impacts of removing the land from primary production, given its agricultural

productivity. • The impacts of the proposed subdivision or development on the continuation of primary

production on adjacent land, with particular regard to land values and to the viability of infrastructure for such production.

• The compatibility between the proposed or likely development and the existing uses of the surrounding land.

• Assessment of the land capability. • Where inappropriate subdivisions exist on productive agricultural land, priority should be given

by planning authorities to their restructure.


Local Planning Policy Framework The Municipal Strategic Statement Clause 21.04 Agriculture states Council’s intention to develop and apply Restructure Plans as follows: • Develop and apply Restructure Plans to those areas covered by the Restructure Overlay for

which no plans are currently included in the Schedule. Consideration of the Farming Zone Land in each of the four Restructure Overlay areas is in the Farming Zone. The lots in each of the areas mainly comprise old Crown Allotments which are significantly smaller than the minimum lot size allowed under the Farming Zone (40 hectares). Development of a dwelling on each of these small lots would be contrary to the purposes of the Farming Zone which is to retain land for productive agriculture. The aim of the Restructure Plans is to reduce the number of lots in non-agricultural uses as these have the potential to adversely affect the use of land for agriculture and there is the potential for adverse environmental impacts including contamination of waterways due to waste water runoff, development in areas subject to flooding or prone to erosion and land instability. The perceived “entitlement” to use a lot in the Farming Zone for a dwelling that some believe the Restructure Overlay takes away is no more than an entitlement to make an application for a planning permit which, when assessed against the decision guidelines of the Farming Zone, may not able to be supported.

4. Issues

Without Restructure Plans in place, the owners of vacant land covered by a Restructure Plan are unable to make an application to develop their land and face uncertainty over whether or not they will be able to develop in the future. While the introduction of Restructure Plans will mean that some land owners are unable to develop due to the constraints of the land, it will improve certainty about the future for these areas. Some land in restructure areas is more constrained than others, mostly due to proximity to creeks and slopes. A risk framework for waste water management has informed whether a dwelling can be allowed on the land, and if so, where on the site it should be located. The framework assesses a range of factors including proximity to creeks, size and shape of the parcel of land (e.g. narrow lots do not allow for adequate setbacks from boundaries), rainfall, soil type, slope, drainage, salinity and erosion potential. Development of a dwelling on every small Crown Allotment and/or rezoning of these areas to the Rural Living Zone are not appropriate alternatives. Neither the Local Planning Policy Framework nor Council’s strategic documents would support rural living style development in these locations due to their distance from townships and services. Summary of Proposed Restructure Plans Each of the proposed Restructure Plans includes a detailed description of the land affected, objectives to be achieved for that land, and a map illustrating the proposed lots to be consolidated and potential development options where this is allowable. Each Plan also includes a table listing all the parcels of land in the restructure area with a preferred consolidation model and/or a possible development scenario. The wavy lines on each map connecting contiguous parcels across a road (or road lease) indicate single ownership. Gower Restructure Plan Land in the Gower Restructure Overlay consists of 13 vacant lots and one dwelling. Two lots are Crown Land, and the remaining 11 are split into two ownerships. The private land to the north of


Castlemaine-Maldon Road contains a dwelling. The seven private titles to the south of Castlemaine-Maldon Road are vacant, and form part of a large landholding including titles immediately abutting these to the south. Should the owners of the dwelling in the Gower Restructure Overlay (on the northern side of Castlemaine-Maldon Road) wish to extend or re-build their dwelling, they would first need to consolidate the titles. No dwelling is permitted on the remaining lots in the Restructure Overlay on the south side of Castlemaine-Maldon Road. The remaining lots form part of a larger ownership, and the owners may apply to construct a dwelling on other lots in their ownership. The Gower Restructure Overlay does not require any consolidation of land across different ownerships. It is also proposed to remove the Restructure Overlay from Crown Land where it currently applies. Pollard Restructure Plan The Pollard Restructure Overlay area lends itself to restructuring due to the large number of lots being held by only two landowners, and the fact that there is only one dwelling in the entire area. The majority of the land is Crown Land, with the remainder owned by one party (part solely in their own name, and part jointly owned with a spouse). The Pollard Restructure Plan will not allow for any further dwellings to be built, nor will it require any consolidation of land held in different ownerships. Should the owners of the existing dwelling in the Restructure Overlay area wish to rebuild, or extend their home, they would be required to consolidate titles prior to doing so. It is also proposed to remove the Restructure Overlay from land in the Public Conservation and Resource Zone along the Bradford Creek. It is proposed to retain the Restructure Overlay over the remaining Crown Land, as this is in a public zone, and may be disposed of by the DSE in the future. Tarilta Restructure Plan The Tarilta Restructure Overlay area lends itself to restructuring due to the large number of lots being held by only six landowners. The Overlay applies to some 128 lots and a large section of Crown Land in the Castlemaine Diggings. The Restructure Plan requires land-owners to consolidate their own lots, with no consolidation across different ownerships required. There are currently five dwellings in the Tarilta Restructure Overlay. The Restructure Plan will not allow for any additional dwellings to be built. Existing dwelling owners will be able to rebuild or extend their dwellings following consolidation of titles. There is one lot of approximately 2200m2 that does not form part of a larger land holding. No dwelling will be permitted on this land. The Tarilta Restructure Overlay does not require any consolidation of land across different ownerships. It is also proposed to remove the Restructure Overlay from Crown Land where it currently applies in Tarilta. Walmer Restructure Plan The Walmer Restructure Plan is one of the more challenging plans to be prepared. The Walmer Restructure Overlay consists of: • Thirty allotments, ranging in size between 1,000 m2 and 1,200 m2 west of Muckleford Creeks. • Two larger two hectare allotments immediately south of the township subdivision. • Two large agricultural allotments of approximately 40 hectares each on the eastern side of

Muckleford Creek. It is recommended that the two larger allotments be removed from the Restructure Overlay, as these have been restructured, and are each greater than 40 hectares. This would leave the 30 township lots, and two 2 hectare lots remaining in the Restructure Overlay. There are a total of 27 land-owners of these 32 lots. All lots are affected by the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO).


At present there are no dwellings in the Walmer Restructure Overlay. The Restructure Plan will allow for three dwellings to be constructed, subject to a site specific Land Capability Assessment (LCA). The Restructure Plan will result in three lots, which is a consolidation of the following:

Restructured Lot 1 16 land owners Consolidate 20 lots Restructured Lot 2 8 land owners Consolidate 10 lots Restructured Lot 3 2 land owners Consolidate 2 lots

The Walmer Restructure Overlay will require consolidation of land currently owned by multiple owners.

Summary of feedback following consultation A number of land-owners contacted Council to discuss the proposed Restructure Plans, and were generally pleased that the plans were being prepared. Two land owners took the opportunity to write to Council to raise concerns. The first land-owner (from Walmer) advised that they do not wish to sell the land, or purchase additional land, and are quite happy with things the way they are. Officers responded that the Restructure Plans will not require them to undertake any action unless they wish to build on the land. The second letter was from a planning consultant on behalf of an affected land-owner in Tarilta. The submission raised a number of issues. Some of the matters raised have merit (for example, that outbuildings are permitted) and should be included in all eight Restructure Plans. For this reason it is considered prudent to address these matters at Planning Panel stage where all eight Plans will be looked at together. The remaining issues are best considered by an independent Planning Panel. Therefore, at this stage, no changes are recommended to the Plans as a result of submissions.


The resources necessary to undertake the Amendment are contained within current budget allocations. Given the contentious nature of Restructure Plans and Restructure Overlays, it is possible that a number of submissions to the Amendment will be received and Council will not be able to resolve all of these. Therefore, it is likely that a Planning Panel will be required. Costs for a Planning Panel can be accommodated within the 2012/2013 Budget. If a Planning Panel is required, costs can be reduced by combining the panel hearing for this amendment with the panel hearing for Planning Scheme Amendment C63 (which introduces Restructure Plans for Ravenswood, Muckleford, and Maldon North A & B). Approval of the Amendment will not have a significant impact on the number of planning permits received by Council.

6. Consultation

Officers have consulted with all affected land owners in each of the Gower, Tarilta, Pollard, and Walmer Restructure Overlay areas. Officers wrote to land-owners at the beginning of 2012 advising that Restructure Plans would be prepared later in the year. Draft Restructure Plans were completed in September 2012, a copy of which was sent to affected land owners in October 2012, inviting feedback. Draft copies of the plan were also sent to the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) and Goulburn Murray Water (GMW). Seven of the land-owners who received copies of the Restructure Plans contacted Council. One submission did request a number of changes be made to the Amendment, and this submission is discussed in more detail at the issues section of this report. A statutory exhibition period will be required as part of the amendment process as outlined in the Policy and Statutory Implications section of the report.


7. Conclusion

Restructure Overlays have been in place in the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme since its introduction in 1999. Owners of vacant land are unable to develop their land until a restructure plan is introduced to the Planning Scheme. Four of the eight required restructure plans have been prepared and a Planning Scheme Amendment already commenced. A further four plans have now been prepared for Gower, Bradford/Pollard, Tarilta and Walmer. It is proposed to introduce these Restructure Plans to the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme through Planning Scheme Amendment C69. The introduction of these Restructure Plans will provide some certainty to land owners as to whether or not they will be able to apply for a planning permit to develop their land. The Planning Scheme Amendment process will offer further opportunity for community and landowner input and the matter will be returned to Council for further consideration at key steps in the process.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. Adopt the Planning Report – Restructure Plans for Gower, Pollard, Tarilta, and Walmer

Restructure Overlay areas (August 2012); 2. Adopt each of the Restructure Plans for:

1. Gower; 2. Pollard; 3. Tarilta; and 4. Walmer;

3. Seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare the proposed Mount Alexander Planning Scheme Amendment C69; and

4. Exhibit Mount Alexander Planning Scheme Amendment C69 following the receipt of authorisation from the Minister for Planning.


ECO 11 CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS AND ADOPTION OF MOUNT ALEXANDER PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C65 (ERROR CORRECTION)

Responsible Officer: Strategic Planner Original Document: DOC/12/96662

1. Purpose

The purpose of this report is to enable Council to consider submissions made to, and adoption of, Amendment C65 to the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme. Amendment C65 proposes to correct a number of zone and overlay errors in the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme. This report will enable Council to decide what action to take in regard to these submissions in accordance with the options available under the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Following the closing date for submissions, Council has 40 business days to decide which step to take under Section 23 of the Planning and Environment Act. The deadline for making a decision on this Amendment is 16 January 2012. As no further Council meetings are scheduled prior to this date, Council must decide which steps to take at the Ordinary Meeting on 11 December 2012. The report recommends that Council makes some changes to Amendment C65 to satisfy some of the submissions, abandon one site from the Amendment, and adopt the Amendment . For details of sites affected by outstanding submissions, refer to: Attachment ECO 11A: Sites affected by submissions requesting changes.

2. Background

Council last considered Planning Scheme Amendment C65 on 8 May 2012, when it resolved to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare the Amendment , and exhibit the Amendment once authorisation was received. The Amendment proposes to correct 52 errors in the Scheme affecting 74 properties. Correction of these errors will improve the accuracy of the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme, and reduce the need for unnecessary planning permits. Errors being corrected by this Amendment generally fall into two categories: • incorrect zoning where privately owned land is a public land zone, or vice versa, or • corrections to Heritage Overlays where either the mapping or addresses are incorrect. The Amendment was exhibited from 28 September 2012 to 16 November 2012. As part of the exhibition: • Letters were sent to affected land-owners on 28 September 2012; • Notice was placed in the Midland Express on Tuesday 9 October 2012; and • Notice was placed in the Victorian Government Gazette on 11 October 2012. An information bulletin advising land-owners of what the Amendment does, and how to make a submission was also sent with all notices.



Including consideration of Economic, Social and Environmental impacts. Policy Implications The Mount Alexander Shire Council Plan 2009-2013, Section 4.4, Creating a sustainable future, lists as an objective “To maintain the planning frameworks for the protection of our heritage”. Undertaking Planning Scheme Amendment C65 is consistent with this objective. A key action in the 2011/2012 Strategic Planning Business Plan is to undertake an error Amendment to the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme. This will improve the performance of the Planning Scheme Statutory Implications Planning and Environment Act 1987 Section 4(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act) sets out the objectives of planning in Victoria, the first of which is to provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use, and development of land. Section 19 of the Act outlines the requirements for giving notice of a Planning Scheme Amendment. This requirement has been fulfilled in exhibiting the Amendment. Section 22 of the Act requires Council to consider all submissions made to a Planning Scheme Amendment. Section 23 requires Council to either: (a) change the Amendment in the manner requested; (b) refer the submission to a panel appointed under Part 8; or (c) abandon the Amendment or part of the Amendment.

As the submissions received request changes, Council must decide which option under Section 23 of the Act to take. Section 29 of the Act states that once Council has exhibited the Amendment and resolved all submissions, they can adopt all or part of the Amendment with or without changes. Once Council has adopted the Amendment, Section 31 of the Act requires Council to submit the Amendment to the Minister for Planning for approval. Ministerial Directions Direction 12 - ‘The Form and Content of Planning Schemes’ This direction sets out the requirements for all planning schemes. It states “A planning scheme may only include land in a Public Use Zone, a Public Park and Recreation Zone or a Public Conservation and Resource Zone if the land is Crown land, or is owned by, vested in or controlled by a Minister, government department, public authority or municipal council.” This Amendment corrects the zoning of known privately owned land in a public zone. Direction 15- ‘The Planning Scheme Amendment Process’ Direction 15 sets out timelines for each stage of the Planning Scheme Amendment process. Following the closing date for submissions, Council has 40 business days to decide which step to take under Section 23 of the Planning and Environment Act. The deadline for making a decision on this Amendment is 16 January 2012. As no further Council meetings are scheduled prior to this date, Council must decide which steps to take at the Ordinary Meeting on 11 December 2012.


4. Issues

Nine submissions were received, four of which supported the Amendment and five of which requested changes to the Amendment. Submissions 1, 3, 4, and 9 all support the Amendment, and submissions 2,5,6,7, and 8 requested changes. Council is not required to undertake any action in relation to the supporting submissions, but it is required to decide what to do with those requesting changes. Submissions requesting changes to the Amendment Submission 2 This property was not originally included in the Amendment, but a submission was made requesting it be included. Due to a technical error in the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) mapping the property was shown as being partly in the Public Use Zone, and partly in the Business 1 Zone. The property should be entirely in the Business 1 Zone. DSE have corrected the error, and the correct zone is now applied to the whole property. There are no changes to the Amendment required as a result of this submission as DSE mapping corrections have satisfied the submission. Submission 5 – Coliban Water This submission relates to the Heritage Overlay over the Barkers Creek Reservoir (HO811). The current Heritage Overlay was introduced into the former Metcalfe Planning Scheme and mapped under past conventions. It does not clearly identify which land the Heritage Overlay applies to. As part of Amendment C65 it was proposed to map the overlay to apply to the whole of all titles encompassing the Reservoir. The Barkers Creek Reservoir is significant as it is one of the first projects attempted and completed as part of the Coliban Water Supply Scheme System and its construction, on such a large scale, is a substantial engineering achievement. It is significant now as a popular community landmark and recreation area, and played an important role in the development of orchards in the Harcourt area. Coliban Water has made a submission requesting the Heritage Overlay be mapped to the full supply level of the reservoir, with the surrounding area excluded. The submission has been referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor for comment. The Heritage Advisor’s recommendation states:

“Revise HO811 to the area proposed by Coliban Water, to cover the full supply level of the reservoir.”

Council officers recommend changing the Amendment in accordance with Council’s Heritage Advisor’s recommendations which will satisfy the submission received. Submission 7 This submission relates to the former Boyles Inn in Faraday. The Heritage Overlay is currently applied to the incorrect property next door which has no heritage significance. The submitter does not object to the application of the Heritage Overlay, but requests the mapped area be reduced to the front section of the block (including all buildings), and that tree controls be applied to a significant Oak tree on the land. The application of tree controls mean that a planning permit will be required to lop, or remove the tree. The owner is aware of this, and is requesting the tree controls apply. This submission has been referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor who advises that all significant buildings are contained within the area proposed by the submitter, and that the tree is significant, and tree controls should apply. While it is not normal practice to change the level of controls in an error Amendment, officers have discussed this issue with the Department of Planning and Community Development, and as the altered controls have been requested by the land owner they have agreed that this is an acceptable change to the Amendment.


Officers recommend changing the Amendment to satisfy this objection. Submission 8 – Heritage Victoria This site (railway line at Elphinstone) was not originally included in the Amendment, but a submission was made by Heritage Victoria requesting it be included. The railway line (and the reserve surrounding it) west of Wright Street Elphinstone is listed on the Victorian Heritage Register (VHR) as H1782 as it has significance to the State of Victoria. This is currently mapped incorrectly in the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme as HO775. Heritage Victoria have requested the Heritage Overlay be corrected to match the VHR listing. The matter has been referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor who has advised the area currently mapped as HO775 (the Elphinstone Train Station and surrounding land) is locally significant. This area is also identified in the Shire of Metcalfe Heritage Study as being of local heritage significance, and as such should have a Heritage Overlay applied. Officers recommend renaming the current HO775 from Elphinstone Railway Precinct to Elphinstone Railway Station Precinct in the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay, and apply a new Heritage Overlay to the Elphinstone Railway Precinct that the VHR listing applies to. This will provide clarity for private land-owners that the VHR listing does not apply to their land. These changes will satisfy the submission. Submission 6 – Friends of the Box Ironbark Forest This submission objects to the rezoning of land at Cappers Gully Track from Public Conservation and Resource Zone to Farming Zone. The land is Crown land, vested to VicForest, with a perpetual licence to Hancock Victorian Plantations (HVP). The submission objects to the proposed rezoning as: • it is Crown Land, and a public land zoning is required; • it contains a large tract of significant box-ironbark forest; • there is no ecological assessment of the box-ironbark forest; and • it represents a significant bushfire risk, and buffers of hundreds of metres within the plantation

should be established. Submission 1, from Hancock Victorian Plantations (HVP), supports the proposed rezoning to Farming Zone. If Council retains the Public Conservation and Resource Zone in order to satisfy submission 6, this will render submission 1 outstanding as it supports the rezoning to Farming Zone. This submission raises a number of issues that require further investigation, and it may be that the rezoning of this land cannot be undertaken as part of a simple error Amendment. For this reason, officers recommend abandoning this site from this Amendment. Options for addressing submissions Submissions 5, 6, 7, and 8 all request changes to the Amendment. Changes can be made to the Amendment to address submissions 5, 7 and 8, leaving submission 6 outstanding. Officers recommend changing the Amendment to satisfy submissions 5, 7 and 8. The changes requested would not have a negative impact on the Amendment, and would improve the accuracy of the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme. The changes required to satisfy these submissions are:

• Reduce the mapped area of HO811 to exclude the area to the south and west of the Barkers Creek Reservoir’s retaining wall.

• Reduce the proposed area of HO779 (former Boyles Inn) to the front section of the large rural block, still including all significant buildings, and identify tree controls as applying to the large significant old Oak tree on the land.

• Introduce a new Heritage Overlay being HO1147 to map the Elphinstone Railway Precinct, covering the same area as VHR listing 1782.


• Amend HO775 in the schedule to the Heritage Overlay to identify the name of the area as Elphinstone Railway Station Precinct.

This leaves submissions 1 and 6 to be addressed. Council has the option of requesting the Minister for Planning to appoint an independent Planning Panel to consider these submissions. Officers are of the view that the issues raised in these submissions require further investigation and discussion with both submitters and with relevant government departments and it would be premature to refer the matter to a Planning Panel given the considerable costs involved in the process. The remaining options are to abandon the Amendment either in full, or in part. Abandoning the Amendment in full will not correct the identified errors in the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme, and will result in an ineffective use of the resources that have been expended to progress the Amendment to its current stage. Abandoning part of the Amendment (being the proposed rezoning of Crown Allotment 10F, Section G3, Parish of Castlemaine) will remove the need for Council to address submissions 1 or 6. However, it will result in this land not being rezoned, and the current zoning remaining in place. Officers recommend abandoning Crown Allotment 10F, Section G3, Parish of Castlemaine from the Amendment. This will enable the Amendment to proceed, making the other corrections to the Planning Scheme, and enable the required further investigations to be undertaken.


The cost of undertaking the Planning Scheme Amendment is contained within the 2012/2013 Budget. Adoption of the Amendment and abandonment of one site as recommended will have a positive impact on Council resourcing as it will result in a more accurate Planning Scheme. Should Council decide to refer the outstanding submission to a Planning Panel there will be significant costs both in terms of officer time and resources. While these costs are usually a good investment and can be contained within the current budget, in this instance, officers consider it is not the most effective use of resources.

6. Consultation

As part of the Amendment process, a statutory exhibition has been undertaken. This has involved writing to all affected land-owners, and having the Amendment available for public viewing for at least one calendar month. As part of this statutory exhibition: • Letters were sent to affected land-owners on 28 September 2012; • Notice was placed in the Midland Express on Tuesday 9 October 2012; and • Notice was placed in the Victorian Government Gazette on 11 October 2012.

7. Conclusion

Council has prepared and exhibited Planning Scheme Amendment C65 which proposes to correct errors in the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme. Nine submissions were received during the exhibition period, five of which do not require any changes to the Amendment. Officers recommend making changes to the Amendment to satisfy three of these submissions, and abandoning Crown Allotment 1F, Section G3, Parish of Castlemaine from the Amendment. Abandoning this site from the Amendment will negate two of the submissions, and allow officers to undertake a more thorough investigation into the issues raised in submission 6. While the Amendment could be referred to a Planning Panel to satisfy the submissions, in this instance, officers believe the benefits of referring the Amendment to a Planning Panel are


outweighed by the costs, and there would be insufficient time to thoroughly investigate the issues prior to the panel hearing.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. Abandon Crown Allotment 1F, Section G3, Parish of Castlemaine from Planning Scheme

Amendment C65; 2. Make the following changes to the Amendment to satisfy Submissions 5, 7, and 8:

i. Amend the mapping of HO811 (Barkers Creek Reservoir) to the full supply level of

the reservoir; ii. Reduce the mapped area of HO779 (Boyles Inn Faraday), to include all buildings on

the land, and exclude the vacant land at the rear of the block; iii. Identify the Oak Tree in HO779, and apply tree controls to it under the Heritage

Overlay; iv. Rename HO775 from Elphinstone Railway Precinct to Elphinstone Railway Precinct

in the schedule to the Heritage Overlay; v. Remove the reference to Victorian Heritage Register H1782 from HO775 in the

schedule to the Heritage Overlay; vi. Apply a new Heritage Overlay HO1147 to the area identified on the Victorian Heritage

Register as H1782, being Elphinstone Railway Precinct;

3. Adopt Amendment C65 to the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme, in accordance with Section 29 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, with the above changes;

4. Request the Minister for Planning approve Amendment C65 to the Mount Alexander Planning

Scheme as adopted in accordance with Section 35 of the Planning and Environment Act;

5. Commence investigations into the issues raised by Submission 6 regarding the rezoning of Crown Allotment 1F, Section G3, Parish of Castlemaine; and

6. Write to Submitter 1 advising them Council will be undertaking further investigation into the

issues raised in Submission 6 regarding the rezoning of Crown Allotment 1F, Section G3, Parish of Castlemaine.


Sites affected by submissions requesting changes. Site 1 : Pine Plantation (Crown Allotment 1F, Section G3, Parish of Castlemaine)

Figure 1: Site context in relation to Castlemaine

Figure 2: Aerial photograph with site boundaries.

Attachment ECO 11A


Site 2 : Barkers Creek Reservoir

Figure 3: Aerial photograph with site boundaries of exhibited proposed overlay. Submission requests proposed overlay to follow full supply level of reservoir.


Site 3 : Former Boyle Inn - Faraday

Figure 4: Proposed extent of Heritage Overlay as exhibited, and extent of Heritage overlay now proposed. Exhibited Now proposed


Site 4 : Elphinstone Railway Precinct

Figure 5: Site Context for Elphinstone Railway (see detailed view below)

Figure 6: Existing HO775, and proposed HO1147 to correspond with VHR listing H1782.

Proposed HO1147 (Elphinstone Railway Precinct - to correspond with Victorian Heritage Register Listing H1782)

Existing HO775 (Elphinstone Railway Station Precinct)


9.4. CREATING A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE (FUT)

FUT 094 CROWN LAND ADJACENT TO THE BRIDGE STREET RESERVE HARCOURT

Responsible Officer: Property Portfolio Coordinator Original Document: DOC/12/98051

1. Purpose

The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval to accept Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) Committee of Management appointment for land adjacent to the Bridge Street Reserve Harcourt. Refer to Attachment FUT 094A: Map of Area to be considered for Management by Council.

2. Background

DSE has written to Council seeking comment on options to resolve the unauthorised occupation of Crown Land by the Harcourt Pony Club. The Harcourt Pony Club’s also occupies Council land at the Bridge Street Reserve without a formal tenancy arrangement. The Harcourt Pony Club was granted permission in November 1993 to use the area of land adjacent to the Harcourt Swimming Pool (also known as the Bridge Street Reserve). The Metcalfe Shire Council incorrectly assumed they had ownership/control of this land which is in fact Crown Land that Council did not control. In April 1996 the Harcourt Pony Club wrote to Council requesting security of tenure via a lease or trustee arrangement. At its meeting on 27 February 1997, Council resolved to initiate the appointment of a special committee under Section 86 of the Local Government Act to manage this Reserve and to invite the Harcourt Pony Club to appoint a representative to the Committee. At a Council Meeting on 28 July 1998 Council resolved to appoint the Bridge Reserve Special Committee. The Committee’s Instrument of Delegation was later revoked at the Council Meeting on 17 December 2008 due to a dwindling number of volunteer committee members.


Including consideration of Economic, Social and Environmental impacts. The Council Plan outlines the priority “Strengthening Our Community” which includes enabling an active and healthy community by providing appropriate services and facilities. The specific objective identifies providing attractive and well maintained recreational facilities. The Council Plan outlines the priority “Partnering for Better Services” which includes supporting volunteers and volunteer organisations. The specific objective identifies partnering with individuals and organisations to provide services and facilities.

4. Issues

Impact of Acquisition of the Bridge Street Crown Land If Council were to take on Committee of Management status of this land we would also be taking on insurance and capital works responsibilities. Currently the Crown Land contains clubrooms, a fenced horse yard, horse stalls and an informal parking area with large logs defining the space. An external visual inspection of the building fabric appears sound, although Council has not undertaken an internal inspection to determine anything further. This inspection would be completed as part of discussions with Harcourt Pony Club when DSE grant Council Committee of Management status.


There are currently issues around access to toilet facilities which may need to be resolved with a more permanent solution than the current portaloo which was obtained by the Harcourt Pony Club with Community Grant funding from Council. Management Arrangements In accordance with Council’s Property Leasing and Licensing Policy, a three year Licence Agreement could be offered to the Harcourt Pony Club to formalise their occupation of the site. The Recreation Unit has requested that any Licence Agreement entered into for the site contain special conditions that enable Council to access the rear of the swimming pool site through the Crown Land as well as allowing use of the site for off-street parking for any special events held at the swimming pool or the BMX track. Current and Future Use of the Bridge Street Reserve (Council Owned Property) Currently part of the Bridge Street Reserve is used by Harcourt Pony Club and the Harcourt Swimming Pool with the remainder of the land covered by scrub/bushland. See Attachment FUT 094A which identifies Council land areas used by the Pony Club (red line area). At its Ordinary Meeting on 27 July 2010 Council resolved to continue the operations of the Harcourt Pool until the end of the 2015/2016 swimming season at which time the pool’s future would be reviewed. Currently access to the rear of the swimming pool site for the delivery of chemicals and access by maintenance vehicles is via the Crown Land adjacent to the pool site. This is also the only double gate access for emergency vehicles, such as ambulances, to the swimming pool. The Recreation Services Unit has developed a BMX track/circuit on part of this Reserve in a similar style to the mini-track at Maldon. See Attachment FUT 094A which identifies the area where Recreation has built a BMX track (yellow line area). Emergency Access to the Harcourt Pool Council control of the Crown Land adjacent to the Bridge Street Reserve will enable Council to ensure emergency vehicle access to the double gates at the rear of the Harcourt Pool. Without control of this land, Council is reliant on the occupier of the land choosing to not block the vehicle access to the rear of the swimming pool. Off-Street Parking Council control of the Crown Land adjacent to the Bridge Street Reserve will enable Council to provide off-street parking to users of the swimming pool and BMX track. Currently there is only informal on-street parking in a residential area for users of these facilities. The Harcourt Pony Club currently utilise the entire area for parking and horse events. It is anticipated that the front section of the area may become shared parking for the Pony Club, swimming pool and BMX track patrons to relieve the parking issues in this recreation precinct of Harcourt.


There are insurance and capital works implications in accepting responsibility for additional Crown Land. While public liability insurance for Crown Land remains with DSE, building insurance and any required capital works, including any as yet unknown Essential Safety Measures requirements, will be Council’s responsibility. However given the size of the facility these costs are expected to be minimal.


6. Consultation

Internal consultation has been undertaken with the Recreation Unit and the Executive Management Team. The Harcourt Pony Club has been advised of Council’s intention to seek management responsibility for this land.

7. Conclusion

The Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) have written to Council seeking comment on options to resolve the unauthorised occupation of Crown Land by the Harcourt Pony Club. The situation also involves the Harcourt Pony Club’s occupation of Council land at the Bridge Street Reserve without a formal tenancy arrangement. Rather than the Harcourt Pony Club deal with two government organisations relating to the land they occupy, Council officers are seeking approval to be be appointed Committee of Management for the Crown Land adjacent to the Bridge Street Reserve to enable Council to enter into a single Licence Agreement with the Harcourt Pony Club for the land they occupy regardless of its status as Crown Land or Council owned land.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. approve the proposal to accept DSE Committee of Management appointment for Crown Land

adjacent to the Bridge Street Reserve Harcourt; and

2. Authorise the CEO to execute an appropriate agreement with DSE.


Attachment FUT 094A

Red area = Council land currently utilised by Harcourt Pony Club

Yellow area = Council land with BMX track

Crown land currently utilised by Harcourt Pony Club


FUT 095 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 134/2012 – DEVELOPMENT OF A SECOND DWELLING AT LOT 3 PS043400, 6 MURPHY STREET, CASTLEMAINE (PA134/2012)

Responsible Officer: Town Planner Original Document: DOC/12/97488

1. Purpose

The purpose of this report is to recommend Council make a decision on an application for the development of a second dwelling on the land identified as Lot 3, PS043400, at 6 Murphy Street, Castlemaine. The application has been referred to Council for a decision as there are two outstanding objections to the grant of a permit. Refer to: Attachment FUT 095A: Aerial images Attachment FUT 095B: Floor plan, elevations and shadow diagrams.

2. Background

The subject site consists of a single irregular rectangular allotment located approximately 1.7 kilometres east of the Castlemaine CBD. The site has an area of approximately 878m2 and is within the Residential 1 Zone (R1Z). No overlays affect the site. The site is a corner allotment with street frontage of 19 metres to Murphy Street at its northern boundary and 51 metres to Baird Street at its western boundary. Existing vehicle access to the site is from Baird Street. The site currently contains a single dwelling fronting Murphy Street with a front setback of 4.8 metres and a side setback of 2.8 metres from Baird Street. Three outbuildings are located along the eastern boundary. The site has a gentle downward slope from west to east away from Baird Street. All surrounding land is developed for residential uses in a variety of lot sizes ranging from 220m2 to 2500m2. The application proposes to construct a second dwelling located at the rear (south) of the site which fronts Baird Street. The proposed dwelling is a two storey, attic style building with a front setback of 3 metres to Baird Street and 150 millimetres from the common boundary to the south.


Including consideration of Economic, Social and Environmental impacts. State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) Clause 16.01 Residential Development This clause outlines how planning should provide for housing diversity and the efficient provision of infrastructure. It also outlines how location of new housing should be planned for sustainability through proximity to community services. Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) Clause 21.03 Municipal Vision and Framework Plan This clause sets out the vision for land use planning and development for the Shire. It contains spatial plans indicating strategic directions for the Shire and specific towns. Plan 1 (Strategic Framework Plan) identifies Castlemaine, including Campbells Creek, as the preferred location for future commercial, industrial and residential expansion. Plan 3 (Castlemaine Framework Plan)


indicates that the subject site is within the Castlemaine Urban Boundary and proximate to the Castlemaine CBD. Clause 21.04-1 Management of Urban Growth This clause outlines more specific strategies to achieve the Municipal Vision in the areas of settlement, environment and economic development. Fundamental directions for residential development include consolidation of the Castlemaine urban area, efficient use of infrastructure and increasing housing opportunities close to the town centre close to retail, health and community facilities. Clause 22.01 Castlemaine Policy within this clause relating to residential development consists of providing opportunities for urban infill development in Castlemaine which maintains town character and also providing medium density housing in centrally located areas. The site is located within the ‘Urban boundary’ of Castlemaine and creates an opportunity for infill development in an existing residential area. Clause 22.26 Residential Infrastructure This policy aims to ensure residential development is serviced by all essential infrastructure in order that attractive living environments and environmental quality is maintained. Zoning Clause 33.01 Residential 1 Zone (R1Z) The purpose of the Residential 1 Zone is to implement the State and Local Planning Policy Framework, providing for residential development at a range of densities with a variety of dwellings to meet the needs of all households which respects neighbourhood character. The construction of two or more dwellings on a lot in the Residential 1 Zone must be assessed against the decision guidelines of Clause 65, the State and Local Planning Policy Framework and the objectives and standards of Clause 55 which relates to the construction or extension of two or more dwellings on a lot. Particular Provisions Clause 55 Two or more dwellings on a lot An application to construct a second dwelling on a lot must address relevant objectives within Clause 55. An assessment against this Clause was submitted with the application. Minor amendments to the proposed plan were required to ensure compliance objectives, specifically to address overlooking issues. Following these alterations the proposal demonstrated that it meets all relevant objectives and standards of Clause 55.

4. Issues

Outstanding objections to the application Following advertisement of the application in accordance with Section 52(1)(a) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, three objections were received from surrounding owners and occupiers. One objection was withdrawn. Issues are summarised below followed by comment from the assessing officer. • Overlooking into private open space will occur due to the second floor west facing window. Overlooking issues are addressed through compliance with Clause 55. To comply with this clause the second floor west facing window includes fixed, obscure glazing up to 1.7 metres above floor level to avoid any overlooking which may occur.


• The proposed dwelling will overshadow private open space of one adjoining dwelling and habitable room windows of another adjoining dwelling.

Clause 55 contains standards which explicitly state the allowable extent of overshadowing to secluded private open space and also the required allowance for solar access to existing north-facing habitable room windows. The proposed dwelling complies with both of these standards. The proposed dwelling will not overshadow secluded private open space between stated times of 9 am and 3 pm. The windows which receive shadow for a short period of the day are not classified as north-facing windows. • The design and height is inconsistent with the neighbourhood character of the surrounding area

which consists mainly of single storey dwellings There is no statement in the Planning Scheme outlining a preferred neighbourhood character for the area. The DPCD practice note on neighbourhood character states that ‘the neighbourhood character standard is not intended to result in the replication of existing building stock or stop change’. Unit development over the last ten years suggests some change is occurring in the area with higher density unit development as demand for housing in the Castlemaine urban area increases. It is the proposal’s height, which in turn influences the design response, which is of primary concern to the neighbourhood character. Given the large diversity of housing styles in the area, other elements of the proposal, such as materials, building massing, fencing, setback and the like, are consistent with the character. The proposal attempts to address any visual impact which may be caused through an attic style design. Additionally, the site is located on the low side of the road which will act to reduce visual impact. The proposal meets the standard in Clause 55 relating to building height. • The proposal represents overdevelopment with two dwellings on a 900m2 allotment. The majority of policy within the Planning Scheme aims to encourage and support infill development in the defined Castlemaine urban area. The site achieves all required levels of open space, parking, site coverage and permeability by meeting all relevant standards and should therefore not be considered an overdevelopment of the site. • The proposal will increase demand for car parking which will result in cars parking on the street. Consistent with Clause 55, the proposal must provide space for two car parking areas. The proposal has indicated provision of two spaces in a small two car garage and one space in the driveway. However, a reduction to the width of the garage is required to accord with requirements of Council’s Infrastructure Unit. With only one car being accommodated in the garage, the parking provision requirement will still be met by providing two car spaces. • The proximity of the proposed dwelling and driveway will result in noise impacting on the

adjoining dwelling. Possible noise generated by future residents of the proposed dwelling is not addressed by planning. Planning controls the location of domestic plant (i.e. air conditioners, spas, ducted heating, etc) and state that these should not be located near bedrooms of adjacent dwellings. No domestic plant is located near adjoining properties. Additionally, proposed living areas are located so to avoid close proximity to existing habitable rooms of adjoining dwellings. • The application proposes to construct the garage over an easement. The drainage easement is in favour of Council which is therefore the relevant authority to consent or refuse an application to build over the easement. Council’s Infrastructure Unit has not given consent to construct a garage over the easement and has included a condition on any permit that may be granted stating as such.


• Location of the proposed driveway will have noise and safety impacts for the adjoining property. The crossover will be constructed to Council’s minimum requirements allowing safe access and egress of vehicles. Noise generated by the use of the proposed driveway would be no more than any other residential driveway. • Ownership of the proposed dwelling is unclear. Ownership arrangements of any proposed dwelling is a private matter and not a planning consideration. Any person can apply for a planning permit on a parcel of land with the land owner’s knowledge. The planning permit application declaration was signed by the applicant confirming that the owner had been notified of the application. Referrals External Referrals Coliban Water- no objection subject to conditions Internal Referrals Infrastructure Unit- no objection subject to conditions


Cost of potential appeal to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

6. Consultation

Advertising Notice of the application was given to adjoining owners and occupiers by way of registered mail and two signs were placed on site on Murphy and Baird Streets. Three objections were received following the notice period. One objection was later withdrawn. Correspondence between applicant and objector Contact with both remaining objectors was attempted; however a response was only received from one. The assessing officer had separate discussions with both the applicant and this objector. Correspondence between the two resulted in various suggestions for alteration to the design from both parties. The applicant proposed a design with a truncated roof form and reduction to a single garage to bring it further from the boundary. However, the objector’s primary concern of building height was not resolved and consequently the objection was not withdrawn.

7. Conclusion

Council has received an application for the construction of a second dwelling at 6 Murphy Street, Castlemaine. The site is located in the Residential 1 Zone and has no overlays. The purpose of the Residential 1 Zone includes providing for residential development at a range of densities with a variety of dwellings to meet the housing needs of all households. The primary concern of the building’s height and its respect of neighbourhood character is sufficiently addressed in the design response. The proposal satisfies all relevant objectives and standards contained within Clause 55 (Two of more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings) of the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme. Having considered the objections and relevant policies, it is considered that the proposal is in accordance with the provisions of the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme and should be approved.


RECOMMENDATION

That Council having considered the application and being of the opinion that the grant of a planning permit would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the area, resolve to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit for the development of a second dwelling at Lot 3 PS043400, 6 Murphy Street , Castlemaine subject to the following conditions: 1. AMENDED PLANS 1.1 The development must not be commenced until three copies of plans drawn to scale and with

written dimensions are submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit. Such plans must be generally in accordance with those submitted but modified to show:

• a reduction in the size of the garage so that no part of the structure is built over the drainage easement;

• a crossover width of 3.5 metres wide in accordance with infrastructure conditions below.

2. NO LAYOUT ALTERATION 2.1. The development allowed by this permit as shown on the endorsed plan(s) and/or described

in the endorsed documents must not be altered or modified (for any reason) except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS 3.1 Prior to commencement of any construction works associated with the development, detailed

access and drainage construction plans must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and form part of the permit. All works constructed or carried out must be in accordance with those endorsed plans. If required, minor amendments may be approved by Council’s Infrastructure Unit to the standards stipulated in the below conditions provided a similar outcome is achieved.

3.2 Council is to be paid a fee of 0.75% of the total construction costs for these works for the approval of the said plans plus 2.5% for supervision of construction. Said fees to be paid prior to the commencement of any road/drainage works.

3.3 Where an underground stormwater retention system is impractical the landowner will be required to enter into an agreement under Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act, 1987 with Council which affects each Lot within the subdivision. Such agreement shall require the landowner to provide for suitable above ground stormwater retention system. This requirement shall be waived if construction of an approved above ground stormwater retention system is undertaken.

3.4 All existing and proposed easements and sites for existing and required utility services must be set aside in favour of the relevant authority for which the easement or site is to be created on the plan of subdivision submitted for certification under the Subdivision Act 1988.

3.5 Vehicle crossovers appropriate to the development and existing site conditions are to be constructed to the levels/requirements of Council. Council’s minimum standards are: - • 3.5 metres wide; • 375 millimetres diameter RC pipes a minimum of 4.8 metres long centred on the crossover; • low profile culvert end-walls to all culvert ends; • 100 millimetres minimum compacted thickness of road base gravel from edge of pavement

to property line; • no impeding or redirection of existing surface flows as a result of these works • construction and maintenance of any driveway, including from the edge of the carriageway

to the property boundary, is the responsibility of the landowner. 3.6 The proposed development must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

The drainage system shall include provision of a storm water retention system to limit flows downstream from each lot to predevelopment levels in accordance with the current Australian Rainfall and Runoff – Flood Analysis and Design for a 5 year annual recurrence interval. The Legal Point of Discharge to the development is the existing underground drainage assets at the intersection of Baird Street and Murphy Street.


3.7 Provide cut off drains to protect adjoining properties from overland storm water flow. Provision is to be made to divert major rainfall (1 in 100 year) storm events away from the building envelopes of lots within this and adjoining subdivisions.

3.8 Where there are existing trees to be removed from the road reserve, Council will calculate the value of the trees using the appropriate model. Council may require the developer to pay a contribution equal to the value of the trees or undertake additional landscape works of an equivalent value adjacent to the site.

3.9 The existing drainage easement is to be free from any building and obstructions until a drainage pipeline is constructed along the easement.

3.10 The developer must restrict sediment discharges from any construction activities within the land in accordance with Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control (EPA 1991).

3.11 All existing road reservation assets are to be protected throughout the works including all utilities and services. Any damage is to be restored to prior construction condition at the developer’s cost.

4. COLIBAN WATER REQUIREMENTS 4.1 The owner is required to provide reticulated water and sewerage services to the proposed

second dwelling. Services are to be provided in accordance with Coliban Water specifications.

4.2 All Coliban Water assets within the development site, both existing and proposed, are to be protected by an easement in favour of Coliban Region Water Corporation.

5. PERMIT EXPIRY 5.1 This permit will expire if the development permitted by this permit is not commenced within

two years or not completed within four years from the date hereof. The times within which the development must be commenced and completed may on written request made before or within three months after the expiry of this permit be extended by the Responsible Authority.

PERMIT NOTES INFRASTRUCTURE NOTES Prior to the commencement of any works on the road reserve the owner/applicant must submit an application and be issued a permit to occupy the road for works pursuant to Local Laws No 2.


Site Aerial and Design Response Attachment FUT 095A


Proposed floor plans, elevations and shadow diagrams Attachment FUT 095B


FUT 096 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION PA051/2012 – THREE LOT SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THREE DWELLINGS, LOT 2 PS615922X, 34A ETTY STREET, CASTLEMAINE

Responsible Officer: Senior Town Planner Original Document: DOC/12/97504

1. Purpose

The purpose of this report is to inform Council of an application for a three lot subdivision and the development of three dwellings. The application has been referred to Council for determination as there are two outstanding objections in relation to the application. Refer to: Attachment FUT 096A: Site photographs Attachment FUT 096B: Proposed subdivision and development layout & elevations.

2. Background

The subject site is located on the south side of Etty Street, near the T-intersection with McAlise Street. The site is a battle axe lot that can be accessed via Etty Street and has an area of 912m². The subject site is vacant and has a slight fall to the north. The subject site contains some trees and shrubs. The site is located within an established residential area. Developments in the immediate environs comprise single detached dwellings finished in either weatherboard cladding or brick veneer mostly dating to the post war era. Etty Street has a road reservation of approximately 30 metres. Carriageways are divided by a landscaped median strip. It is proposed to subdivide the land into three residential lots and create a common property as follows.

Lot No. Proposed Area 1 233.33m² 2 192.29m² 3 181.04m²

Common property 305.62m²

It is also proposed to develop a single storey detached dwelling on each residential lot. Key features of the dwelling proposal as follows: Dwelling 1 - Three bedrooms

- Building area = 156.31m² - Site coverage 67.00% - 40 m² of private open space

Dwelling 2 - Two bedrooms - Building area = 192.29m² - Site coverage 49.88% - 55.70m² of private open space

Dwelling 3 - Two bedrooms - Building area = 181.04m² - Site coverage 46.80% - 60.20m² of private open space



Including consideration of Economic, Social and Environmental impacts.

State Planning Policy Framework Clause 16.01 - Residential Development for Single Dwellings This policy ensures that subdivisions are located where they have access to physical and community infrastructure. It also ensures that subdivisions provide a range of lots sizes, a convenient and safe road network, and appropriate pedestrian and cycle paths. These aspects have been considered in the application. Clause 19 - Infrastructure This clause seeks the efficient and equitable provision of social and physical infrastructure partly through the use of development contributions (levies) in the funding of infrastructure. The proposed subdivision and subsequent development will provide the provision and on going maintenance of necessary infrastructure. Local Planning Policy Framework Clause 21.03 – Municipal vision and framework plan This covers the land use planning and vision for the Shire. The Municipal Strategic Statement encourages urban growth and an increase in housing choice, in sympathy with the environment. The proposal is to increase housing lots within Castlemaine which is consistent with the above objective and will provide residential lots in an existing residential area The site is located within the ‘Urban Boundary’ of Castlemaine as identified on Plan 3 Castlemaine Land Use Framework. Clause 21.05-2 Ageing Community The policy seeks to increase housing choice to accommodate future population needs and provide medium density housing in close proximity to retail, health and community facilities. Clause 22.01 - Castlemaine It is policy that: • opportunities for urban infill within the Castlemaine urban area are provided; • special attention is to be paid to maintenance of the town character and historic attributes; and • medium density housing is to be encouraged in centrally located areas.

The proposed subdivision is located within the ‘Urban Boundary’ of Castlemaine and provides an opportunity for infill development in an existing residential area of Castlemaine. Clause 22.26 – Residential Infrastructure A principal objective of this policy is to ensure that all existing and future forms of residential development is serviced with reticulated sewerage when available and practical, water, electricity and other services. It is policy that proposals for subdivision of land for residential purposes may be requested to provide a report which demonstrates how the site can be connected to reticulated water, sewerage and power where available.

The proposed dwellings will be serviced with reticulated sewerage, water, electricity and other services.


Zones Clause 32.01 –Residential 1 Zone The subject site is located within a Residential 1 Zone. The objective of this zone is to provide for residential development at a range of densities with a variety of dwellings to meet the housing needs of all households and to encourage residential development that respects the neighbourhood character. Under Clause 32.01-2 of the Residential 1 Zone a planning permit is required to subdivide land and proposals must meet the requirements in Clause 56 of the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme. Under Clause 32.01-3 of the Residential 1 Zone, a planning permit is required to construct a dwelling on a lot less than 300 m2. Before deciding on such an application, the responsible authority must consider the decision guidelines in Clause 65 and consider, as appropriate:

• The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

• The objectives, standards and decision guidelines of Clause 54. The proposal is compliant with the requirements of the Residential 1 Zone. Overlays The property is not located within any planning overlays. Particular Provisions

Clause 54 – One Dwelling On A Lot An application for a dwelling on a lot must meet all of the objectives and should meet all of the standards of this clause of the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme. An assessment of the application against this Clause accompanied the application and demonstrates that the proposal meets the relevant standards and objectives.

Clause 56 – Residential Subdivision An application for subdivision in the Residential 1 Zone must meet the objectives and should meet all of the standards of Clause 56 of the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme. An assessment of the application against this Clause accompanied the application and demonstrates that the proposal meets the relevant standards and objectives.

4. Issues

Two objections have been submitted and not withdrawn. Objections are summarised below and followed by officer comments:

• High density residential development is not appropriate and not in character with the low density character of the locality. The area is known for housing allotments which are generous in size and afford pleasant garden spaces.

The site is located within a Residential 1 Zone which seeks development at a range of densities with a variety of dwellings to meet the housing needs of all households. Whilst the density proposed is not strictly replicated in the immediate environs, the proposed dwellings are to be single storey, of modest size and will not be detrimental to the existing neighbourhood character.


• The proposed development would require the removal of all trees and shrubs from the site.

Pursuant to Clause 52.17-6 (Native Vegetation) of the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme, a planning permit is not required for the removal of any vegetation on a lot less than 0.4 hectare in area, this equates to 4000m². The subject site has an overall area of 912m².

• The proposed development should be reduced to two units to allow the retention of existing vegetation.

As noted above, there is no requirement in the Planning Scheme for existing vegetation on the site to be retained.

• The proposal may result in flooding, if the driveway was made from semi permeable tarmac, some of the risk would be reduced.

Council’s Infrastructure Unit has assessed the proposal and provided proposed permit conditions to mitigate any drainage concerns.


Cost of appeal to Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

6. Consultation

Notice of the application was carried out by sending notices by registered post to adjoining owners and occupiers and the erection of a sign on site. As a result of advertising, two objections were received. The permit applicant has advised Council that he considers the submitted objections to be unreasonable. On this basis, an applicant / objector meeting was not held.

Referrals External Referrals Coliban Water - no objection subject to conditions Goulburn Murray Water – no objection subject to conditions Powercor – no objection subject to conditions Tenix – no objection subject to conditions Internal Referrals Infrastructure Unit- no objection subject to conditions

7. Conclusion

Council has received an application for a three lot subdivision and subsequent development of the site for three dwellings. The proposal is located within the Residential 1 Zone and no overlays affect the property. There are currently two outstanding objections in relation to the proposal.

The proposed subdivision of the site and further development for three dwellings is considered to be compliant with the Residential 1 Zone which seeks to provide for residential development at a range of densities to meet the future needs of all households.

Having considered the objections and relevant policies, it is considered that the proposal is in accordance with the provisions of the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme.


RECOMMENDATION

That Council having considered the application and being of the opinion that the grant of a planning permit would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the area, resolve to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit for Three Lot Subdivision and Development of Three Dwellings at Lot 2 PS615922X, 34A Etty Street, Castlemaine subject to the following conditions:

1. NO LAYOUT ALTERATION 1.1 The layout and location of the lots as shown on the endorsed plan of subdivision shall not be

altered or modified without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

2. PAYMENT IN LIEU OF OPEN SPACE 2.1 The applicant or owner must pay to Council the sum equivalent to 0.75% of the value of the

land in the subdivision. This payment must be made before a Statement of Compliance is issued and may be varied under Section 19 of the Subdivision Act, 1988

3. VALUATION EXPENSES 3.1 The applicant or owner must pay on demand to Council, the Council’s reasonable costs and

expenses to provide valuation for payment in lieu of open space.

4. UNDERGROUND POWER CONDITION 4.1 The electricity supply for the subdivision must be provided underground.

5. INFRASTRUCTURE CONDITIONS 5.1 All existing and proposed easements and sites for existing and required utility services must

be set aside in favour of the relevant authority for which the easement or site is to be created on the plan of subdivision submitted for certification under the Subdivision Act 1988.

5.2 Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance the drainage and driveway works must be undertaken to the satisfaction of Council in accordance with the approved plans.

5.3 Prior to the commencement of any works the applicant must submit detailed construction plans for the driveway and drainage works associated with the development to the satisfaction of Council. The driveway access to the three lots is to be drained and constructed to approved engineering standards in hotmix or concrete.

5.4 Internal traffic movements are to comply with current engineering traffic practice and Australian Standards for turning movements with the subject land for ingress and egress onto Etty Street it shall be by way of forward movements.

5.5 Council is to be paid 0.75% of the total construction costs for the approval of the said plans plus 2.5% for supervision of construction. Said fees are to be paid prior to the commencement of any road/ drainage works.

5.6 The proposed development must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The drainage system shall include provision of a storm water retention system to limit flows downstream from each lot to pre-development levels with the current Australian Rainfall and Runoff – Flood Analysis and Design for a 5 year annual recurrence interval.

5.7 The legal point of discharge to the subdivision is to be existing drainage assets owned by Council in Etty Street.

5.8 The applicant must construct the new driveway access to connect to Etty Street to the satisfaction of Council in accordance with current engineering standards. The maintenance of the access driveway from the edge of the designated carriageway in Etty Street to the property boundary, is the responsibility of the landowner.

5.9 The developer must restrict sediment discharges from any construction sites with the land in accordance with Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control (EPA 1991) and Environmental Guidelines for Construction Sites (EPA 1995.


5.10 All existing road reservation assets are to be protected throughout the works including all utilities and services. Any damage is to be restored prior to construction condition at the developers cost.

6. GOULBURN MURRAY WATER CONDITIONS 6.1 Each lot must be provided with connection to the reticulated sewerage system.

6.2 All works within the subdivision must be done in accordance with EPA Publication 960

“Doing It Right on Subdivisions, Temporary Environmental Protection Measures for Subdivision Construction Sites”, September 2004.

6.3 All stormwater discharged from the site must meet urban run-off management objectives and

standard C25 as required by Clause 56.07-4 of the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme. All works must be undertaken to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

7. COLIBAN WATER CONDITIONS

7.1 The owner is required to provide reticulated water and sewerage services to each of the lots within the subdivision. Services are to be provided in accordance with Coliban Water specifications.

7.2 All Coliban Water assets within the subdivision, both existing and proposed, are to be protected in favour of an easement in favour of Coliban Region Water Corporation

8. POWERCOR REQUIREMENTS 8.1 The plan of subdivision submitted for certification under the Subdivision Act 1988 shall be

referred to Powercor Australia Ltd in accordance with Section 8 of that Act.

8.2 The applicant shall:

• Provide an electricity supply to all lots in the subdivision in accordance with Powercor’s requirements and standards, including the extension, augmentation or re-arrangement of any existing electricity supply system, as required by Powercor (A payment to cover the cost of such work will be required). In the event that a supply is not provided the applicant shall provide a written undertaking to Powercor Australia Ltd that prospective purchasers will be so informed.

• Where buildings or other installations exist on the land to be subdivided and are connected to the electricity supply, they shall be brought into compliance with the Service and Installation Rules issued by the Victorian Electricity Supply Industry. The applicant shall arrange compliance through a Registered Electrical Contractor.

• Ensure any buildings comply with the clearances required by the Electricity Safety (Network Assets) Regulations.

• Ensure that construction work complies with the clearances required by the Electricity Safety (Network Assets) Regulations.

• Set aside on the plan of subdivision for the use of Powercor Australia Ltd reserves and/or easements satisfactory to Powercor Australia Ltd where any electric substation (other than a pole mounted type is required to service the subdivision.

• Provide easements satisfactory to Powercor Australia Ltd, where easements have not been otherwise provided, for all existing Powercor Australia Ltd electric lines on the land and for any new potential powerlines require to service the lots and adjoining land, save for lines located, or to be located on public roads set out in the plan. These easements


shall show on the plan an easement(s) in favour of ‘Powercor Australia Ltd’ for ‘Powerline Purposes’ pursuant to Section 88 of the Electricity Industry Act 2000.

• Obtain for the use of Powercor Australia Ltd any other easement external to the subdivision required to service the lots.

• Adjust the position of any existing easement(s) for powerlines to accord with the position of the lines as determined by survey.

• Obtain Powercor Australia Ltd approval for lot boundaries within any area affected by an easement for a powerline and for the construction of any works in such an area.

• Provide to Powercor Australia Ltd, a copy of the version of the plan of subdivision

submitted for certification, which shows any amendments which have been required.

9. TELSTRA CONDITOINS 9.1 The plan of subdivision submitted for certification must be referred to Telstra in accordance

with Section 8 of the Subdivision Act 1988. 9.2 Telstra will not consent to the issue of a Statement of Compliance until such time as the

Applicant provides satisfactory evidence of compliance with the above conditions. 10. TENIX CONDITIONS 10.1 The plan of subdivision submitted for certification must be referred to SP Ausnet (gas) in

accordance with Section 8 of the Subdivision Act 1988. 11. PERMIT EXPIRY 11.1 This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

a. the subdivision and development is not started within two years of the date of this permit;

b. the subdivision and development is not completed within five years of the date of starting.

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

(N.B. The starting of a subdivision is regarded by Section 68(3A) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 as the certification of a plan under Section 6 of the Subdivision Act 1988. Completion is regarded as registration of the subdivision.)

PERMIT NOTES

INFRASTRUCTURE

Prior to the commencement of any works on the road reserve the owner/applicant must submit an application and be issued a permit to occupy the road for works pursuant to Local Law No 2.

Construction and maintenance of any driveway, including from the edge of the carriageway to the property boundary, is the responsibility of the landowner.

TELSTRA

Approval does not cover alterations to existing Telstra Plant or Network. Locations of existing network can be obtained from Dial Before You Dig – Ph: 1100. For co-ordinated Telstra plant reticulation in this development, please refer to www.telstrasmartcommunity.com to register your development.


Site photographs Attachment FUT 096A


Proposed subdivision and development layout & elevations Attachment FUT 096B


FUT 097 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 164/2012 – TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF LAND AT LOT 1 TP14886M, 47 FLETCHER STREET, CASTLEMAINE (PA164/20120)

Responsible Officer: Town Planner Original Document: DOC/12/

1. Purpose

The purpose of this report is to recommend Council make a decision on an application for the subdivision into two lots of the land identified as Lot 1 TP014886M, at 47 Fletcher Street, Castlemaine. The application has been referred to Council for a decision as there is one outstanding objection to the grant of a permit. Consideration of the application was deferred by Council at the Ordinary Meeting on 27 November 2012 in order to enable further consideration of matters raised by the objector. Refer to: Attachment FUT 097A: Site Aerial and Design Response Attachment FUT 097B: Photo of Road Reserve at proposed driveway location.

2. Background

The subject site consists of a single rectangular allotment located approximately 700 metres north-east of the Castlemaine CBD. The site has an area of approximately 870m2 and is within the Residential 1 Zone (R1Z). No overlays affect the site. The site is a corner allotment with a frontage of 40 metres to Campbell Street and 21 metres to Fletcher Street. Vehicle access to the site is from Fletcher Street. The site contains a single dwelling and shed which are located on the eastern portion of the site fronting Fletcher Street. This eastern portion of the site displays a slight six degree downward slope from south to north. The rear (western) portion of the site displays a more moderate fourteen degree downward slope from east to west, conforming with the descent of Campbell Street to the west. Trees of varying species and maturity are present in the Campbell Street road reserve. Surrounding land to the north, south and west is all developed residentially in a variety of lot sizes. The application proposes to subdivide the land into two lots as follows: • Lot 1 is proposed to measure 567.6m2 which will contain the existing dwelling and shed and

retain the existing vehicle access from Fletcher Street. • Lot 2 is proposed to measure 303m2, being the western (rear), portion of the site and proposes to

create new vehicle access from Campbell Street. Future development on Lot 2 does not require a planning permit and cannot be considered in determining this subdivision application.


Including consideration of Economic, Social and Environmental impacts. State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) Clause 16.01 Residential Development


This clause outlines how planning should provide for housing diversity and the efficient provision of infrastructure. It also outlines how location of new housing should be planned for sustainability through proximity to community services. Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) Clause 21.03 Municipal Vision and Framework Plan This clause sets out the vision for land use planning and development for the Shire. It contains spatial plans indicating strategic directions for the Shire and specific towns. Plan 1 (Strategic Framework Plan) identifies Castlemaine, including Campbells Creek, as the preferred location for future commercial, industrial and residential expansion. Plan 3 (Castlemaine Framework Plan) indicates that the subject site is within the Castlemaine Urban Boundary and close to the Castlemaine CBD. The Castlemaine Residential Strategy supports opportunities for residential infill and consolidation and recommends more housing opportunities be made available close to and within the town centre. Clause 21.04-1 Management of Urban Growth This clause outlines more specific strategies to achieve the Municipal Vision in the areas of settlement, environment and economic development. Fundamental directions for residential development include consolidation of the Castlemaine urban area, efficient use of infrastructure and increasing housing opportunities close to the town centre close to retail, health and community facilities. Clause 22.01 Castlemaine Policy within this clause relating to residential development consists of providing opportunities for urban infill development in Castlemaine which maintains town character and also providing medium density housing in centrally located areas. Clause 22.26 Residential Infrastructure This policy aims to ensure residential development is serviced by all essential infrastructure in order that attractive living environments and environmental quality is maintained. Zoning Clause 33.01 Residential 1 Zone (R1Z) The purpose of the Residential 1 Zone is to implement the State and Local Planning Policy Framework, providing for residential development at a range of densities with a variety of dwellings to meet the needs of all households and respect neighbourhood character. Subdivision in the Residential 1 Zone must be assessed against the decision guidelines of Clause 65, the State and Local Planning Policy Framework and the objectives and standards of Clause 56 which relates specifically to residential subdivision. Particular Provisions Clause 56 Residential Subdivision An application for subdivision in the Residential 1 Zone must address relevant objectives within Clause 56. An assessment against this Clause was submitted with the application which demonstrated that the proposal meets all relevant objectives and standards of Clause 56. Of particular relevance to this application is Clause 56.04-2 whose objective is to ensure lots are of appropriate dimensions to enable siting and construction which can accommodate all on-site requirements, such as car parking and open space, and also does not adversely affect amenity of adjacent properties. As the application proposes to create a lot with an area between 300m2 and 500m2 it must be demonstrated that the lot can contain a building envelope measuring 10 metres by 15 metres. The application has demonstrated that the lot can accommodate a 10 metre by 15 metre building envelope meeting all required setback distances.


4. Issues

Outstanding objections to the application Following advertisement of the application in accordance with Section 52(1)(a) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, one objection was received from an adjoining land owner. Issues are summarised below followed by a comment from the assessing officer. • Negative impact of any future building on the amenity of the lot adjacent to the south due to the

slope and proximity to the boundary. The application is for subdivision only and does not include the development of a dwelling. As the proposed Lot 2 is between 300 and 500m2, it is required by the Planning Scheme that it be demonstrated that a lot can contain a building envelope measuring 10 metres by 15 metres. The proposal meets relevant standards of the Planning Scheme by allocating a building envelope. Possible amenity impacts which may be caused by a building are assessed later during the building permit stage. • The proposed driveway for Lot 2 would ruin significant streetscape features in the road reserve. The proposed driveway would require removal of some shrubs and small trees; however these are less than 10 years old, with only one being a native tree. The proposed location is considered the most appropriate as it would require the least disturbance to the road reserve and would also reduce visual impact of multiple entrances as it can be consolidated with the crossover of the adjoining property. • The subdivision would be a detriment to the amenity and character of the area. The site is a corner allotment which allows subdivision which has excellent integration with the street. The frontage of proposed Lot 2, being 14 metres, is a width which is consistent with many lots in the area and will therefore not create detriment to the character of the area. • The grant of a permit for the subdivision will set an undesirable precedent which will in turn

generate increased noise, traffic and impact on the amenity of the area. As stated above, the majority of policy and strategies within the Planning Scheme support and promote infill development which provides availability of housing opportunities close to services. The proposal is not considered an undesirable precedent, but one which implements strategic directions set out in the Planning Scheme. Referrals External Referrals Coliban Water- no objection subject to conditions Powercor- no objection subject to conditions Telstra- no objection subject to conditions Tenix- no objection subject to conditions Internal Referrals Infrastructure Unit - no objection subject to conditions


Cost of potential appeal to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.


6. Consultation

Advertising Notice of the application was given to adjoining owners and occupiers by way of registered mail and two signs were placed on site on Fletcher and Campbell Streets. One objection was received following the notice period. On-site applicant-objector meeting An on-site meeting was held with the applicant and the objector and the assessing Council officer on 29 September 2012. The applicant brought along a draft concept plan of a dwelling which the land owner was considering constructing on the site. The objector was informed that these plans did not constitute part of the application but were provided in the hope that it might address some of their concerns. It was explained that Council, in conducting its assessment of the application, could only consider issues relating to the subdivision such as works, fencing, pattern of subdivision and location of building envelope. Issues related to a future building would be assessed by the appointed Building Surveyor in accordance with Building Regulations at the building permit stage. In regard to the impact of the works required to construct the crossover, the applicant stated that it would be possible to reinstate the rocks currently used in the retaining wall of their crossover so to maintain some of the existing aesthetic. It was also suggested by the applicant that construction of an acoustic fence could be included as a condition on any permit in order that any noise could be reduced. The meeting ended with the objector stating further consideration was required and that they would inform Council of their intentions. Council received a response from the objector on 13 November 2012 requesting the following conditions be included on any permit to be issued: • Minimum building setback of 3.5 metres from the shared boundary. • Installation of highly sound-insulating fencing along the shared boundary with a minimum height

of 2 metres. • Appropriate landscaping to be provided along the boundary (within the 3.5 metre setback

referred to above) of the proposed Lot 2 that will screen the dwelling but not eventually growing to a height that would block additional winter sun reaching the adjoining property.

• Cross over to be constructed such that the existing constructed rock wall with landscaping and wattle tree are retained (i.e. 2 metres width of existing wall and land to be retained as a buffer between the two cross overs).

Council officers have assessed the above requests. There is no policy basis within the Planning Scheme for any of the above requirements to be included as permit conditions as: • The current application is for subdivision only and any conditions on the permit must relate to

the subdivision rather than any future development of the land. The amenity impacts as a result of any future dwelling will be assessed at Building Permit stage.

• The provision of fencing between lots is not covered under the Planning Scheme and is a civil matter.

• The crossover proposed in the application has been approved by Council’s Infrastructure Unit and is considered appropriate.

The above requests were also provided to the permit applicant in case they wished to voluntarily undertake some of the works. The applicant advises that they did not wish to include the above request as part of their subdivision proposal.

7. Conclusion

Council has received an application for a two lot subdivision at 47 Fletcher Street, Castlemaine. The site is located in the Residential 1 Zone and has no overlays.


The purpose of the Residential 1 Zone includes providing for residential development at a range of densities with a variety of dwellings to meet the housing needs of all households which also respects neighbourhood character. The proposal will result in the creation of a variety of lot sizes which respects the existing character of the neighbourhood. The proposal satisfies all relevant objectives and standards contained within Clause 56 (Residential Subdivision) of the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme. Future development on Lot 2 does not require a planning permit and cannot be considered in determining this subdivision application.

Having considered the objections and relevant policies, it is considered that the proposal is in accordance with the provisions of the Mount Alexander Planning Scheme and should be approved.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council having considered the application and being of the opinion that the grant of a planning permit would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the area, resolve to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit for a two lot subdivision at Lot 1 TP14886M, 47 Fletcher Street, Castlemaine subject to the following conditions: 1. NO LAYOUT ALTERATION 1.1. The subdivision, as shown on the preliminary plan(s), must not be altered except to accord

with the final plan(s) prepared by a Licensed Surveyor. The final plan(s) must not be further altered without the prior written consent of Responsible Authority.

2. COLIBAN WATER REQUIREMENTS 2.1. The owner is required to provide reticulated water and sewerage services to each of the lots

within the subdivision. Services are to be provided in accordance with Coliban Water specifications.

2.2. All Coliban Water assets within the subdivision, both existing and proposed, are to be protected by an easement in favour of Coliban Region Water Corporation.

2.3. The existing private drain must be contained within the boundary of lot 1. Any outbuildings connected to this sewer must be cut and sealed if they will encroach into proposed lot 2.

3. POWERCOR REQUIREMENTS 3.1. The plan of subdivision submitted for certification under the Subdivision Act 1988 shall be

referred to Powercor Australia Ltd in accordance with Section 8 of that Act. 3.2. The applicant shall:-

• Provide an electricity supply to all lots in the subdivision in accordance with Powercor’s requirements and standards, including the extension, augmentation or re-arrangement of any existing electricity supply system, as required by Powercor.

• Where buildings or other installations exist on the land to be subdivided and are connected to the electricity supply, they shall be brought into compliance with the Service and Installation Rules issued by the Victorian Electricity Supply Industry. The applicant shall arrange compliance through a Registered Electrical Contractor and provide to Powercor Australia Ltd a completed Electrical Safety Certificate in accordance with Electricity Safe Victoria’s Electrical Safety System.

• The applicant shall provide to Powercor Australia Ltd, a copy of the version of the plan of subdivision submitted for certification, which shows any amendments which have been required.

• Any buildings must comply with the clearances required by the Electricity Safety (Network Assets) Regulations.

• Any construction work must comply with Energy Safe Victoria’s “No Go Zone” rules.

4. TELSTRA REQUIREMENTS 4.1. The plan of subdivision submitted for certification must be referred to Telstra in accordance

with Section 8 of the Subdivision Act 1988. Telstra will not consent to the issue of a Statement


of Compliance until such time as the applicant provides satisfactory evidence of compliance with the above conditions.

5. TENIX REQUIREMENTS 5.1. The plan of subdivision submitted for certification must be referred to SP AusNet (Gas) in

accordance with Section 8 of the Subdivision Act 1988 6. INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS 6.1. All existing and proposed easements and sites for existing and required utility services must

be set aside in favour of the relevant authority for which the easement or site is to be created on the plan of subdivision submitted for certification under the Subdivision Act 1988.

6.2. Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance the drainage and driveway works must be undertaken to satisfaction of Council in accordance with the approved plans.

6.3. Prior to the commencement of any works the applicant must submit detailed construction plans for the driveway and drainage works associated with the development to the satisfaction of Council.

6.4. Council is to be paid a fee of 0.75% of the total construction costs for these works for the approval of the said plans plus 2.5% for supervision of construction. Said fees to be paid prior to the commencement of any road/drainage works.

6.5. The proposed development must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The drainage system shall include provision of a storm water retention system to limit flows downstream from each lot to predevelopment levels in accordance with the current Australian Rainfall and Runoff – Flood Analysis and Design for a 5 year annual recurrence interval.

6.6. The legal point of discharge to the subdivision is to be Campbell Street into existing drainage assets owned by Council.

6.7. The applicant must construct the new driveway access to connect to Campbell Street to the satisfaction of Council in accordance with current engineering standards. The maintenance of the new driveway access from the edge of the designated carriageway in Campbell Street to the property boundary is the responsibility of the landowner.

6.8. Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance, the applicant shall demonstrate that existing buildings with respect to title boundaries are compliant with the Building Regulations.

6.9. The developer must restrict sediment discharges from any construction sites within the land in accordance with Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control (EPA 1991) and Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites (EPA 1995).

6.10. All existing road reservation assets are to be protected throughout the works including all utilities and services. Any damage is to be restored to prior construction condition at the developer’s cost.

7. TIME FOR STARTING AND COMPLETION 7.1. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:-

a) The subdivision is not started within two years of the date of this permit. b) The subdivision is not completed within five years of the date of starting. Council may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards. (N.B. The starting of a subdivision is regarded by Section 68(3A) of the Planning and Environment Act, 1987 as the certification of a plan under Section 6 of the Subdivision Act, 1988. Completion is regarded as registration of the subdivision). PERMIT NOTES Prior to the commencement of any works on the road reserve the owner/applicant must submit an application and be issued a permit to occupy the road for works pursuant to Local Laws No 2


Site Aerial and Design Response (lot layout) Attachment FUT 097A


Photo of Road Reserve at proposed driveway location Attachment FUT 097B


FUT 098 UPDATE ON FLOOD RECOVERY PROGRAM 2012 NUMBER 2

Responsible Officer: Director Environment and Infrastructure Original Document: DOC/12/98551

1. Purpose

The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the increase in the estimate for the February 2012 flood event from $4.9 million to $7.2 million.

2. Background

The flood event that occurred on the 27 and 28 February 2012 resulted in further damage, particularly at Castlemaine, Fryerstown, Guildford, Chewton and Campbell’s Creek. There were over 300 documented infrastructure related requests for action. The vast majority of these have been completed. Additionally over 700 telephone/customer requests were issued to depot staff. Other impacts of the flood event on 27 and 28 February 2012 were: • 156.8 millimetres recorded at Castlemaine on 27 February and 97.8 millimetres on 28 February • 75 millimetres fell within a 90 minute period • 115 households damaged (11 homes and 6 shops severely flooded) • 20 local businesses suffered damage • 11 council-owned community buildings damaged • 50 more local roads damaged, and further damage to a (relatively small) number of

rehabilitated roads • Further damage to 11 bridges and major culverts.


Including consideration of Economic, Social and Environmental impacts. In achieving its vision Council has identified four key priorities: • Strengthening our community • Partnering for better service • Ensuring a prosperous and diverse local economy • Creating a sustainable future.

Underpinning the key priorities are several objectives and strategies pertaining to the provision of adequate infrastructure. The flooding events had a significant impact on existing infrastructure and ensuring that this infrastructure is returned to its former condition is a key priority for Council.

4. Issues

Due to the volume and scope of remediation works required, Council has a panel of contractors in place to complete flood recovery works. Works to be undertaken over the coming months include: • Gravel road re-sheets; • Continuation of bridge and major culverts abutment rehabilitation; • Major culvert repair and replacement; and • Repair to smaller outstanding culverts, as well as fords rehabilitation.


Preliminary estimated costs associated with the February 2012 flood event was $4.9 million (additional to the January 2011 and prior storms). Further investigation has been undertaken and as a result the estimate has now increased to $7.2 million. Of the six contractors initially engaged, one contractor (Global) completed the works assigned to it during September 2012. Another contractor (CityWide) completed its assigned works by mid-October 2012 and a third (Vemco) has completed its entire assigned works except for one project (McGrath Street) by the end of December 2012. Roadside Care and Maintenance expected to be finished by late November 2012. Quality Roads and Slingos project to be completed by the end of February 2013. All of this is weather-dependent.


February 2012 flood event revised estimate breakdown is shown in the table below:

Work Classification Expenditure to date (From February 2012)

Projected expenditure in

2012/13 TOTAL

Emergency Works – February 2012 $877,170 $132,636 $1,009,806

Asset Restoration Works – Local Roads

• Gravel Road Repairs (B1) • Sealed Road Repairs (B2) • Bridge Repairs (B5) • Roads Drainage Repair

(B3) • Supervision and

investigation (B4)

$964,924

$212, 010 -

$883,685

$33,297

$1,940,124

$708,955

$200,000 $1,023,902

$128,703

$2,905,048

$920,965

$200,000 $1,907,587

$162,000 Asset Restoration Works – Other Council Assets

• Trails and Paths (C1) • Building/Access,

Reserves/Parks (C2)

$5,136 $12,175

$19,458 $57,825

$24,594 $70,000

Total $2,988,397 $4,211,603 $7,200,000

It is anticipated that the full amount of $7.2 million will be recoverable from the Natural Disaster Assistance Fund. To ensure Council’s cash flow remains positive claims to the Department of Treasury and Finance will be submitted on a monthly basis

6. Consultation

Council officers regularly meet with senior representatives from the Department of Treasury. VicRoads has been consulted regarding the increase in the estimated works required.

7. Conclusion

The flood event that occurred on 27 and 28 February 2012 resulted in further damage at Castlemaine, Guildford, Chewton and Campbells Creek. Preliminary estimated costs associated


with this flood event was $4.9 million. Further investigation has been undertaken and as a result the estimate has now increased to $7.2 million.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council note the content of this report and the increase in the estimate for the 2012 Flood Recovery Program from $4.9 million to $7.2 million.


10. DELEGATES REPORTS

11. NOTICE OF MOTION

12. URGENT SPECIAL BUSINESS

13. MEETING CLOSE

ordinary meeting of council agenda 11 december 2012

Documents