Council Meeting Agenda 25 July 2012

AGENDA

Ordinary Meeting of Council

6.00pm Wednesday July 25, 2012

VENUE:Reception Room,Bendigo Town Hall, Hargreaves Street, Bendigo

NEXT MEETING:Wednesday August 15, 2012Bendigo Town Hall

Copies of the City of Greater Bendigo Council’s Agendas & Minutescan be obtained online at www.bendigo.vic.gov.au

Council will realise its vision by setting strategic objectives, strategies and committing to annual actions within four Goal Areas:

Built and Natural Environment

Economic Development

Community and Culture

Our People, Our Processes

VisionGREATER BENDIGO will be the best place to live work and visit, where: growth and living standards are managed to

sustain and enhance quality of life a regional culture of learning, creativity and

innovation allows people to flourish its rich natural and cultural heritage is

conserved for today and tomorrow resilience, local spirit and identity are

proudly celebrated.

ValuesCouncil will achieve its vision by working with the community and business, displaying leadership in its decision-making, operating in an open manner and basing decisions on sound information.

Goal Areas

ORDINARY MEETING

WEDNESDAY 25 JULY 2012

ORDER OF BUSINESS:

ITEM PRECIS PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY 3

PRAYER 3

PRESENT 3

APOLOGIES 3

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS 3

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 3

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS 4

DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST 5

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 6

1. PETITIONS AND JOINT LETTERS 7

1.1 Petition: Children's Playground for Hargreaves Mall 7

2. BUILT AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 9

2.1 Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C162 (Heritage Policy Citations): Consideration of Submissions

9

2.2 Planning Scheme Amendment C173 - Proposed Rezoning of the Holdsworth Road Former Psychiatric Hospital & Apply The Environmental Audit Overlay - 107-125 Holdsworth Road, North Bendigo - Consideration to Request The Minister for Planning for Authorisation

21

2.3 Subdivision of Land into 23 Lots, the Removal of Native Vegetation and the Variation of a Sewerage Easement - 41 Buckland Street, Epsom

30

2.4 Subdivision of Land into Three Lots - 29 Landale Drive, Strathdale

44

2.5 Subdivide Land into Two Lots - 12 McKay Court, Strathdale

55

2.6 Two Lot Subdivision and Construction of One Dwelling -14 Alliance Avenue, California Gully

62

2.7 Mitchell Street Bus Stop & Streetscape Redevelopment 76

3. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 86

4. COMMUNITY AND CULTURE 86

5. OUR PEOPLE, OUR PROCESSES 87

5.1 Budget Submissions 87

5.2 Adoption of Council Budget 2012-2013 100

5.3 Options for Dealing with the Local Authorities Superannuation Liability

109

5.4 Accounts Payable and Contracts Awarded Under Delegation

120

5.5 Record Of Assemblies 122

6. URGENT BUSINESS 130

7. NOTICES OF MOTION 130

8. COUNCILLORS' REPORTS 130

9. MAYOR'S REPORT 130

10. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT 130

11. CONFIDENTIAL (SECTION 89) REPORTS 130

11.1 Contractual Matter 130

11.2 Contractual Matter 130

____________________________

CRAIG NIEMANNCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Ordinary Meeting - 25 July 2012

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

PRAYER

PRESENT

APOLOGIES

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

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

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Public Question Time Guidelines

Public Question Time – PurposeCouncil has provided the opportunity for members of the public to ask questions of broad interest to Council and the community. Matters relating to routine Council works should be taken up with Council’s Customer Service Officers through its Customer Request System.

By the time planning matters have reached the council agenda, they have been through an extensive process as required by the Planning and Environment Act. In addition, in most instances mediation has been held between the parties involved. Throughout the process there are many opportunities for the people to ask questions. Therefore, no questions relating to planning matters on the Agenda will be accepted.

Public Question Time – Where, When And WhoThe public question time is held at every Ordinary Meeting of Greater Bendigo City Council. Meetings of Council commence at 6.00pm in the Reception Room, Bendigo Town Hall, Hargreaves Street, Bendigo.

The public question time is held at the start of the meeting as close as practical to 6:00pm. A maximum of 30 minutes has been provided for registered and unregistered questions.

Residents are encouraged to lodge questions in advance so that a more complete response can be provided.


PAGE 4

Questions will be put to the Council by the individual posing the question; the question will be answered by the Mayor or CEO, or where appropriate, Councillors or Council Officers.

Acceptance of QuestionsEach person asking a question of Council is required to stand, state their name, and address the Mayor. Public Question Time is not an opportunity for making of statements or other comments. Council’s Meeting Procedure Local Law does not allow for other questions or comments during the remainder of the meeting.

1. An individual may only ask one question per meeting, a follow-up question may be permitted at the discretion of the Mayor.

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

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

4. The Mayor and or CEO have the right to decline registration on basis of: Prosecution, summonses or any other litigation; Most appropriately addressed by other means; Vague, irrelevant, insulting or improper, defamatory; Answer likely to compromise his / her position; Confidential, commercial-in-confidence.

5. Each individual whose registration form has been accepted or declined will be advised by the Friday of the week prior to the scheduled meeting.

6. In the event of a registration form being declined the registration form will be circulated to the Mayor or Councillors for information.

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS

That Standing Orders be resumed.


PAGE 5

DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Pursuant to Sections 77, 78 and 79 of the Local Government Act 1989 (as amended) direct and indirect conflict of interest must be declared prior to debate on specific items within the agenda; or in writing to the Chief Executive Officer before the meeting. Declaration of indirect interests must also include the classification of the interest (in circumstances where a Councillor has made a Declaration in writing, the classification of the interest must still be declared at the meeting), i.e.

(a) direct financial interest(b) indirect interest by close association(c) indirect interest that is an indirect financial interest(d) indirect interest because of conflicting duties(e) indirect interest because of receipt of an applicable gift (f) indirect interest as a consequence of becoming an interested party(g) indirect interest as a result of impact on residential amenity(h) conflicting personal interest

A Councillor who has declared a conflict of interest, must leave the meeting and remain outside the room while the matter is being considered, or any vote is taken.

Councillors are also encouraged to declare circumstances where there may be a perceived conflict of interest.


PAGE 6

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Wednesday July 4, 2012.

The following items were considered at the Ordinary Council meeting held on Wednesday July 4, 2012 at 6:00pm.

Petition: Planning Permit Application DR/970/2011 - 73 Howard Street, Ascot Petition: Request for Review of Car Parking Spaces outside Dr Harry Little

Preschool, View Street, Bendigo Use and Develop Land for Dwelling - 495 Eickerts Lane, Redcastle Subdivision of Land into 5 Lots and the Removal of Native Vegetation - 144 St Killian

Street, White Hills Use of Land for Secondary School and Associated Building and Works - 193-197

Wattle Street, Ironbark Demolition of Outbuildings, Re-subdivide Three Existing Lots into Twelve Lots in

Stages and Construction of Nine Dwellings - 255257 High Street and 5 Shamrock Street, Golden Square

Erection of Major Promotion Sign - 96-98 High Street, Kangaroo Flat Subdivide Land and Construct Two Dwellings - 5 Moyna Drive, Spring Gully Subdivide Land into 3 Lots - 28 Frederick Street, North Bendigo Endorsement of Thematic Environmental History Discontinuance of Part of William Perry Lane, Neilborough Response to Petition: Waste Trucks Using Lester Street, Eaglehawk Revised Landfill Fees Due to Carbon Price Legislation Accounts Payable and Contracts Awarded under Delegation Record of Assemblies of Councillors Return of Valuations for Rating Purposes Adoption of Annual Fees and Charges for 2012/2013 Urgent Business: Local Authorities Superannuation Fund - Defined Benefits

Actuarial 31 December 2011 Confidential Section 89 Report: Personnel and Contractual Matter

The unconfirmed minutes have also been posted on the City of Greater Bendigo website pending confirmation at this meeting.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on Wednesday July 4, 2012, as circulated, be taken as read and confirmed.


PAGE 7

1. PETITIONS AND JOINT LETTERS

1.1 PETITION: CHILDREN'S PLAYGROUND FOR HARGREAVES MALL

Petitions and joint letters with ten (10) or more signatures are included in the agenda or tabled at the meeting, unless there is a separate legal process for considering the petition or joint letter, as there is for planning submissions or submissions followingpublic notices (Section 223 LGA)].

The following petition has been received seeking the establishment of a children's playground in the Hargreaves Mall, as outlined below:

"The City of Greater Bendigo at the Ordinary meeting on the 21st March 2012 voted in favour of the officer report named 'Hargreaves Mall Activation' while a number of surveys within the report identified that a playground should be provided and in people's minds were a high priority and yet a playground or play space has been omitted.

Therefore we the undersigned respectfully request that funds be redirected so that a playground can be included and built within the Hargreaves Mall as per previous council budgeted decisions at the earliest opportunity".

Signatures - 1,578

Officer Comment (Pauline Gordon, Director Community Wellbeing)In addition to this petition, Two submissions were received in response to the proposed budget requesting that Council invest in a play space in the Hargreaves Mall and Councilors were provided with some ideas from one submitter about what the play space might look like and the type of equipment that could be installed.

At the Council meeting on 21 March 2012, Council resolved to endorse a workshop with representatives from each school to determine a preferred design model for a play space in the Hargreaves Mall.

It is recognised that the development of a play space requires the input from a wide range of stakeholders, most importantly children, so the workshop with school children is an important step in the planning process.


PAGE 8

This process will be completed during this financial year and efforts will be made to identify any other funding sources.

RECOMMENDATION

That this matter be considered further as part of the submissions to the 2012/2013Budget and adoption of the 2012/2013 Budget.

Built and Natural Environment - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 25 July 2012

PAGE 9

2. BUILT AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

2.1 GREATER BENDIGO PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C162 (HERITAGE POLICY CITATIONS): CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS

Document Information

Authors Katie Nolan, Strategic Heritage PlannerGeoff Neville, Planner, Amendments & Heritage

Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning & DevelopmentDirector

Summary/Purpose

This report provides a summary of the exhibition process for Amendment C162 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme. The Amendment implements the recommendations from the Heritage Policy Citations Review, 2011 and one recommendation from the City of Greater Bendigo Heritage Study Stage 2: Former Shires of McIvor and Strathfieldsaye (2009). It strengthens the heritage protection for 64 sites that until now, while identified as having heritage values, have had inadequate recognition of their heritage values in the Planning Scheme.

The Amendment has been exhibited and fourteen submissions have been received. Ten of the submissions were about twelve specific places.

This report recommends Council resolve to split the Amendment into two parts. Part 1 includes 59 properties where all issues have been resolved and which have not been identified within a submission. Part 2 includes 5 properties which have been identified within a submission and the submitters have indicated that they would like the opportunity to discuss the Amendment at a Panel or the submission has not been resolved.

Policy Context

Council Plan 2009-2013 (updated 2011):

Built and Natural Environment:o Strategy 1.9: ‘Continue to implement initiatives to identify, conserve and restore

heritage places.’Action 1.9.2: ‘Prepare a Planning Scheme Amendment to implement the

findings of the Heritage Policy ‘Places of Interest’ review.

Vision: ‘Greater Bendigo will be the best place to live, work and visit where its rich natural and cultural heritage is conserved for today and tomorrow.’


PAGE 10

Municipal Strategic Statement:

Clause 21.08 Environmento Further strategic work: ‘Incorporating the heritage sites included in Clause 22.06

(Heritage Policy) into the Heritage Overlay.’

Planning & Environment Act, 1987

Section 22 ;

(1) A planning authority must consider all submissions made on or before the date set out in the notice.


PAGE 11

Background Information

Previous Council Decision(s) Date(s):

August 2011: Council endorsed the Heritage Policy Citations Review, 2011 and approved for public release the draft summary report and citations.

December 2011: Council adopted the Heritage Policy Citations Review, 2011 and requested that the Minister for Planning authorise Council to prepare Amendment C162 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme.


PAGE 12

Communication / Consultation

June – August 2010, letters were sent to those that may be affected by the Study. On-site meetings were held on when requested.

In August 2011, using aerial photos, newly acquired on-site photos and maps; letters were sent to property owners regarding the phase of the study related to the accuracy of the citation. Eleven submissions and three set of internal comments were received regarding changes to the citations. Those changes were made.

Internal Consultation

Internal consultation was undertaken with the City of Greater Bendigo Statutory Planning, Strategy, Building & Property and the Heritage Advisory Committee which are supportive of the Amendment in its current form.

Exhibition Details

A notice was placed in the Government Gazette (5 April 2012) and Bendigo Advertiser (28 March and 7 April 2012) regarding the exhibition of Amendment C162 which ran from 5 April to 18 May 2012. The summary document and citations prepared were also available on the City's website, at the Lyttleton Terrace and Hopetoun Mill offices, and online at the Department of Planning and Community Development website.

In March 2012, property owners and occupants of those properties that would be affected by a Heritage Overlay were contacted regarding Amendment C162. They were sent:

Explanation letter; Project Bulletin 2 including project history, the amendment process, and how they

could make a submission; Gazette Notice; Citation for their property; A set of FAQ on Heritage, Heritage Studies, and the Heritage Overlay.

Planning officers have been available for discussions in person and on the phone since that time. Officers met frequently with concerned community members on site or at Council offices.

Report

Consideration of Submissions

Planning Scheme Amendment C162 sought to accomplish three objectives:

Include the Heritage Policy Citations Review, 2011 as a Reference Document to the Scheme;

Amend Clause 22.06 Heritage Policy by removing the ‘Heritage Investigation Inventory’; and

Include 64 properties to Clause 43.01 Heritage Overlay of the Scheme.


PAGE 13

At the conclusion of the community comment period, a total of eleven written submissions were received. After the conclusion of the exhibition period, four late submissions were received. A summary of the submissions with corresponding officer comments is given below in Table 1 (resolved submissions requesting for a change) and Table 2 (recommended for Panel’s consideration):

Resolved submissions which requested a change to the Amendment (Table 1)

Submitter Summary of Submission Officer Recommendations and further officer actions

B1 Doug Cahill7 Wick’s Road, Maiden GullyRocky Vale Villa

Request for change - Heritage Overlay be limited to approximately 3 acres around villa.

Council accept and adopt changes.

Submission not be forwarded to Panel because issues have been resolved at officer level

B3Pam and John Land257 Pierce's Rd, SebastianPierce’s Eucalyptus Distillery

Request for change - some errors in the citation within the Heritage Policy Citations Review, 2011.

Council accept and adopt changes.

Submission not be forwarded to Panel because extensive consultation has occurred and the issues have been resolved.

B5John FlettCA4 Daly’s Rd, WoodvaleMudbrick Huts at Flett Farmstead andFlett’s Eucalyptus Distillery

Request for change – Heritage Overlay be removed from his property due to rise in vandalism and theft of heritage elements

Council accept and adopt change to Amendment by not including 2 places in Heritage Overlay

Officers’ pursue a Section 173 agreement which would prohibit the demolition of the mud-brick huts and distillery.


B6Daryl Rowe12 Lockwood Rd, Kangaroo FlatFormer Weighbridge Hotel;145-147 High St, Kangaroo FlatVictoria Store;149 High St, Kangaroo FlatBarber Shop

Request for change - Heritage Overlay be limited to the buildings containing heritage fabric on the sites and curtilage for 145-147 High Street.

Council accept late submission. Accept and adopt changes.


Submissions recommended for further consideration by a Panel (Table 2)


B2Country Fire Authority

No objection Submission forwarded to Panel so that the Panel is aware that the CFA has no objection to the Amendment.


PAGE 14



B4Environmental Protection Authority

No objection Submission forwarded to Panel so that the Panel is aware that the EPA has no objection to the Amendment.

B7Mark and Wendy Twiss4 Olympic Parade, Kangaroo FlatWoodville

Request for change – Remove incorrect placement of overlay over adjacent property, request removal of overlay from northern section of property including driveway, waive future permit fees for works.

UNRESOLVEDCouncil request for a Panel to be appointed. Submission forwarded to Panel.

Agree in principal to the removal of the proposed Heritage Overlay on 2 Olympic Parade. The appropriate extent of the proposed Heritage Overlay on the remainder of the property to be addressed at Panel.

B8Department of Sustainability and the Environment

Supports Amendment. Submission forwarded to Panel to inform the Panel that the Authority supports the Amendment.

B9Jodie Fisher19 Symbester Crescent, EaglehawkSymbester House

Submitter claims property rights and rejects the constitutional power of government to apply a Heritage Overlay.


That the offer of compromised reduction of the proposed Heritage Overlay is withdrawn and defaults back to the recommended Heritage Overlay coverage as exhibited. The appropriate extent of the proposed Heritage Overlay to be addressed at Panel.

B10VicRoadsHigh Street, AxedaleStone Culverts

No objection. Request to be heard at Panel (if one is appointed) to recommend to the Minister that there be a change to Victorian Planning Provisions (VPP) Clause 43.01 (Heritage Overlay) to allow for minor roads works to occur without the need for a planning permit. [Council does not have the statutory power to change the VPP, only the Minister has.]

Council request for a Panel to be appointed so that VicRoads have a forum to argue the need for a change to Clause 43.01.Submission forwarded to Panel.

B11Goulburn-Murray Water

Supports Amendment. Submission forwarded to Panel to inform the Panel that the Authority supports the Amendment.


PAGE 15



B12Solicitor -Peter and Koula Pantazis138 High St, Kangaroo FlatButcher Shop

Submitter objects to heritage overlay; states that property has no heritage significance


That the offer of compromised reduction of the proposed Heritage Overlay is withdrawn and defaults back to the recommended Heritage Overlay coverage as exhibited. The appropriate extent of the proposed Heritage Overlay to be addressed at Panel.

B13Coliban WaterStaley St, California GullyFlagstaff Hill Service Basin

No objection Council accept the late submission.

Submission forwarded to Panel to inform of Authority’s view of the Amendment.

B14National Trust of Australia (Vic)

Supports Amendment. Names two additional sites that should have been in study: Frederick the Great Mine, Sebastian and Cobb & Co Barn, Calder Alt Hwy, Marong. Requests to be heard at a Panel to comment on submissions received by Council.

Council accept late submission

Submission forwarded to Panel to inform the Panel that the organisation supports the Amendment and seeks to be heard at the Panel.

Unresolved Submissions

4 Olympic Parade, Kangaroo Flat: Woodville

The submitter contacted Officers noting that the overlay had been incorrectly placed over an adjacent property and requesting 1) removal of the Heritage Overlay from sections of the property; 2) a waiver for all planning permit fees associated with the Heritage Overlay; and 3) a range of queries related to the Heritage Advisor’s advice and financial support available from Council. Officers recommend the removal of the proposed Heritage Overlay from previously subdivided lot and from northern section of property where no heritage fabric exists. However, Officers do not support removal of the Heritage Overlay from the driveway adjoining the house as a curtilage is required because development on that land may affect the heritage place. It would be premature for officers to waiver a planning permit fee prior to the lodgement of a planning permit and without knowing the full circumstances on why a waiver is required and what the proposed development is.


PAGE 16

Figure 1: Site Map – 4 Olympic Parade, Kangaroo Flat

Figure 2: Woodville, 4 Olympic Parade, Kangaroo Flat

19 Symbester Crescent, Eaglehawk: Symbester House

Submission states that submitter objects to the Heritage Overlay because local governments do not have constitutional authority to place any restrictions on their land and that no Victorian law passed after 1987 is legitimate. Officers met with the owners on site and offered a compromise by suggesting the proposed Heritage Overlay be removed from all of the site except the prominent front two rooms and front yard. Submitter has rejected this suggested compromise and has requested that no Heritage Overlay be applied to the land, so this submission should be forwarded to a Panel for consideration.


PAGE 17

Figure 3: Site Map - 19 Symbester Crescent, Eaglehawk

Figure 4: Symbester House,19 Symbester Crescent, Eaglehawk

138 High St, Kangaroo Flat: Butcher Shop

Rogers & Every Lawyers, on behalf of the submitter, object to the proposed Heritage Overlay on the grounds that the property has no heritage significance and the overlay will unnecessarily impede or restrict development on the site. Officers disagree. However, officers proposed that the heritage overlay be removed from all but the most significant elements of the place which is the original parapet with a 5 metre curtilage behind the parapet. Property owners reasserted their submission that no Heritage Overlay be applied to the property.


PAGE 18

Figure 5: Site Map - 138 High Street, Kangaroo Flat

Figure 6: Butcher Shop, 138 High Street, Kangaroo Flat

Summary

Under Section 23 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, in response to a submission that requests for a change to the Amendment, Council must:

(a) change the amendment in the manner requested; [e.g. not apply the Heritage Overlay to the 3 individual properties] or

(b) refer the submissions to a panel appointed by the Minister; or(c) abandon the Amendment or part of the Amendment.


PAGE 19

Options

Option 1 – Recommended Option

That Council consider all submissions and split the Amendment into 2 parts so that places identified in submissions within Table 2 are considered by the Panel and the remainder of properties in the Amendment can proceed to the adoption and approval stages.

Part 1 - Adopt the application of Heritage Overlays on 59 properties which are notrecommended for referral to a Panel and request the Minister for Planning to approve the Amendment.

Part 2 – Request the Minister for Planning to appoint an independent Panel to consider the 10 submissions as recommended for referral to a Panel.

Option 2 – Not recommended

Do not split the Amendment and request the Minister for Planning to appoint an independent Panel to consider all the submissions. This means that the whole Amendment would be held up whilst a Panel process is undertaken.

Option 3 – Not recommended

Split the Amendment into 2 parts so that the three places affected by objecting submissions that have not been resolved are abandoned.

Part 1 - Adopt with changes the application of Heritage Overlays on the 61 properties without outstanding objecting submissions and request the Minister for Planning to approve the Amendment.

Part 2 – Abandon part of the Amendment that proposes Heritage Overlays on land affected by the 3 unresolved objecting submissions.

This means that the properties at:4 Olympic Parade, Kangaroo Flat: Woodville;19 Symbester Crescent, Eaglehawk: Symbester House; and138 High St, Kangaroo Flat: Butcher Shop.would not have a Heritage Overlay applied to the land.

Resource Implications

The request for a Panel to consider the Amendment in part and the adoption in part would require officers’ time.

An additional administrative fee of $798 would be payable to the Department of Planning and Community Development if Council adopts the Planning Scheme Amendment in part. Panel costs of approximately $10,000 have been allocated within the 2012/13 draft budget.

If Amendment C162 (Part 1) is adopted and approved, the City is likely to require only a small amount of additional human resources for the assessment of planning permit applications for these properties affected by a Heritage Overlay.


PAGE 20

Conclusion

Council is required to consider all eleven submissions received and accepted during the exhibition period.

Council is recommended to accept the three late submissions prior to considering the adoption of the Planning Scheme Amendment in part.

Council is recommended to adopt the Planning Scheme Amendment with changes in part, excluding the elements recommended to be heard at a Panel.

If adopted in part, the Planning Scheme Amendment would be forwarded to the Minister to consider for approval. Once approved by the Minister, changes to the Planning Scheme usually occur within a month.

Attachments

1. Submissions to Amendment C1622. Amendment C162 Part 1 Documents3. Heritage Citation Review 2011 (revised 2012) - a copy will be placed in the

Councillors' Room

RECOMMENDATION

That the Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to:

(1) Accept the three late submissions;

(2) Consider all 14 submissions and split Amendment C162 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme into two parts;

(3) Adopt Amendment C162 Part 1 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme with changes and request the Minister for Planning to give approval;

(4) Request that the Minister for Planning appoint an independent panel to consider the 10 submissions identified in Table 2 and Amendment C162 Part 2 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme.


PAGE 21

2.2 PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C173 - PROPOSED REZONING OF THE HOLDSWORTH ROAD FORMER PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL & APPLY THE ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OVERLAY - 107-125 HOLDSWORTH ROAD, NORTH BENDIGO - CONSIDERATION TO REQUEST THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING FOR AUTHORISATION


Author Frank Casimir, Statutory Planner

Responsible Prue Mansfield, Director Planning and DevelopmentDirector

Summary/Purpose

This report recommends Council request the Minister for Planning to Authorise Council to prepare and exhibit an amendment to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme. The Amendment would rezone part of 107-125 Holdsworth Road, and 10 and 28 Hobson Street, North Bendigo to allow for residential development and parkland. There will be an Environmental Audit Overlay over the whole site.

Policy Context

City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2009 – 2013 (updated 2012)

1. Built and Natural EnvironmentStrategic Objectives: Value, conserve and enhance the rich built and natural heritage. Achieve high quality outcomes in planning and policy activities. Encourage and foster high quality design to create environments that support

public wellbeing and economic success.


The key steps in the amendment process are summarised below:


PAGE 22

Previous Council Decisions

A planning permit has been issued for the removal of native vegetation on the site to enable contaminated soil to be stored appropriately.

Report

The Department of Treasury and Finance have requested Council to rezone the land to enable its sale to private land developers.


PAGE 23

Land Affected by the Amendment

The properties affected by the amendment are:

Part of 107-125 Holdsworth Road, North Bendigo

10 & 28 Hobson Street, North Bendigo

The total area of the land affected by the Amendment is approximately 14.11 hectares. It is located on the north side of Holdsworth Road and has an undulating topography and generally falls from its rear toward Holdsworth Road to the front.

The site was the Bendigo Psychiatric Hospital. The Hospital was decommissioned in 1998 and all buildings associated with it were demolished in 2006. Since then, the site has not been used for any other purpose and vegetation has reclaimed most of it.

Except from some asphalted roads and minor utility installations that remain, the land has been cleared of all its buildings. The existing vegetation consists of patches of native vegetation and also some scattered native and planted trees. The site is also known to have been used for exploratory mining activities prior to 1960 and as a dumping ground for construction materials at a later period.

Around the site is a mix of land uses. To the south and east of the site, with the exception of the new Holdsworth Road Ambulance Station, residential development prevails. To the north, forested lands dominate and to the west are the Bendigo Clinical Training Centre and the Joan Pinder Nursing Home.

Except for a narrow strip of land that crosses the site generally from south-west to north-east which is zoned Public Park and Recreation Zone, most of the site is zoned Public Use Zone 3 (Health & Community) and 7 (Other). The Bushfire Management Overlay affects a relatively small area of the site on its north-east corner but this mapping is currently under review by the Department of Planning and Community Development.


PAGE 24

Figure 1: Location of the subject sites and existing zonings

Figure 2: Proposed New Zones

What the Amendment Does

The Amendment proposes to rezone the site from Public Use Zone 3 (Health & Community) and 7 (Other) and Public Park and Recreation Zone to Residential 1 Zone


PAGE 25

and to Public Park and Recreation Zone, and to apply the Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) to the whole site.

An area of approximately 1.8 hectares in the north-west corner of the site is proposed to be put aside as a capping area for filtered contaminated soil collected from other parts of the sites. This area is proposed to be rezoned to Public Park and Recreation Zone. It will remain in the State ownership and management and the EAO will also be applied to it.

Why is the Amendment Required?

The Amendment is required to facilitate the sale of the site by the Department of Treasury and Finance to private land developers for eventual redevelopment because it is no longer required for public purposes. This Amendment will allow the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes.

The EAO is being applied to the site to ensure it is cleaned to a level suitable for residential development prior to any development. The Department of Treasury and Finance has already started the clean-up of the site. If prior to the approval stage of theAmendment, a Certificate of Environmental Audit is obtained which confirms that the site is suitable for residential use, the EAO will no longer be required.

Environmental Effects

The site has been assessed as contaminated in a report prepared in January 2011 by URS. The report mentions that arsenic in soils is the primary contaminant of concern. The Amendment will have an overall positive environmental effect because it encourages the clean-up and re-use of the site by rezoning it to Residential 1 Zone and applying the EAO.

The development of the site will require some vegetation clearance. An ecological assessment report prepared by Garry and Brenda Cheers (2010) found that the site contains five patches of native vegetation (one of which contains seven large old native trees) and 17 native scattered trees. The report describes the vegetation as being of little biodiversity value because of poor management

The permit already issued by Council allows for the removal of the five patches of native vegetation and two scattered trees. Amenity value will be protected by the design of the subdivision.

Social / Economic Effects

As the Amendment involves the rezoning of Crown land, it will be advertised to Native Title Services Victoria and to the Dja Dja Wurrung Peoples Native Title Claimants. As the southern part of the site has cultural sensitivity, a cultural heritage management plan may be required at the subdivision stage.

The Amendment will have positive social and economic effects because it will provide housing close to existing services. The redevelopment of the site will also provide for employment during construction phase and subsequently support local businesses and services as the number of residents in the area will increase.


PAGE 26

Strategic Justification

Clause 11.02-1 Supply of Urban Land

The objective of this clause is to ensure a sufficient supply of land is available for residential, commercial, retail, industrial, recreational, institutional and other community uses.

The Amendment meets this objective as it provides for an opportunity for the consolidation, redevelopment and intensification of an existing urban area.

Clause 11.05-4 Regional Planning Strategies and Principles

The objective of this clause is to develop regions and settlements which have a strong identity, are prosperous and are environmental sustainable.

The Amendment meets this objective as it will add to the existing residential land supply. It will also allow for the regeneration and redevelopment of urban land which otherwise would remain undeveloped.

Clause 12.01-2 Native Vegetation Management

The objective of this clause is to achieve a net gain in the extent and quality of native vegetation.

The ecological assessment for the site found that the site does not contain any threatened flora and fauna species and it identified measures to offset impacts and achieve a net gain.

Clause 13.03-1 Use of Contaminated and Potentially Contaminated Land

The objective of this clause is to ensure that potentially contaminated land is suitable for its intended future use and development, and that contaminated land is used safely.

The proponent has carried out an environmental investigation of the site and has concluded that it contains a number of contaminants mostly in the north of the site. As these contaminants do not allow the site to be safely used for residential purposes, the Amendment proposes that an Environmental Audit Overlay be applied which requires that the land be cleaned prior to residential uses. This is consistent with the requirements of Ministerial Direction 1 for the assessment of contamination for a planning scheme amendment.

Clause 13.05-1 Bushfire Planning Strategies and Principles

The objective of this clause is to assist to strengthen community resilience to bushfire.

Sweett Group prepared and submitted a bushfire risk assessment in June 2012 to the satisfaction of the Country Fire Authority. The assessment demonstrates that risks to human life and property infrastructure from bushfire can be reduced to an acceptable level.


PAGE 27

Clause 16.01-2 Location of Residential Development

The objective of this clause is to promote a housing market that meets community needs.

This Amendment meets this objective as it would increase the supply of land for housing in an existing and appropriate urban area and would subsequently facilitate an increase in housing yield in this location.

Clause 16.01-5 Housing Affordability

The objective of this clause is to deliver more affordable housing closer to jobs, transport and services.

This Amendment will increase residential land supply in an existing urban area, close to jobs and services and therefore will contribute to meeting demand of affordable housing.

Clause 21.05 Settlement (Urban-Forest Interface)

The objective of this clause is to ensure residential development protects and maintains the environmental values of adjoining forested areas around Bendigo.

The Jackass Flat Reserve that abuts the site to the north is recognised for its environmental values. The Amendment was referred to DSE for initial comments and it did not object to the proposal. At the subdivision stage of the site, DSE will again be consulted. 21 hectares of the old hospital site has already been excised from the site and added to the Jackass Flat Bushland Reserve.

The Amendment satisfactorily addresses the ecological and bushfire standards. The proponent has prepared and submitted a bushfire risk assessment to the satisfaction of the Country Fire Authority. The assessment has determined that the rezoning of the sites to future residential use is appropriate and of an acceptable level in terms of risks to bushfire. The proponent has also prepared and submitted an ecological assessment with net gain for the sites to be affected by the amendment. The finding of the report is that the remaining vegetation on the sites has little ecological value.

Clause 21.06 Housing

One of the objectives of this clause is to ensure an adequate supply of land for new residential development in the Bendigo urban area and satellites.

This Amendment meets this objective as it provides for a supply of residential land within Bendigo Urban Growth Boundary.

Clause 21.08 Environment (Natural Resource Management)

The protection of the environmental assets of the municipality including the national parks, regional parks and areas of flora and fauna significance is one of the objectives of this clause.


PAGE 28

An ecological assessment has been carried out and no threatened flora or fauna species have been found on the sites. Upon the subdivision and development of the sites, planning permission is likely to be required if there is a need to remove any remaining native vegetation. Any planning permission will be in accordance with Council’s obligations under the Victoria’s Native Vegetation Framework for Action. The rezoning and redevelopment of the site will meet the above objective.

Clause 22.01 Development at the Urban-Forest Interface Policy

The objective of this policy is to ensure residential development protects and maintains the environmental values of adjoining forested areas surrounding Bendigo.

This policy sets out the minimum standards to be applied to residential developments that abut both public and private forests. As stated earlier, a bushfire risk assessment report and an ecological assessment with net gain report which both support the feasibility of the rezoning have been submitted.

The Jackass Flat Reserve abuts the site to the north. The details of the management of the interface between this Reserve and the subject site will be addressed during the subdivision stage. Any subdivision will need to provide at minimum a 30-metre buffer with the adjoining Reserve. This will also involve consultation with the adjoining public land manager in regards to the design of the subdivision layout plan, the need for building envelopes or the location and placement of all utility services.

The submitted bushfire risk assessment report has determined that the sites can achieve the standards for residential development in the urban-forest interface in terms of bushfire risks. The CFA have consented to the measures proposed in the report. At the exhibition stage of the Amendment, the formal views of the CFA will be sought.

Consultation/Communication

A number of internal and external authorities have already been consulted on this project to ensure issues have been addressed. None of these authorities have objected to the proposal.

The two critical issues with this proposal are that the site is contaminated and prone to bushfire. In this regard, there has been extensive consultation with EPA and the CFA. There have been a number of meetings between planning officers, the proponent and representatives of the EPA and of the CFA to discuss the related issues.

On the basis of information provided by the proponent, both authorities have consented that the proposed Amendment and the eventual proposed use of the sites for residential purposes are feasible. The Department of Sustainability and Environment (Biodiversity Unit and the Crown Land Unit) and VicRoads have also been consulted with no major concerns raised. As regards to internal departments no major concerns have been raised.

Despite these initial consultations, further consultation with these authorities will be carried out during the exhibition of the Amendment.


PAGE 29

Conclusion

The strategic assessment of the proposal demonstrates that the proposal is consistent with the relevant clauses of the Planning Scheme. This proposal will allow the remediation of potentially contaminated, underused land which eventually will benefit the community as a whole by being developed for housing.

The site has some constraints because it is in an area which is prone to bushfire and also because of historical uses which have caused contamination. These constraints have been addressed through extensive consultation and negotiation with the relevant referral authorities.

It is concluded that Council should seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit the Amendment.

Options

Council has the option of:

Supporting the amendment proposal and making a request to the Minister for Planning to authorise preparation and exhibition of the amendment.

Refusing the request to prepare an amendment. Under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 there is no right of review of a Council's decision not to support preparation of an amendment.


The proponent has agreed to pay for the statutory fees and extra costs incurred by the City as per the ‘Policy for Private Planning Scheme Amendments’ adopted by Council. At the development stage of the sites, the eventual developers will be required to pay for any planning permit application fees associated to the subdivision and development of the sites. This will have little impact on the resources of the City of Greater Bendigo.

Attachments

Explanatory Report

RECOMMENDATION

That the Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to:

1. Request the Minister for Planning to authorise Council to prepare Amendment C173 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme.

2. When Authorised by the Minister, exhibit Amendment C173 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme giving notification as required for the minimum statutory exhibition period of one month.


PAGE 30

2.3 SUBDIVISION OF LAND INTO 23 LOTS, THE REMOVAL OF NATIVE VEGETATION AND THE VARIATION OF A SEWERAGE EASEMENT -41 BUCKLAND STREET, EPSOM


Author Stephen Wainwright, Coordinator Subdivisions


Summary/Purpose

This report concerns a planning permit application to subdivide the site at 41 Buckland Street, Epsom into 23 residential lots. The site is zoned for residential purposes and can be fully serviced.

Matters relating to neighbourhood character, infrastructure capability and native vegetation are particularly relevant to the application.

There are two objections to the application from local residents. One has since been withdrawn. This report discusses the issues raised by the objectors and assesses the merits of the proposed subdivision. The report concludes that the proposal complies with the Planning Scheme.

Policy Context




Report

Application No: DS/195/2012

Application Date: 29 March 2012

Applicant: Terraco

Land: 41 Buckland Street, EPSOM

Zoning: Residential 1 Zone

Overlays: No overlays


PAGE 31

Subject Site and Surrounds

The site consists of a single land parcel known as Crown Allotment 89B Parish of Sandhurst. The site is located in Epsom, near the corner of Buckland Street and Goynes Road. The south boundary of the site abuts Buckland Street for a length of 111m. The area of the site is 1.596ha and the site is irregular in shape.

There is a single dwelling and associated outbuildings on the site. The site has largely been cleared of native vegetation except for several scattered trees. The road reserve along the frontage of the site also contains some trees.

Figure 1: Location map showing the subject site. The objectors' properties are marked with a star.

Proposal

It is proposed to subdivide the site into 23 residential lots. The subdivision layout will feature:

Lot sizes ranging from 353m2 to 1,144m2 yielding a net residential density of 1:651m2.

An internal court bowl. The retention of the existing dwelling on Lot 19.A drainage reserve at the end of the court bowl for stormwater detention.Easements to protect existing sewer infrastructure that traverses the site.

Some vegetation within the road reserve will be removed to accommodate the subdivision and all native vegetation contained on the site will be deemed to be lost. The lots created by the subdivision will be fully serviced by sewerage, electricity, telecommunications and gas supply systems.


PAGE 32

Planning Controls - Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme

The site is in the Residential 1 Zone and is not covered by any overlays. The proposed subdivision of the site and the removal of native vegetation triggers the need for a permit due the zone provisions and clause 52.17-3 Native Vegetation.

The following clauses are relevant in the consideration of this proposal:

State Planning Policy Framework

Regional development (clause 11.05).Biodiversity (clause 12.01).Urban environment (clause 15.01).Sustainable development (clause 15.02).Residential development (clause 16.01).Movement networks (clause 18.02).Development infrastructure (clause 19.03).

Municipal Strategic Statement

Municipal profile (clause 21.01).Key issues and influences (clause 21.02).Vision - strategic framework (clause 21.03).Strategic directions (clause 21.04).Settlement (clause 21.05).Housing (clause 21.06).Reference documents (clause 21.10).

Local Planning Policies

Salinity and erosion risk policy (clause 22.04).

Other Provisions

Residential 1 Zone (clause 32.01).Native vegetation (clause 52.17).Residential subdivision (clause 56).Decision guidelines (clause 65).Referral and notice provisions (clause 66).


Referrals

The following authorities and internal departments have been consulted on the proposal:

Referral Comment

Coliban Water No objection subject to conditions

Powercor No objection subject to conditions

Telstra No objection subject to conditions


PAGE 33

Referral Comment

Tenix No objection subject to conditions

DSE No objection subject to conditions

Asset Planning & Design (internal) No objection subject to conditions

Arborist (internal) No objection

Public Notification

The application was advertised to the public by mail and an on-site notice. Two people originally objected to a permit being granted because of concerns about neighbourhood character, infrastructure provision, vegetation losses and fencing. One of these objections has since been withdrawn. The grounds of objection are discussed later in this report.

A consultation meeting was held which was attended by the objectors, the permit applicant, Councillor Ruffell and Councillor Cox. The meeting didn't specifically resolve any of the objectors' issues.

Planning Assessment

Neighbourhood character

The site forms part of a residential neighbourhood that is slowly transitioning from a semi-rural bushland locality to a more densely populated one. Large properties, such as the subject site, are progressively being subdivided into smaller allotments. As a result the neighbourhood character has come to be defined by suburban housing on lots of around 400m2 to 800m2. Scattered native trees are largely being cleared from sites to make way for new subdivisions, however trees within the road reserves still prevail and this contributes positively to the character and appearance of streetscapes, particularly in Buckland Street.

A new subdivision directly abuts the site to the west (Tyack Court) where lot sizes are around 450m2. Approval has also been granted for a 15 lot subdivision directly to the north of the site and lot sizes there will be around 550m2.

On the south side of Buckland Street new development is less evident. Large ranch style properties predominate in this area and there is a greater coverage of native vegetation on properties. Buckland Street marks the northern extremity of the White Hills Character Precinct WH6 as defined by the Planning Scheme. In contrast the subject site does not form part of a recognised character precinct.

The proposed subdivision adopts a fairly conventional response to the site and its context. The subdivision will facilitate new suburban housing on lots of around 350m2 to 500m2 (some larger lots are proposed but building envelopes will be constrained by sewerage easements that will run through these lots). Access to most lots will be via a new internal court bowl.


PAGE 34

Four lots will have driveways off Buckland Street and this will necessitate the removal of some roadside vegetation. Selected areas of roadside vegetation will also be lost to accommodate services and a footpath.

The objectors oppose the subdivision layout saying that the lots are too small in comparison with the surrounding area. There are also concerns about the loss of vegetation within the road reserve, particularly with respect to the driveway access for Lot 23. More broadly, one objector argues that the subdivision should include a small park or community garden to enhance the health and well-being of future residents.

Having regard to the changing nature of the neighbourhood character, as evidenced by development directly to the west and north of the site, it is considered that the proposed subdivision is an appropriate design response to the site and its context. In particular it is noted that:

The proposed lot sizes are comparable with other existing or proposed lot sizes in and around Buckland Street.

The subdivision layout will feature lots with relatively wide frontage widths along Buckland Street thus providing scope for side setbacks and separation between buildings.

Vegetation losses within the road reserve in front of the site will be minimised by consolidating driveway access points (on Lots 3 and 4), protecting all large sized trees and sensitively aligning the footpath. The driveway to Lot 23 won't interfere with any large tree or require a large degree of clearing. In this manner the existing roadside vegetation will continue to make a positive contribution to the streetscape.

The absence of a park or garden within the subdivision, as advocated for by one of the objectors, is not considered to be an argument against the proposal. The site is reasonably well serviced by public open space - the Bendigo Botanical Gardens are no more than 800m away from the site - and the developer will be required to pay a monetary contribution that could go towards improvements to this and other reserves in the area.

Neighbourhood infrastructure

One of the objectors argues that existing infrastructure in the area is inadequate to cater for the subdivision, particularly pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure such as footpaths and bicycle lanes. The objector is broadly critical of Council's capital works program which he believes has left White Hills and Epsom with infrastructure deficiencies. This wider point is difficult to relate directly to the proposed subdivision. Suffice to say the proposed subdivision will be serviced by adequate sealed roads, drainage and reticulated services and there is no reason to reject the proposal on infrastructure grounds.

Boundary fencing

One of the objectors has property that abuts the site and thus is concerned that they may be liable for the shared cost and inconvenience of constructing new boundary fencing in a Colorbond style. In response the developer has struck a private agreement with the objector whereby the developer will pay the full cost of any new fencing.


PAGE 35

Compliance with clause 56

The residential subdivision provisions in clause 56 of the planning scheme apply to the application. The proposal meets all the Standards in clause 56. In particular it is noted that:

The lots will be fully serviced. The site enjoys good access to services and community facilities. The lots created by the subdivision will add to the diversity and supply of residential

land in Epsom. The size and dimensions of the proposed lots will establish a preferred

neighbourhood character.

Vegetation removal

The installation of underground services and the construction of driveways and a footpath associated with the subdivision will necessitate the loss of some native vegetation within the road reserve. All native vegetation contained within the site itself will be deemed to be lost. The Ecological Vegetation Class of the vegetation is Low Rises Grassy Woodland and the conservation significance is low. It is appropriate to allow the proposed vegetation losses because the vegetation is sparse and lacks connectivity from a biodiversity perspective. In terms of amenity impacts all large trees in the road reserve will be retained along with other selected trees thus ensuring that the landscape qualities of the street are protected.

Conclusion

For the reasons discussed above it is concluded that the permit application meets the requirements of the Planning Scheme and on this basis a permit should be granted.

Options

Council, acting as the responsible authority for administering the planning scheme, may resolve to: grant a permit, grant a permit subject to conditions, or refuse to grant a permit.

Attachments

Objections.

RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to section 61 of the Planning and Environment Act (1987), Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for the subdivision of land, removal of vegetation and variation of an easement at 41 Buckland Street, Epsom subject to the following conditions:


PAGE 36

1. PLANS TO BE ENDORSEDThe plans to be endorsed and which will then form part of the permit are the plans submitted with the application.

2. LAYOUT PLANSThe subdivision, as shown on the endorsed plans, must not be altered without the prior written consent of the responsible authority.

3. PUBLIC OPEN SPACE CONTRIBUTIONBefore the statement of compliance is issued the applicant or owner must pay to the responsible authority a sum equivalent to 5% of the site value of all the land in the subdivision.

4. LANDSCAPE PLANBefore a statement of compliance is issued for the subdivision a landscape plan must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and then form part of the permit.

5. COMPLETION OF LANDSCAPINGBefore a statement of compliance is issued for the subdivision the landscaping works shown on the endorsed must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

6. LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCEThe landscaping works shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority for 12 months after the works are completed, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.

7. REMOVAL OF OUTBUILDINGSBefore a statement of compliance is issued for the subdivision all outbuildings on the site including swimming pools must be removed except for any outbuilding wholly contained within the boundaries of Lot 19.

8. DETAILED DRAINAGEPrior to the certification of the plan of subdivision under the Subdivision Act 1988, plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and then will form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions. The plans must include:(a) Direction of stormwater run off.(b) A point of discharge for each lot.(c) Independent drainage for each lot.(d) Approval from the relevant authority for the point of discharge.

9. DRAINAGE EASEMENTSThe subdivision must provide easements for drainage within and through the subject land for external outfall drainage to a point of lawful discharge to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.


PAGE 37

10. STORMWATER DETENTIONPrior to the issue of a statement of compliance, the owner or applicant must provide onsite surface and stormwater detention to pre-development levels in accordance with plans and specifications to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. Allowable discharge: Q5 = 58 l/s.

11. STORMWATER QUALITYBefore the use or development is commenced, the owner or applicant must provide a stormwater treatment system to achieve the Best Practice Environmental Guidelines storm water quality (Victoria Stormwater Committee 1999) in accordance with plans and specifications to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

12. CONSTRUCTION OF WORKSRoad works, drainage and other civil works must be constructed in accordance with the Infrastructure Design Manual and plans and specifications approved by the responsible authority and must include:

Buckland Street:(a) Kerb and channel and associated pavement works.(b) 1.5m paved footpath.(c) Underground drainage.

Internal court(a) Fully sealed pavement with kerb and channel.(b) Paved footpath.(c) Underground drainage.(d) Underground conduits for water, gas, electricity and telephone.(e) Appropriate intersection and traffication measures.(f) Appropriate street lighting and signage.(g) One high stability permanent survey mark.

13. DECORATIVE LIGHTINGStandard Powercor power poles are to be used in the development in accordance with the City of Greater Bendigo Decorative Lighting Policy.

14. PUBLIC ASSETSBefore the development starts, the owner or developer must submit to the responsible authority a written report and photos of any prior damage to public infrastructure. Listed in the report must be the condition of kerb and channel, footpath, seal, street lights, signs and other public infrastructure fronting the property and abutting at least two properties either side of the development. Unless identified with the written report, any damage to infrastructure post construction will be attributed to the development. The owner or developer of the subject land must pay for any damage caused to any public infrastructure caused as a result of the development or use permitted by this permit.

15. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLANPrior to commencement of works the owner or applicant must submit a Construction Management Plan (CMP) for approval by the responsible authority. The plan must include:


PAGE 38

(a) A site specific plan showing proposed erosion and sedimentation control works.(b) Techniques and intervention levels to prevent a dust nuisance.(c) Techniques to prevent mud and dirt being transported from the site to adjacent

streets.(d) The protection measures taken to preserve any vegetation identified for

retention.

During construction of works associated with the subdivision, the must employ and provide the protection methods contained in the CMP to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and the Environment Protection Agency.

16. COLIBAN WATER(a) The owner is required provide reticulated water and sewerage services to each

of the lots within the subdivision. Services are to be provided in accordance with Coliban Water’s specifications.

(b) The owner is required to reach agreement with Coliban Water to comply with any requirements arising from any effect of the proposed development on Coliban Water assets.

(c) 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.

17. POWERCOR(a) 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.

(b) 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.

(c) The applicant shall: 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.

(d) The applicant shall: Set aside on the plan of subdivision for the use of Powercor Australia Ltd reserves and/or easements, and/or leases, satisfactory to Powercor Australia Ltd where any electric substation (other than a pole mounted type) is required to service the subdivision.

(e) The applicant shall: 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 powerlines required to service the lots and adjoining land, save for lines located, or to be located, on public roads set out on 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.

(f) The applicant shall: Obtain for the use of Powercor Australia Ltd any other easement external to the subdivision required to service the lots.

(g) The applicant shall: Adjust the position of any existing easement(s) for


PAGE 39

powerlines to accord with the position of the line(s) as determined by survey.(h) The applicant shall: Obtain Powercor Australia Ltd’s 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.

(i) 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.

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

(k) Any construction work must comply with the Officer of the Chief Electrical Inspector No Go Zone rules.

18. TELSTRAThe plan of subdivision submitted for certification must be referred to Telstra in accordance with Section 8 of the Subdivision Act 1988.

19. TENIXThe plan of subdivision submitted for certification must be referred to SP AusNet (Gas) in accordance with Section 8 of the Subdivision Act 1988.

20. COUNTRY FIRE AUTHORITYHydrants:(a) Operable hydrants, above or below ground must be provided to the satisfaction

of CFA.(b) The maximum distance between these hydrants and the rear of all building

envelopes (or in the absence of the building envelope, the rear of all lots) must be 120m and hydrants must be no more than 200m apart.

(c) Hydrants must be identified as specified in ‘Identification of Street Hydrants for Firefighting purposes’ available under publication on the Country Fire Authority web site (www.cfa.vic.gov.au).

Roads:(a) Roads must be constructed to a standard so that they are accessible in all

weather conditions and capable of accommodating a vehicle of 15 tonnes for the trafficable road width.

(b) The average grade must be no more than 1 in 7 (14.4%) (8.1 degrees) with a maximum of no more than 1 in 5 (20%) (11.3 degrees) for no more than 50m. Dips must have no more than a 1 in 8 (12%) (7.1 degree) entry and exit angle.

21. DEPARTMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY AND ENVIRONMENT(a) In order to offset the removal of

• 0.09 habitat hectares of native vegetation of Low Rises Grassy Woodland Ecological Vegetation Class in the Goldfields Bioregion of medium conservation significance including 3 large old trees;

• One large old tree and five medium trees of Low Rises Grassy Woodland Ecological Vegetation Class in the Goldfields Bioregion of medium conservation significance;

• Five small trees of Low Rises Grassy Woodland Ecological Vegetation Class in the Goldfields Bioregion of low conservation significance;

approved for removal as part of this permit, the applicant must provide for:• The protection and management for conservation purposes of 0.9 habitat


PAGE 40

hectares of native vegetation of Low Rises Grassy Woodland Ecological Vegetation Class in the Goldfields Bioregion of medium conservation significance including 6 large old trees.

• The planting and protection of 220 plants of Low Rises Grassy Woodland Ecological Vegetation Class in the Goldfields Bioregion of medium conservation significance.

• The planting and protection of 50 plants of Low Rises Grassy Woodland Ecological Vegetation Class in the Goldfields Bioregion of low conservation significance.

or an alternative to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.(b) To provide the required offset, within 12 months of the vegetation removal or

prior to the issue of statement of compliance, which ever is sooner, the applicant or owner must either:• Provide to the responsible authority, an Allocated Credit Extract issued by the

Department of Sustainability and Environment Native Vegetation Credit Register which satisfies the required offset, or.

• Have prepared an Offset Plan to be endorsed by the responsible authority and then form part of the permit. The Offset Plan must include but is not limited to the following:• Description of the site where the offset will be provided, including a site

plan.• Schedule of works to achieve the offset over a 10 year period, detailing

the:• Management actions to be performed (e.g. fencing, weed control,

pest control, revegetation).• Person(s) responsible for implementing the specific management

actions.• Timeline for the implementation of the management actions.• Method by which management actions will be undertaken.• Standard to which management actions will be undertaken.

The location of any native vegetation offset must not increase the bushfire risk to the proposed development or the adjacent area. When approved, the offset plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.

(c) Within twelve months of vegetation removal or prior to the issue of statement of compliance which ever is sooner: • The endorsed offset site must be permanently protected to the satisfaction of

the responsible authority, ie. via an encumbrance on title. • A copy of the endorsed plan and protection mechanism, eg. title showing

encumbrance, must be lodged with the Department of Sustainability and Environment.

22. EXPIRY OF THE PERMITThis permit will expire 7 years from the date it is issued. All development described in this permit must be completed before the expiry date. The responsible authority may extend this time limit if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards.


PAGE 41

NOTE:

Third party offsets may be available from Bushbroker Over the Counter program. Please contact Greg Waddell on (03) 5434 4353, or visit www.dse.vic.gov.au/nativevegetation for further information.

The Department advises that works or other activities on public land including road sides that impact on protected native plants will require a Protected Flora Licence or Permit in respect of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee (FFG) Act 1988. All native vegetation likely to be impacted should be checked against the Protected Flora List (DSE 2010) to determine whether FFG approvals are required. Protected Flora Permits can be obtained through the regional DSE office.


PAGE 42


PAGE 43


PAGE 44

2.4 SUBDIVISION OF LAND INTO THREE LOTS - 29 LANDALE DRIVE, STRATHDALE


Author Stephen Wainwright, Coordinator Subdivisions


Summary/Purpose

This report concerns a planning permit application to subdivide the land at 29 Landale Drive, Strathdale into three lots. An existing dwelling at the front of the site will be retained on Lot 1 and two new lots will be created behind it with access via a common property driveway.

Matters relating to neighbourhood character and amenity impacts are particularly relevant to this application.

There have been two objections to the application from local residents. This report assesses the merits of the proposed subdivision and discusses the issues raised by the objectors. It is concluded that the proposal complies with the Planning Scheme.

Policy Context




Report


Application Date: 16 March 2012

Applicant: Geoff Shaw & Associates Pty Ltd

Land: 29 Landale Drive, STRATHDALE


Overlays: No overlays


PAGE 45


The site consists of one land parcel known as Lot 1 on Plan of Subdivision 626748A. The site is located in Strathdale, 100m south of Harley Street. The east boundary of the site abuts Landale Drive for a width of 30m. The area of the site is 1,491m2 and the site is irregular in shape - very roughly an L shape.

There is a single storey dwelling on the site. It has a frontage setback of about 11m and setbacks from both side boundaries.

There is a fall of about 5m generally from the rear of the site to the front.

The site was created by a subdivision carried out in 2010. Effectively the subdivision resulted in part of the backyard of the adjoining property being added to the site to create a roughly L shaped lot. This subdivision was a precursor to the current proposal.

The site is burdened by two restrictive covenants. The covenants do not restrict subdivision but they do limit the number of dwellings that can be built on the site. Neither the proposed subdivision nor the future construction of dwellings on the new lots will contravene the covenants.

Figure 1: Location map showing subject site. The objectors' properties are marked with a star.

Proposal

It is proposed to subdivide the site into three lots. The subdivision layout will feature:

The retention of the existing dwelling on Lot 1. Two new, vacant lots behind the existing dwelling.A 4m wide common property driveway to access the new vacant lots situated on the

north side of the existing dwelling. Lot sizes between 325m2 and 604m2.


PAGE 46

The lots created by the subdivision will be fully serviced by water, sewerage, electricity, telecommunications and gas supply systems.


The site is within the Residential 1 Zone and is not covered by any Overlay controls. A permit is required to subdivide the site pursuant to the zone provisions. The following clauses in the Planning Scheme are relevant in the consideration of the application:


Regional development (clause 11.05).Urban environment (clause 15.01).Sustainable development (clause 15.02).Residential development (clause 16.01).Development infrastructure (clause 19.03).


Municipal profile (clause 21.01).Key issues and influences (clause 21.02).Vision - strategic framework (clause 21.03).Strategic directions (clause 21.04).Settlement (clause 21.05).Housing (clause 21.06).Reference documents (clause 21.10).


Salinity and erosion risk policy (clause 22.04).Strathdale/Kennington residential character policy (clause 22.24).

Other Provisions

Residential 1 Zone (clause 32.01).Residential subdivision (clause 56).Decision guidelines (clause 65).Referral and notice provisions (clause 66).


Referrals


Referral Comment

Coliban Water No objection subject to conditions

Powercor No objection subject to conditions

Telstra No objection subject to conditions


PAGE 47

Referral Comment

Tenix No objection subject to conditions

Asset Planning and Design (internal) No objection subject to conditions

Public Notification

The application was advertised to the public by mail and an on-site notice. Two people have objected to a permit being granted principally because of concerns about neighbourhood character and amenity impacts. The grounds of objection are discussed later in this report.

Planning Assessment


Landale Drive was created by a subdivision that occurred in 1988 (see plan below). This subdivision encompassed the formation of Landale Drive and Mayfield Drive together with several small courts (Essex, Opal and Harrods Courts). The estate yielded a total of 82 lots. Houses have since been built on most of the lots within the estate, including a single storey brick house with an under croft garage contained on the subject site.

Lot sizes within the estate originally varied between 774m2 and 2,371m2, with most lots being around 900m2. The generous lot sizes have created a suburban neighbourhood character defined by a horizontal housing typology and strong garden settings. Dwellings with the greatest building bulk are often found on sloping sites where site-cuts have been avoided in favour under croft building designs.

The estate forms part of the Strathdale/Kennington residential character precinct SK6 as set out in the Planning Scheme. The character of the SK6 precinct is described thus:

"The areas in this precinct are newly developed with small setbacks and numbers of larger dwellings. In general gardens are establishing with a mix of natives and exotics, however in parts substantial remnant indigenous and native trees (mostly iron bark) provide a backdrop that is distinctive. The streetscapes have an open feel created by a lack of fencing forward of the dwellings."

The estate has not remained static from a development perspective. Modest subdivision activity has occurred within the estate since it was first created, with some lots being re-subdivided to accommodate denser housing forms. At the northern end of Landale Drive, where the subject site is located, four lots have been re-subdivided in this manner. The re-subdivided lots now contain dwellings and the new lot sizes are as small as 380m2.

The proposed subdivision seeks to take advantage of the space that is currently available behind the houses at No.29 and No.31 Landale Drive (known as Lots 65 and 66 on the original plan of subdivision). The houses on both these properties are sited well towards the street frontage leaving roughly the rear half of the land unencumbered by buildings. In 2010 part of the backyard of No.31 Landale Drive was subdivided from the property and consolidated with the subject site to create a roughly L-shaped lot.


PAGE 48

This re-alignment of the property boundaries was presumably carried out to facilitate the three lot subdivision that is now the subject of the current permit application.

Figure 2: Part of the original subdivision that created Landale Drive

Figure 3: Plan showing the subsequent re-subdivision of Lots 65 and 66 which created the subject site (the roughly L-shaped lot shown as Lot 1)


PAGE 49

There are objections to the proposed subdivision from two adjoining property owners. The main grounds of objection centre upon the issue of neighbourhood character. The objectors don't want two new dwellings to intrude into what is currently a backyard environment. One of the objectors' states:

"This subdivision is in an established housing block area. We purchased the property at 22 Harley Street, Strathdale as it was in an established area with large houses on blocks of land which had established backyards. This area of Strathdale is regarded by all as having properties that have space and land."

Having regard to the site and its context it is noted the impact of the proposed subdivision will be highly localised since any future built form constructed on the new lots will be largely concealed behind the existing house on the site. Some oblique views of new built form may be possible from elevated positions in Landale Drive but these views are unlikely to significantly change the appearance of the streetscape.

Looking simply at the proposed lot sizes there are precedents within Landale Drive for lots generally between 300m2 and 400m2, albeit most of the existing small lots in Landale Drive are limited to corner locations rather than backyard environments. The presence of these smaller lots is evidence that while Landale Drive is indeed an established residential neighbourhood it has been the subject of change that has brought about a diversity of housing stock. It is considered that the proposed subdivision will add to this housing diversity by providing a higher density form of development that is compatible with the neighbourhood character.

Amenity impacts

The objectors are also concerned that the subdivision will have a detrimental impact on the amenity of their properties. One objector is particularly concerned about elevated noise levels that may result from any future dwellings on the site.

The new house lots proposed by the subdivision will abut the objectors' properties - to the west (No.22 Harley Street) and to the south (No.20 Harley Street).

With respect to No.20 Harley Street the subdivision will result in new built form adjacent to the front driveway area and side setback area of this property. These areas are not particularly sensitive from an amenity perspective. The rear private open space of No.20 Harley Street will largely remain unaffected by new building bulk. Furthermore, No.20 Harley Street is quite large which will tend to ameliorate the effects of overshadowing and overlooking.

No.22 Harley Street will abut only one of the proposed new house lots. This property will be situated generally to the north of the new lot meaning that overshadowing impacts associated with new built form will be minimal. It is also expected that any new dwelling constructed on the new house lot will be designed such that its backyard is adjacent to the backyard of No.22 Harley Street thus creating a degree of separation between the two properties in building bulk terms.


PAGE 50

It is considered that while the new house lots proposed by the subdivision are modest in size they each will be large enough to accommodate a new dwelling without unreasonably affecting the amenity of the adjoining properties. The detailed design of any new dwelling, including its height, boundary setbacks and positioning of windows, will be ultimately controlled through a building permit.

Compliance with clause 56

The residential subdivision provisions in clause 56 of the Planning Scheme apply to the application. The proposal meets all the Standards in clause 56. In particular it is noted that:

The lots will be fully serviced. The site is close to services and community facilities, including the Strath Village

shopping centre. The lots created by the subdivision will add to the diversity and supply of residential

land in Strathdale.

Conclusion

For the reasons discussed above it is concluded that the permit application meets the requirements of the Planning Scheme and on this basis a permit should be granted.

Options

Council, acting as the responsible authority for administering the planning scheme, may resolve to: grant a permit, grant a permit subject to conditions, or refuse to grant a permit.

Attachments

Objections.

RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to section 61 of the Planning and Environment Act (1987), Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit to subdivide the land at 29 Landale Drive Strathdale into 3 lots subject to the following conditions:

1. PLANS TO BE ENDORSEDThe plans to be endorsed and which will then form part of the permit are the plans submitted with the application.

2. LAYOUT PLANSThe subdivision, as shown on the endorsed plans, must not be altered without the prior written consent of the responsible authority.

3. PUBLIC OPEN SPACE CONTRIBUTIONBefore the statement of compliance is issued the applicant or owner must pay to the responsible authority a sum equivalent to 5% of the site value of all the land in


PAGE 51

the subdivision.

4. REMOVAL OF OUTBUILDINGSBefore a statement of compliance is issued for the subdivision all outbuildings on the site must be removed except for any outbuilding wholly contained within the boundaries of Lot 1.

5. DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTIONBefore a statement of compliance is issued for the subdivision the common property driveway shown on the endorsed plans must be constructed, properly formed, drained and surfaced with an all-weather seal coat to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

6. DETAILED DRAINAGEPrior to the certification of the plan of subdivision under the Subdivision Act 1988, plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and then will form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions. The plans must include:(a) Direction of stormwater run off.(b) A point of discharge for each lot.(c) Independent drainage for each lot.

7. STORMWATER DETENTIONPrior to the issue of a statement of compliance, the owner or applicant must provide onsite surface and stormwater detention to pre-development levels in accordance with plans and specifications to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. Allowable discharge: Lot 2, 3 and common property Q100 = 6.2 l/s.

8. STORMWATER QUALITYBefore the use or development is commenced, the owner or applicant must provide a stormwater treatment system to achieve the Best Practice Environmental Guidelines storm water quality (Victoria Stormwater Committee 1999) in accordance with plans and specifications to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

The Responsible Authority may deem this condition satisfied by a development contribution towards the treatment of surface and stormwater discharge from the approved subdivision, building and/or works, whether or not such new stormwater treatment infrastructure has been or will be situated within the boundaries of the subject land or its immediate catchment. Such amount is assessed as $750 or such amount applying at the time of payment.

9. DRAINAGE WORKSPrior to the issue of the statement of compliance for the subdivision, drainage works must be constructed in accordance with plans approved by the responsible authority.

10. SECTION 173 AGREEMENTIf a stormwater detention system or a water quality treatment system is installed on the site, the owner must enter into an agreement with the responsible authority


PAGE 52

under Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 before a statement of compliance is issued. The agreement must provide for the following:(a) All systems must be designed by a qualified engineer and must be approved by

the responsible authority before construction.(b) All systems must be installed before, or concurrently with, the development of a

building on the site.(c) All systems must be completed before they are connected to Council's drainage

system.(d) All systems must be maintained by the owner and must not be modified without

the written approval of the responsible authority.(e) The owner must allow authorised Council officers to inspect any system on the

site from time to time.(f) The owner must pay all costs associated with the construction and maintenance

of any system on the site.

11. PUBLIC ASSETSBefore the development starts, the owner or developer must submit to the responsible authority a written report and photos of any prior damage to public infrastructure. Listed in the report must be the condition of kerb and channel, footpath, seal, street lights, signs and other public infrastructure fronting the property and abutting at least two properties either side of the development. Unless identified with the written report, any damage to infrastructure post construction will be attributed to the development. The owner or developer of the subject land must pay for any damage caused to any public infrastructure caused as a result of the development or use permitted by this permit.

12. COLIBAN WATER(a) The owner is required provide reticulated water and sewerage services to each

of the lots within the subdivision. Services are to be provided in accordance with Coliban Water’s specifications.

(b) 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.


PAGE 53

Proposed Plan of Subdivision


PAGE 54

Subject Site Showing Current Dwelling & Proposed Subdivision


PAGE 55

2.5 SUBDIVIDE LAND INTO TWO LOTS - 12 MCKAY COURT, STRATHDALE


Author Liz Commadeur, Subdivision Planner


Summary/Purpose

This application seeks approval for a two lot subdivision of the land at 12 McKay Street, Strathdale. Three neighbours have objected to the subdivision principally because of concerns about traffic safety, neighbourhood character and amenity issues.

This report recommends that Council oppose the subdivision on neighbourhood character grounds, and that no permit be granted.

Policy Context




Report


Application Date: 16 April 2012

Applicant: P M Ladd

Land: 12 McKay Court, STRATHDALE


Overlays: There are no overlays


The subject site is located in an established residential area of Strathdale on the southern side of McKay Court. The vacant site is generally rectangular in shape with an area of 848 square metres. A few scattered, indigenous native trees are located on the site. The site slopes significantly to the north eastern corner.


PAGE 56

There are two undeveloped parcels of land in McKay Court, including land abutting the site to the west. The balance of the Court has reasonably large dwellings on lots with wide street frontages.

Services, including reticulated water and sewerage, power, gas and telecommunications are able to be connected to the site. McKay Court is a sealed road with kerb and channel. There are footpaths constructed along the street.

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

Proposal

It is proposed to subdivide the site into two narrow and elongated house lots, which are each capable of containing a dwelling. The lots would have direct access from McKay Court and be 424 square metres in area. The lots would be fully serviced.


The site is in the Residential 1 Zone. A permit is required to subdivide land pursuant to the zone provisions.

The following provisions of the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme are relevant to the application:

State Planning Policy Framework:

Regional development (clause 11.05) Urban environment (clause 15.01) Sustainable development (clause 15.02) Residential development (clause 16.01) Movement networks (clause 18.02)


PAGE 57

Municipal Strategic Statement:

Municipal profile (clause 21.01) Key issues and influences (clause 21.02) Vision - strategic framework (clause 21.03) Strategic directions (clause 21.04) Settlement (clause 21.05) Housing (clause 21.06) Environment (clause 21.08) Infrastructure (clause 21.09) Reference documents (clause 21.10)

Local Planning Policies:

Salinity and erosion risk policy (clause 22.04) Strathdale/Kennington residential character policy (clause 22.24)

Other relevant provisions:

Residential subdivision (clause 56) Decision guidelines (clause 65) Referral and notice provisions (clause 66)


Referrals

The internal departments have been consulted on the proposal:

Referral Comment

Traffic & Design No objection

Drainage No objection subject to conditions

Public Notification

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


Traffic and parking issues

Amenity issues.

The objections are discussed below.


PAGE 58

Planning Assessment

Neighbourhood Character

The site is located within Precinct 8 of the Strathdale/Kennington residential character policy. The precinct is described as having been:

“… developed mostly from the 1960s to the 1980s, where the horizontal emphasis of dwelling form is important, resulting from the long, low elevations of the buildings in relation to their height. Brick and tile is the predominant building material. Most have similar, modest front and side setbacks, creating a moreintimate street feel, combined with an absence of front fencing in most instances”.

The desired future character for the precinct is to maintain the horizontality of the dwellings, the consistent use of materials and the flow of landscape up to the face of the dwellings.

McKay Court generally reflects the description of this character policy and is comprised of lots that range in area from 615 square metres to 3,500 square metres. McKay Court is situated between Mill Street to the west and Herbert Avenue / Boronia Crescent to the east. The types of housing in McKay Court are generally large brick dwellings with reasonable front and side setbacks, constructed through the 1970’s. Gardens tend to be small to medium in size. McKay Court is quite steep, with the road having a steep decline towards the intersection of Boronia Crescent / Herbert Avenue and McKay Court.

The land is constrained by the steep nature of the site. The land slopes significantly from the south west to the north east of the site. A small number of scattered native trees are generally located over the rear of the site. These trees provide a pleasant backdrop to the site.

The proposal is to create two narrow and elongated lots on a site which is relatively steep. The site has frontage to McKay Court with the proposed lots having a width of 10.7 metres (lot 1) and 12.7 metres (lot 2) and a depth of approximately 38 metres. There has been no explanation on how future dwellings on the lots will impact on the landscape, especially in regards to the visual bulk. The design response does not refer to the anticipated loss of the native trees on the site. No details of potential cut or fill levels are provided, which is unusual, given the steep nature of the site.

The application originally included house plans for each lot. One of the objectors is concerned that the proposed dwellings, as shown on the notional house plans will not be in keeping with the surrounding area. The proposed narrow frontage of the lots featured two identical dwellings, each with a double garage and small entrance way, which is quite different to the rest of McKay Street.

Having regard to the site description, design response and the objectors’ concerns, it is considered that the proposed subdivision is not in keeping with this neighbourhood character for the following reasons:


PAGE 59

The narrow frontage of the proposed lots restricts the desired future character of the precinct, in particular to maintain the horizontality of dwellings. The frontages by virtue of their narrowness will be potentially dominated by dwellings with garage doors and compact entrance ways.

The narrowness of the lots will result in dwellings having a large footprint over each lot.

The proposed elongated shape of the lots is not compatible with the general character of the area in McKay Court. The narrowness of the lots differ considerably from the rest of the street.

The area of the lots is 424 square metres which is much smaller than the lots in the street.

The width of the lot frontages in McKay Court are predominately over 20 metres in comparison to the proposed frontages of 10.7 metres and 12.7 metres. The proposed lots won’t be able to accommodate reasonable side setbacks from the boundaries.

Overall, a two lot subdivision proposed of the site will not respect the objectives of the Strathdale/Kennington residential character policy and will detract from the character of the existing streetscape.

Amenity Issues

One objector is concerned about potential overlooking of their property at 19 Boronia Crescent. If a single storey dwelling was constructed, overlooking issues are unlikely. It is true that if a double storey dwelling was constructed, issues of overlooking could arise. Overlooking towards this property from Lot 2 would be moderate due to the slope of the land but in any event can be managed in accordance with the relevant Rescode standard, such as controlling the design and location of windows, balconies and patios. Future tree screening and use of fence extensions or other techniques could be used if necessary to minimise potential overlooking issues.

Rescode

Some Rescode requirements, including solar orientation can be achieved. Access is available to both lots. All services can be connected to the site. However, the proposal does not comply with Clause 56.03-5, as the neighbourhood character will be compromised by the proposed small side setbacks from boundaries, proposed smaller lot sizes and the narrow frontage of both lots.

Traffic Safety and Car Parking Issues

The objectors are concerned that the proposed subdivision will “present significant traffic congestion and collision hazards” in McKay Court, due to increased on-street parkingand traffic movements. The objectors’ concerns are heightened due to the steepness of McKay Court.

The traffic likely to be generated by two additional residential lots amounts to approximately twenty traffic movements per day. These traffic volumes are acceptable tothe City's Traffic Engineer. It is considered that two additional dwellings within McKay Court will not cause any adverse impact on traffic congestion or safety.


PAGE 60

The site is more suited to a single dwelling, where the objectives of the residential character policy could more easily be met.

Conclusion

For the reasons above, it is considered that the proposed subdivision does not comply with the Planning Scheme and a permit should be granted.

Options

Council, acting as the responsible authority, may resolve to approve or refuse to grant a permit.

Attachments

Objections

RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to Section 61 of the Planning and Environment Act (1987), Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to issue to Refuse to Grant a Permit for a two lot subdivision at 12 McKay Court, Strathdale on the following grounds:

1. The subdivision is not in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood due to the proposed narrow frontages of both lots.

2. The proposed subdivision will result in future dwelling developments fronting McKay Court that will detract from the character and appearance of the streetscape.

3. The proposed subdivision does not respect the desired future character of Precinct 8 of the Strathdale/Kennington Residential Character Policy.


PAGE 61

Proposed plan of subdivision.


PAGE 62

2.6 TWO LOT SUBDIVISION AND CONSTRUCTION OF ONE DWELLING - 14 ALLIANCE AVENUE, CALIFORNIA GULLY


Author Peter Hargreaves, Statutory Planner


Summary/Purpose

This report concerns an application to divide an existing lot with an established dwelling into two lots and to build a new dwelling on the newly created lot.

One objection has been received based on concerns over flooding, drainage and road safety issues.

The applicant did not agree to participate in mediation. Individual consultation with the applicant and the objector failed to resolve the issues.

It is considered that the proposal is in accordance with the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme.

Policy Context




Report

Application No: DSD/985/2011

Application Date: 15 December 2011

Applicant: J E Brunswick

Land: 14 Alliance Avenue, CALIFORNIA GULLY


Overlays: None


PAGE 63


The subject site is an 874sqm allotment containing a modern brick veneer dwelling with tiled roof. The allotment is oriented east – west along its longest axis and faces east on to Alliance Avenue.

The allotment slopes towards the rear and there is a fall of approximately one metre towards the north. There is a drainage easement along the rear of the property.

The subdivision was created in the 1990s with the lot sizes varying between approximately 450sqm and 800-900sqm. The exception is the property at 42 Murdock Street which comprises some 8,210sqm. The dwellings in the subdivision are typically brick veneer with pitched roofs clad in tiles or metal.

Figure 1: Location map showing subject site. Objector’s neighbouring property marked with a star.

Proposal

The application proposes the subdivision of the existing lot into two smaller lots and the construction of a two bedroom brick veneer dwelling on the newly created lot at the rear of the existing dwelling. The new dwelling would have its own driveway along the northern boundary of the existing allotment.


The following clauses are relevant in the consideration of this proposal:


PAGE 64


Regional Planning strategies and principles (Clause 11.05-4)


Housing – urban containment (Clause 21.06)


Eaglehawk Residential Character Policy (Clause 22.13)

Other Provisions

Two or more dwellings on a lot (Clause 55) Residential subdivision (Clause 56) Decision guidelines (Clause 65)


Referrals


Referral Comment

EPA Victoria No objection - recommended conditions

Traffic & Design No objection subject to conditions

Drainage No objection subject to conditions

Public Notification

The application was advertised by way of notice on the site and letters to adjoining and nearby owners and occupiers.

As a result of advertising 1 objection was received. The objector argues that:

Major flooding already occurs in this vicinity. Stormwater runs north along Alliance Avenue, across 14 Alliance Avenue and into number 12 before continuing on to properties facing Firth Street. The existing stormwater drainage system is barely coping, particularly during extreme weather events.

Increased flooding - The objector states that properties downhill of subject site already experience severe stormwater inundation of property, particularly during severe weather events. He fears that the additional hard pad areas created by the development such as driveway and footpaths will increase the amount of runoff and exacerbate the flooding for properties downhill of the subject site.

Potential mine subsidence – The objector states there are three historic mine tunnels approximately three metres underground which converge at the rear north west corner of 12 Alliance Avenue. Increased flooding in this area could pose major structural problems for properties along Firth Street.


PAGE 65

Views - the new dwelling will obscure the objector’s views of fauna and flora on the adjoining property at the rear.

Pedestrian safety – many children use the street, the existing and proposed driveways do not approach the street at a right angle and driver vision is therefore obscured.

Increased traffic will be a major problem to the safety of the children using the street.

The objections are discussed below.

Planning Assessment

State Planning Policy Framework and Municipal Strategic Statement.

The proposal meets the policy of urban containment where the strategy is to encourage higher density development in potential infill locations.

In terms of neighbourhood character policy, the subject site is located in Eaglehawk Precinct 4 which constitutes one of the outer suburbs of Eaglehawk. The housing is mainly post 1950s and is characterised by consistent setbacks within streetscapes and the low elevation of the buildings. The proposed development at the rear of the existing dwelling will not adversely impact on the neighbourhood character. The building design, roof shape and choice of materials, reflects the dominant typology of the area whilst the setbacks from rear and side boundaries reflect the existing rhythm of building spacing.

Zoning

The site is zoned Residential 1 where the purpose is to provide for residential development at a range of densities with a variety of dwellings to meet the housing needs of all households.

The proposal for a two bedroom dwelling on a smaller allotment helps achieve this objective.

ResCode

The proposed subdivision and development meets the objectives and the standards of Clauses 55 (Two dwellings on a lot) and 56 (Residential Subdivision).

Flooding

The site is not in a mapped flood prone area and the City's Subdivisions Engineer believes the additional dwelling and hard surface areas will not aggravate existing problems of stormwater runoff because a permit condition will require the owner/developer to make adequate provision for the on-site detention of stormwater.


PAGE 66

Historic Mine Workings

The area around Alliance Avenue (named after a mine to the north of the site) has been the scene of considerable mining activity in the past (see map below; the red dots are known mine shafts). The nearest mapped mine shaft is approximately 60 metres to the west. An unsourced notation on a map of the area found in the file of the original subdivision indicated that this shaft had collapsed at some point in time. The assessing officer consulted the mining regulator – the Department of Primary Industries – and reviewed DPI’s mapping of historic mine workings and previous mine subsidence in the vicinity. The assessing officer was unable to confirm or contest the existence of mine tunnels at shallow depth in the vicinity of the subject site. Further, DPI’s mapping of mine subsidence in Bendigo contained no incidents for the area.

Figure 2: Red dots marked the location of known mine shafts in the vicinity of the subject site.

Views of Flora and Fauna

Whilst the proposal will impact on the objector’s views over land to the east, the Planning Scheme does not guarantee a right to an outward view. Further, the scale and proportion of the proposed development is moderate and reasonable in the circumstances.


PAGE 67

Pedestrian Safety

Alliance Avenue has been designed and constructed to specifications that are more than adequate to cope with the additional traffic generated by this development. Driver vision, when leaving the property is enhanced by the following measures: A requirement that the existing and the proposed driveways to meet Alliance Avenue

at a right angle. The accessway for the new dwelling has been designed to allow for vehicles to enter

and leave the property in a forward direction.

It is considered that the proposal will not cause an unsafe pedestrian environment.

Preliminary Site and Soil Investigation

Given the prevalence of historic mining activity in the area and the fall of land the applicant was required to undertake a preliminary site and soil investigation to check for potential contamination.

Of ten samples taken at the site, four showed low level arsenic concentrations. Each of the four was considered to fall well within acceptable health limits for the continued residential development of the site. The report recommended a soil management plan be developed for the site to minimise soil accessibility and control any future risk to human health arising from its use and development for residential purposes.

The report was referred to EPA Victoria which also advised that a soil management plan could address the contamination and ensure the site was suitable for residential development.

Consequently EPA offered no objection to the issue of a planning permit provided that: All on site soil must be handled in accordance with EPA Publication IWRG621, Soil

hazard categorisation and management; A site specific soil management plan should also be considered for this site to ensure

that any risk to human health is managed;

The permit will be conditioned making both recommendations mandatory.

Conclusion

This subdivision and development accords with the Planning Scheme as it provides for appropriate infill development in an area zoned for residential development. Having considered the objection it is considered that the design response meets the objectives and standards of Planning Scheme including ResCode.

Options

Council, acting as the responsible authority, may resolve to approve or refuse to grant a permit.


PAGE 68

Attachments

Objection

RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to section 61 of the Planning and Environment Act (1987), Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for a Two Lot Subdivision and Construction of One Dwelling at 14 Alliance Ave, California Gully subject to the following conditions:

1. MODIFIED PLAN REQUIREDBefore the use and/or development start(s), amended plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application but modified to show:(a) An amended landscape plan incorporating a site specific soil management

plan in accordance with Geotechnical Testing Services Pty Ltd, Preliminary site and soil investigation for 14 Alliance Ave California Gully, dated 2 May 2012.

2. NO ALTERATION TO LAYOUTThe use and development permitted by this permit as shown on the endorsed plans 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. LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCEThe landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.

4. COMPLETION OF LANDSCAPINGBefore the occupation of the development starts or by such later date as is approved by the responsible authority in writing, the landscaping works shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

5. GENERAL EXTERIOR TREATMENTThe exterior treatment of the building(s) permitted by this permit including all exterior decoration, materials, finishes and colours must be to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. The exterior treatment of the building(s) must be maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

6. REFRIGERATION AND AIR-CONDITIONING EQUIPMENTAny equipment required for refrigeration, air-conditioning, heating and the like must be suitably insulated for the purpose of reducing noise emissions and must be located so as to not be highly visible from the street to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.


PAGE 69

7. DETAILED DRAINAGE PLANS:Prior to the certification of the plan of subdivision under the Subdivision Act 1988, plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and then will form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions. The plans must include:(a) direction of stormwater run off (b) a point of discharge for each lot(c) independent drainage for each lot

8. STORMWATER DETENTIONPrior to the connection of any building to the responsible authority’s drainage system, the owner or applicant must provide onsite surface and stormwater detention to pre-development levels in accordance with plans and specifications to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.Allowable discharge rate

Q10 = 8.3 l/s per hectareQ100= 16.3 l/s per hectare

9. STORMWATER QUALITYBefore the use or development is commenced, the owner or applicant must provide a stormwater treatment system to achieve the “Best Practice Environmental Guidelines” storm water quality (Victorian Stormwater Committee, 1999) in accordance with plans and specifications to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

The responsible authority may deem this condition satisfied by a development contribution towards the acceptance of surface and stormwater discharge from the approved subdivision, building and/or works, whether or not such new stormwater treatment infrastructure has been or will be situated within the boundaries of the subject land or in its immediate catchment. Such amount is assessed as $750.00 or such amount applying at the time of payment.

10. DRAINAGE WORKSPrior to the issue of the Statement of Compliance for the subdivision, drainage works must be constructed in accordance with plans approved by the responsible authority in condition 7 above.

11. SECTION 173 AGREEMENT – ON SITE DETENTION SYSTEMPrior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance, the applicant/owner must enter into an agreement under section 173 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987.

Such agreement must covenant that:(a) The owner will maintain each on-site detention system and/or treatment

system and not modify without prior written approval from the responsible authority.

(b) The owner shall allow duly authorised officers of the responsible authority to inspect the systems at mutually agreed times.

(c) The owner will pay for all costs associated with the construction and maintenance of each on-site detention system and/or treatment system.


PAGE 70

12. CITY OF GREATER BENDIGO ASSETSBefore the development starts, the owner or developer must submit to the responsible authority a written report and photos of any prior damage to public infrastructure. Listed in the report must be the condition of kerb & channel, footpath, seal, street lights, signs and other public infrastructure fronting the property and abutting at least two properties either side of the development. Unless identified with the written report, any damage to infrastructure post construction will be attributed to the development. The owner or developer of the subject land must pay for any damage caused to any public infrastructure caused as a result of the development or use permitted by this permit.

13. VEHICLE CROSSINGSVehicular access to the subject land from any roadway or service lane (and vice versa) must be by way of a vehicle crossing(s) constructed at right angles to the road, to suit the proposed driveway(s) and vehicles that will use the crossing. A Works within Road Reserves permit must be obtained from the City of Greater Bendigo Asset Planning & Design Unit prior to any work commencing in the road reserve.

14. SEALED CAR PARKAreas set aside for the parking of vehicles together with the aisles and drives must be properly formed to such levels that they can be utilised in accordance with the endorsed plan and must be drained and provided with an impervious all weather seal coat. The areas must be constructed, drained and maintained in a continuously useable condition to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

15. USE OF CAR PARKING AREASAreas set aside for the parking and movement of vehicles as shown on the endorsed plan must be made available for such use and must not be used for any other purpose.

16. FENCING OF SITEThe fence(s) as shown on the endorsed plans must be erected and maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

17.NO MUD ON ROADSIn the event of mud, crushed rock or other debris being carried onto public roads or footpaths from the subject land, appropriate measures must be implemented to minimise the problem to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

18. SERVICE AUTHORITY CONDITIONS (TELSTRA, TENIX, POWERCOR AND COLIBAN WATER)The owner of the land must enter into agreements with the relevant authorities for the provision of water supply, drainage, sewerage facilities, electricity, gas and telecommunication services to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with the authority’s requirements and relevant legislation at the time.

All existing and proposed easements and sites for existing or required utility services and roads on the land must be set aside in the plan of subdivision


PAGE 71

submitted for certification in favour of the relevant authority for which the easement or site is to be created.

The plan of subdivision submitted for certification under the Subdivision Act 1988 must be referred to the relevant authority in accordance with section 8 of that Act.

19 EPA VICTORIA CONDITIONSAll soil must be handled in accordance with EPA Publication IWRG621, Soil hazard categorisation and management

Before the approved dwelling can be occupied, the site specific soil management plan for this site prepared and approved in accordance in Condition 1 and the Geotechnical Testing Services Pty Ltd, Preliminary site and soil investigation dated 2 May 2012 must be implemented to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

NOTE:

CITY OF GREATER BENDIGO ASSET PLANNING AND DESIGN UNIT NOTE:A Works within Road Reserves permit must be obtained from the City of Greater Bendigo Asset Planning & Design Unit prior to any work commencing in the road reserve.

CONSENT FOR WORK ON ROAD RESERVESThe applicant must comply with;(a) The Road Management Act 2004,(b) Road Management (Works and Infrastructure) Regulations 2005, and(c) Road Management (General) Regulations 2005with respect to any requirements to notify the coordinating authority and/or seek consent from the coordinating authority to undertake “works” (as defined in the Act) in, over or under the road reserve. The responsible authority in the inclusion of this note on this planning permit is not deemed to have been notified of, or to have given consent, to undertake any works within the road reserve as proposed in this permit.


PAGE 72


PAGE 73


PAGE 74


PAGE 75


PAGE 76

2.7 MITCHELL STREET BUS STOP & STREETSCAPE REDEVELOPMENT


Author and Responsible Darren Fuzzard, Director Presentation and AssetsDirector

Summary/Purpose

This report considers the problem of over-crowding at bus stops in Mitchell Street and suggests an alternative to the existing proposal that comprises intelligent transport systems, high quality waiting areas for bus users and an upgrade to the Mitchell Street streetscape.

The report summarises the results of preliminary feedback from targeted parties and recommends putting the new proposal out for formal comment.

Policy Context

Council Plan Reference:

City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2009–2013 (updated 2012)

Built and Natural Environment

Strategy 1.12 Develop a sustainable integrated transport network.

Strategy Reference:

CBD Plan 2005

Theme 1: Reinforcing the CBD as the centre of activity

Theme 2: Celebrating cultural and heritage identity

Theme 3: Creating an accessible place

Theme 4: Designing a high quality urban environment

Under these themes there are many 'key' actions nominated that are directly or indirectly relevant to Mitchell Street. These include: committing to Mitchell Street as the primary location for bus stops in the CBD; introducing real time technology for public transport in the CBD; using traffic calming approaches (such as reducing lane widths) to improve the pedestrian environment; upgrading bus terminus facilities in Mitchell Street and widening footpaths to achieve this; undertaking a program of streetscape upgrades using consistent palates and treatments.


PAGE 77


Council has considered various reports on the problems in Mitchell Street and potential solutions since the bus stops were relocated to it in April 2008.

Previous Council Decisions and Consideration

On 16 June 2010, Council resolved to:

Advocate to VicRoads for changes to the Queen Street/Mitchell Street intersection traffic signals.

Advocate to VicRoads and Public Transport Victoria (PTV - previously the Department of Transport) for a thorough investigation of the Pall Mall/View Street intersection.

(Consider) a further report.…prior to implementing the trial of buses stopping in the left lane in Mitchell Street.

The works at Queen/Mitchell Street intersection were completed in late 2010.

As a result of the investigation of the Pall Mall/Charing Cross intersection, works (funded by VicRoads, PTV and Council) were undertaken in March 2011 to improve the flow of traffic from View Street into Pall Mall and Mitchell Street. These works included extension of the existing left turn lane into Pall Mall from View Street and a time based ban on right turns into Pall Mall from View Street. These works have significantly reduced the length of traffic queues in View Street and the intersection appears to be working far more efficiently than before.

At the 16 March 2011 Councillor Forum, Councillors were given an update on the situation in Mitchell Street and about informal discussions held between the Director -Presentation & Assets with VicRoads, PTV and a small group of traders about an alternative approach to the proposed 'in-lane' bus stop solution.

The merits of the in-lane bus trial and of the alternative approach were considered. At that meeting Council gave in-principle support to the Director holding further discussions with directly effected parties about the alternative approach.

Report

Existing and Alternative Proposals

The existing proposal consists of a partial streetscape redevelopment that involves significant widening of footpaths (to the edge of the existing slow lane in each direction adjacent to the existing bus stops), installation of bus shelters and buses stopping in the slow lane to pick up and drop off passengers.

The alternative approach attempts to retain the existing functionality of Mitchell Street and intersecting streets. It seeks to solve footpath congestion problems through a combination of technology and infrastructure that allows bus users more choice about where they wait for the bus.


PAGE 78

The approach hinges on the introduction of an intelligent transport system (equivalent to the 'real time' technology identified in the CBD Plan) for Bendigo's bus network. The information would be made available via smart phones and LED displays at the proposed ‘remote’ waiting facilities.

Initial Community Consultation

In October and November 2011, the Director - Presentation & Assets and the Ward Councillor, Cr James Reade, met individually with 34 traders in Mitchell Street, Hargreaves Street and Bath Lane. Meetings were also held with representatives of the Backhaus Estate (given the large property ownership) and Dungey Carter Ketterer Real Estate (given the large portfolio of properties in Mitchell Street managed by this agent).

Sessions were also held with Council's Youth Advisory Committee and students from Girton Grammar and Bendigo Secondary College.

Christians Bus Co. (public transport provider to PTV) was also consulted.

Each of the meetings comprised two parts. First was to seek an update on what the current situation is at the bus stops. Second was to seek feedback on whether the existing 'in-lane' proposal was supported and whether the alternative approach had enough merit to be explored further. All were advised that the meetings were purely to get an initial response to each of the questions and that a broader, formal opportunity to have input to the final solution would be provided in due course.

Feedback from business owners and property owners/managers

A) Existing Situation

Most business owners and interested partied interviewed provided feedback on the current situation.

The overwhelming feedback was that the vast majority of students (the major bus users) are well behaved. Primary areas of ongoing concern were:

1. The 'bulk' effect in the afternoon (particularly between 3.30pm and 4.30pm when a large number of students are waiting to catch the bus home) that can intimidate potential customers.

2. Occupation of doorways by those attempting to get protection from inclement weather.

3. Leaning against shop fronts and the consequent restricted use of the footpath.

4. Bad language

5. Littering

Some also noted that violence/fighting is still a problem on occasions (but not necessarily involving students).


PAGE 79

B) In-lane Bus Stop Proposal

Many people were unaware of this proposal, however once explained there appeared to be general consensus that the proposal was not a preferred option. In particular:

Many traders were concerned that the response was not necessarily proportional to the problem.

The consequent restriction to the flow of traffic in Mitchell Street was not seen as a positive step.

Many were not convinced that the proposed widening of footpaths and installation of bus shelters in Mitchell Street would necessarily attract students away from shop fronts and store doorways.

There was strong resistance to the installation of bus shelters in Mitchell Street that would obscure vision to shop fronts.

C) Alternative Proposal

The following initial reactions were recorded:

Very strong support for the idea of using 'real time' technology to give bus patrons a choice in where they wait for the bus - many people noted that they have already used and like 'Metlink' (the proposed technology) that has been in Melbourne for some time.

The introduction of a covered facility in the Mall and opposite in Hargreaves Street was strongly supported.

Avoiding a change to the operation of Mitchell Street, Hargreaves Street and Bath Lane for motor vehicles was strongly supported. Several traders in Hargreaves Street said that they saw the proposal as a good step for Hargreaves Street as it permits a u-turn for cars that doesn’t currently exist.

The most common concern about the alternative approach was whether the real time technology was accurate enough to give bus users sufficient confidence to wait in the 'remote' facilities proposed for the Mall and Hargreaves Street or elsewhere.

It was emphasised by many that the suggested covered areas in the Mall and Hargreaves Street must be high quality and provide real protection from all weather.

Several people noted that the technology and 'remote waiting' concept would not be acceptable to all bus patrons. In particular, it was suggested that provision still needs to be made for older bus users who would only feel comfortable waiting at the location where the buses actually stop.

The proposal to widen the footpath as much as possible without impacting on the capacity of through traffic was well supported.


PAGE 80

Other observations/suggestions included:

1. Minimising the loss of parking and the importance of loading zones in the area.

2. Removing the 'obelisk' at the Mitchell Street end of the Mall to create a bigger covered area that could cater for 'Mall' users also. Several people questioned the current purpose of the obelisk.

3. The need to improve the toilet facilities in Hargreaves Street. Should not see its retention in the current location (or the building itself) as given.

4. The possibility of an alfresco dining component to the new pedestrian area in Hargreaves Street was well supported by several nearby traders.

5. Design of the waiting facilities must respect the heritage environment and be of high aesthetic quality.

6. Reconstruction of the entire streetscape is badly needed however the way that this is done and the timing of the works is critical - don't forget the lessons of the Mall and the disruption caused to business. Very good planning and consultation processes will be needed during the construction phase.

Feedback from the Youth Advisory Committee and students from Girton Grammar and Bendigo Secondary College

Discussions with the Youth Advisory Committee and students from Girton Grammar and Bendigo Secondary College suggested:

1. A strong level of comfort with a technology approach that offered bus users choiceabout where they wait. Many students were very familiar with and supportive of the Metlink technology already operating on trains in Melbourne. This was seen as the highest and most urgent priority to implement.

2. A strong interest in being involved in the design/development of the waiting facilities to ensure that they are genuinely attractive to bus users. The need for security systems in the facilities (or to make them 'safe') was also noted.

3. Recognition that some bus users (particularly older people) will not be comfortable with the technology and 'remote' waiting areas.

Feedback from Christian's Bus Co.

Informal discussions occurred with Bendigo's bus operator, Christian's, about their needs as an operator. The primary concern noted about the current situation is that at times it can be difficult for the buses to easily enter the bus bays and this can result in the rear of the bus remaining in the through lane of Mitchell Street. It was requested that this be addressed when the detailed design of the roadworks is undertaken.

Concern was also expressed about the informal pedestrian crossing that exists across Mitchell Street near Bath Lane. It was felt that pedestrians walking out from in front of the bus are at risk of being hit by a vehicle because they are not easily seen. It was acknowledged that this is a popular pedestrian movement.

Further discussions with Public Transport Victoria


PAGE 81

PTV has reiterated its position that Mitchell Street is the best location for the buses to stop in the CBD.

A critical change to permit the proposed reconfiguration of Hargreaves Street is the removal of the existing bus stops in Hargreaves Street. PTV has agreed to this happening on the basis that these buses are relocated to Mitchell Street in front of First National Real Estate. This bus stop would also accommodate PTV’s predicted future growth in services.

PTV also considers that the length of existing bus bays is inadequate and leads to the tail end of buses remaining in the slow lane.

As previously indicated, the success of the alternative proposal hinges on changing the behaviour of bus users with the intelligent transport system technology. For this to be effective it is crucial that 1) the system reports 'accurately' when the buses will arrive/leave and 2) people are confident enough with the information provided that they 'choose' to themselves arrive 'just in time'. PTV was requested to provide any documented evidence it has on this. However, while this change has been informally observed on Melbourne bus services fitted with the real time technology, PTV has recently indicated that no such formal research has been conducted to date.

PTV has formally advised that, while there is an intent for roll out (of real time technology) to (buses services in) rural areas, it is not clear when that might be. Earlier discussions indicated that this could mean a ten year wait for regional cities.

PTV has indicated that it would not object to the use of the State funds to accelerate the introduction of the real time technology to Bendigo as long as it forms part of the total solution that Council commits to. It is understood that this could occur as quickly as six months after it completes the roll out of the technology in Melbourne’s bus network (currently underway). The estimated cost is around $500,000.

PTV has indicated that it requires a clear commitment from Council to proceed with a solution to Mitchell Street if Council is to retain the funding of $900,000 previously committed by the State. Council’s commitment must be made by 30 September 2012. Staging of the works is considered acceptable however reasonable timeframes for completion must be nominated.

DISCUSSION

Location

There has been considerable debate about where the bus stops should be located. Williamson Street, Edwards Street and further east in Mitchell Street have been some of the suggestions made.

Both Council (through its CBD plan) and Public Transport Victoria have said that Mitchell Street (as close to the Mall as possible) is the best location and this opinion is supported. Bendigo's public transport system (like so many others) is significantly underutilised.


PAGE 82

In addition to improvements to frequency and efficiency of service, it is critical that other factors (such as the sense of safety at the bus stops, the proximity of the stops to primary CBD destinations and the directness of the service between destinations) are not compromised if we are to improve use of our public transport.

From some discussions it appears that the expected disruption to the operation of Mitchell Street resulting from the 'in-lane' bus stop proposal has heightened the concern about retaining the stops in Mitchell Street. The alternative proposal suggested in this report should address that concern. If anything, there should be a marginal improvement in traffic flow when the streetscape is reconstructed as the works would include adjusting the bus stop layouts to ensure that entry and exit requirements of buses are properly catered for.

Possible Staging

As previously indicated, the alternative proposal hinges substantially on the effect that the real time technology is expected to have on the behaviour of bus passengers. IE. That they would no longer congregate at the bus stops until just before the bus is due. Adopting a technology solution would therefore mean that the streetscape related infrastructure is no longer essential to address the immediate problem of over-crowding at the existing bus stops.

That said, it is considered that at least the proposed building in the Mall should be provided as quickly as possible to assist in attracting bus patrons away from the footpath of Mitchell Street. Early feedback supports this opinion.

However, the need for the complimentary building in a reconfigured Hargreaves Street is a matter that Council may wish to contemplate further after the real time technology and the building in the Mall has had time to take effect. While the structure in Hargreaves Street offers other benefits (primarily better integration of Hargreaves Street with the Mall, improved ‘usability’ of the toilets and the opportunity for more ‘outdoor’ dining), if bus user behaviours change as predicted, this structure may prove unnecessary for that specific purpose. Accordingly, a programmed delay in the introduction of this component of the plan would seem sensible.

While the completion of the general streetscape works (comprising footpath, road, landscape, drainage, kerb and channel and street furniture works) is not considered essential to dealing with the current over-crowding problems at the bus stops under the alternative proposal, they are important for many reasons and remain a high priority in the infrastructure program. In particular, the footpath in Mitchell Street between Pall Mall and the Mall is in very poor condition, localised drainage problems persist, kerbing is badly affected by tree roots and the pavement along the length of Mitchell Street is highly cracked and failing in many locations. Also, the bus stops themselves do not meet DDA compliance standards. Due to the changes proposed, all streetscape works would be required to occur as a single project. Consequently, considerable construction phase planning and consultation with traders would be required to establish a detailed program that delivers these works in an acceptable way. A bid for construction funds in the 2013/14 budget is intended.


PAGE 83

Development of the Proposed Alternative Treatment

To date, detailed development of the proposed alternative has purposely been limited.

Engineering design checks have been undertaken to ensure that the proposal can meet design standards for vehicle movements (including through traffic, bus stops and turning traffic) while better accommodating pedestrians.

Preliminary checks to verify that adequate areas are available for siting the proposed buildings in the Mall and Hargreaves Street have also been done.

The loss of some trees (in most cases already needing to be removed to deal with current problems) has been identified as well as the overall potential increase in the number of available car spaces in the precinct. The need to more safely accommodate the demand for the informal pedestrian crossing near Bath Lane is also recognised and options are being considered.

If formally supported in principle, several aspects to the proposal require further development through consultation. These include:

1. What the design of the buildings in the Mall and Hargreaves Street should be. In particular: what is needed to make them attractive (including consideration of safety) to bus patrons; how could the Mall building meet other needs of visitors to the Mall; should a new building be provided or the existing obelisk be better utilised in a new form.

2. How those wishing to continue waiting at bus stops can be accommodated without introducing obtrusive structures in the streetscape.

3. What an appropriate landscape treatment for Mitchell Street is.


The 2012/13 draft budget includes $800,000 which approximates the remaining funds from those committed by the State to this project.

As previously indicated, PTV estimates that the Intelligent Transport System would cost around $500,000 to implement in Bendigo.

The preliminary estimate for a high quality building in the Mall that caters for around 100 people is $300,000.

The concept estimate for the streetscape work (excluding the bus stop buildings) is approximately $3Million. This includes all roadworks, footpaths, drainage, kerbing, street furniture, traffic signal modifications and landscaping in Mitchell Street between Pall Mall and Queen Street (as generally shown on the attached plan) and includes an allowance for associated modifications in Queen Street, Hargreaves Street, Bath Lane and Pall Mall. A contingency allowance of 25 percent has been applied. Subject to Council approval, these works would be funded from the normal civil infrastructure renewal program.


PAGE 84

Proposed General Community Input and Targeted Feedback

Broad community input will be invited via public advertisement with details of the proposal made available via Council’s website. Submissions will be received for a period of four weeks.

In addition, a letter summarising the proposal and forwarding the attached plan will be sent directly to:

All traders in Mitchell Street (between Pall Mall and Queen Street), Hargreaves Street (between Mitchell and Edwards Streets), Bath Lane (between Mitchell and Edwards Streets) and those in the Mall.

The new CBD traders association

Backhaus Estate

Dungey Carter Ketterer Estate Agents

Girton Grammar, Bendigo Secondary College, the Catholic College and BTEC

Christian's Bus Co.

A report considering the formal feedback received from this process will then be presented to Council for further consideration.

Conclusion

At the centre of solutions investigated to date for the overcrowding at CBD bus stops has been the premise that Mitchell Street is and remains the most appropriate location for them. While this report supports that position, it is important to understand that this is not unanimously agreed by business owners and operators and therefore remains a 'sore point' for some. The alternative solution suggested in this report has attempted to recognise this by addressing what appears to be a significant underlying concern; that the footpath area in Mitchell Street is not an appropriate location to accommodate large volumes of waiting bus passengers.

A further complicating factor in resolving this matter is that all Mitchell Street solutions to date have involved someone 'losing' something that they currently enjoy. EG. Unobstructed visibility to shop fronts; relatively unimpeded flow for vehicles through Mitchell Street; access to/from side streets; special purpose car parking/loading areas in very close proximity to shops. While it is most often the case that 'something has to give' in situations as complex as Mitchell Street, a recurring theme in discussions has been the question of whether the negative impacts of possible solutions are really being out-weighed by the positive effects and/or whether they can be mitigated by other actions. This has been a fundamental premise for the alternative solution now proposed.

The alternative proposal allows widening of footpaths in critical locations and encourages a reduction in traffic speed whilst not compromising the capacity of Mitchell Street to cope with the significant traffic volume using it as a primary east-west route through the city. This appears to fit very well with the CBD Plan and Council Plan objectives for Mitchell Street.


PAGE 85

While many aspects of the proposal have required some level of initial engineering design to verify that it will work, there remain many aspects requiring further community input before a final proposal can be fully developed and designed. A targeted engagement strategy will be needed to achieve this.

Attachments

Nil.

RECOMMENDATION

That the City of Greater Bendigo Council:

1. Approve advertisement of the alternative proposal to address the problems of over-crowding at bus stops in Mitchell Street for the purpose of public comment.

2. Write directly to the following special interest groups to seek comment on the proposal:

a. All traders in Mitchell Street (between Pall Mall and Queen Street), Hargreaves Street (between Mitchell and Edwards Streets), Bath Lane (between Mitchell and Edwards Streets) and those in the Mall.

b. The new CBD traders association.

c. Backhaus Estate.

d. Dungey Carter Ketterer Estate Agents.

e. Girton Grammar, Bendigo Secondary College, the Catholic College and BTEC.

f. Christian's Bus Co.

3. Make details of the proposed works available to passengers on Christian's bus services throughout the consultation period and invite formal comments.

4. Receive submissions for a period of four weeks from the date of advertising.

5. Note that a report summarising the submissions received will be tabled for further consideration before 30 September 2012.

Economic Development/Community and Culture - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 25 July 2012

PAGE 86

3. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Nil.

4. COMMUNITY AND CULTURE

Nil.

Our People, Our Processes - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 25 July 2012

PAGE 87

5. OUR PEOPLE, OUR PROCESSES

5.1 BUDGET SUBMISSIONS


Author Peter Davies, Acting Director Organisation SupportBrett Martini, Manager Asset Planning and Design Pauline Gordon, Director Community WellbeingKathy Constable, Management Accountant

Responsible Peter Davies, Acting Director Organisation SupportDirector

Summary/Purpose

The purpose of this report is to consider submissions on the Proposed Budget for 2012/2013.

Policy Context

Council Plan 2009 – 2013 (2011) states:

4.1 Delivery of responsible financial management and business planning practices to ensure long term sustainability.


Councillors have been involved in the development of the budget over many months and have considered the budget principles, projects, services, initiatives, staffing levels, cost increases, operating costs, consulting and professional services, grants, external funding, as well as the longer term financial implications of the current budget.

Council considered the Proposed Budget at its meeting on May 30, 2012 and resolved to advertise the budget and this occurred on Saturday June 2, 2012. At the end of the 28 day statutory period for public exhibition, 15 submissions were received and five were heard at a Committee meeting of the whole Council. This report is part of the next step for Council to formally consider submissions at a public Council meeting.

Report

A summary of the individual submissions is outlined below (Note: An author’s note has been placed beside those items requiring future explanation or clarification). A full copy of each submission is available on the website.


PAGE 88

Michael Lawson

Mr Lawson is concerned about Council's proposed rate increase of 6.0% per year for the next three (3) years. A forecast general inflation rate of 3.19% has also been proposed, so the Council's 2.89% higher than the cost of living.

He is also concerned about employee costs - 5 year net increase (excluding compounding) $15.6M - 35%.

He questions why $800K has been allocated to road works in Mitchell Street, when many local roads in worse condition. (Note 1: Mitchell Street is a major arterial road carrying large volumes of traffic and is in poor condition. The component of the works this financial year is fully funded by the Department of Transport).

He also asks why the City of Greater Bendigo is borrowing $11.3m (Note 2: The borrowing is to fund part of the Capital Works budget).

He believes under Section 9.1 Rating Strategy (p.57), the measure is significantly flawed and should reflect a per rateable property average increase rather than per capita (Note3: The measure is reported according to the Budget Model prepared and distributed by The Institute of Chartered Accountants in association with the Municipal Association ofVictoria).

Ted Coleman

Mr Coleman has once again put considerable research and effort into his submission of 19 pages, including seven pages of charts and graphs highlighting trends. He spoke in support of his submissions highlighting the trends and encouraged Council to look at increase in Capital Works in real dollar terms. He also tabled some pages from Ballarat Council budget for consideration. The following is a summary of the submission.

Positives Capital works detail. Reduction in the Municipal Charge. Cross-referencing of Budget Initiatives with the Plan and Council strategies. The Budget format/layout and the accuracy of tables. Implement Web Strategy/Website improvements. Bread and Butter issues receive useful allocations. Review all community and recreational fees and charges policies.

Significant Concern Council's reasons for the 5.5% rate rise.

Trends 2005 to 2012 Concerns1. Total Rates raised by all type of rate levied (p69) compounded 83% from 2005/6 to

12-13 (Note 4: The 83% includes all of the development growth in the municipality and subsequent additional rate income as a consequence).

2. Roads, Bridges and Drains - The 2012-2013 $21.333M allocation is less in real $terms than council's 2006-07 $15.530M allocation.

3. Capital Works cf Employee Benefits - Council must reflect on employee costs outstripping capital works investments.


PAGE 89

4. Employee Benefits (EB) Generala. Recommend budget $1,700,000 increase in employee benefits, not proposed

$3,400,000 and CEO to operate within budget allocation.b. A budget employee superannuation and council liabilities statement must be

made, so residents can understand the real budget implications.c. Consultancy costs (in effect additional staffing costs) need clear identification.

5. Imbalanced Eighteen Industry Sectorsa. The Economic Development Unit, with approximately 6 staff and net expenditure

of ($1,444,000), $26,000 less than 2006-07, pales compared with council's support for Tourism related activities. (Note 5: The Economic Development Unit budget is variable depending on project work being undertaken).

b. Move Tourism Unit into Economic Development to become a section with broader economic charter.

6. Budget Strategic Resources Plan, can these predictions be improved

General Concerns1. Budget Influences - should be item 2 in the Budget.2. Budget Principles - A savings principle was not included in this budget. (Note 6:

Principles 10 and 11 address Service Growth restraint and Efficiency Targets). 3. 1% operational efficiency - only to the contracts, materials and services operating

expenditure item.4. Calculation of the 2012-13 Average Rate Per Capita of $730 (p57) is unclear. (Note

7: Amount of Average Rate Per Capita - = Total proposed Rates & Charges levied of $78,375,816 divide population of 107,379 = $729.90.)

5. The new cost impact of Carbon Pricing. Suggest rate notice provide waste component breakdown - garbage/carbon tax/other. (Note 8: Impact of other taxes are not quantified).

6. Key Strategic Activities (KSA) and Targets - A major concern, something needs to be done. (Note 9: This has been replaced with a new page).

7. Capital works expenditure in growth areas of the municipality. Presentation & Assets and the Planning and Development directorates need more resources.

8. The rush to commence major projects in the one year, like the Art Gallery and Library redevelopment, place a $6M pressure on internal funding.

9. 'Internal budget' must be released for public analysis.10. Whole-of-life costs for projects.11. O'Keefe Trail. It is lunacy to spend $900,000 on the project. (Note 10: $500,000

State Government Funding in 2012/13) 12. The budget must explain City Futures Directorate - Marketing and Corporate

Communications disappearance. (Note 11: Corporate communication is now part of the Executive Services Unit). The new Healthy Communities unit (p83-4), needs explanation in Budget introduction. (Note 12: The detailed activities of this new unit is explained on Pages 19 and 20).

13. It appears Council is either replicating or duplicating existing operator services in the areas of Aged and Disability, Youth, Children and Family.

14. A list of beneficiaries of Council discretionary grants should be provided in the budget. (Note 13: A list of grants is provided in the Annual Report).

15. Is it part of Council's core business to run businesses and compete with the private sector? There is an opportunity to cut recurrent costs and return much needed capital to Council.


PAGE 90

Budget Initiatives1. Initiative Concerns

Connection with Council Plan or a claimed strategy. (Note 14: Council Plan references are provided in the activities, initiatives and key strategic activities section and also alongside capital works projects).

Normal activity is not an initiative. Double-ups. Consistency. All Budget initiatives need checking to ensure their veracity and bona fides.

2. Recommend New Initiatives and Budget changes Conduct an external Independent Public Review - up to $200K. (Note 15:

Previously addressed by Council). Develop a set of budget benchmarks and ratios. Undertake risk analysis of major private sector businesses. Develop a Significant Tree local law. Identify and trial sampling techniques as measurement instruments for

KSA's. Annual main streetscape photos for posterity - $20K. (Note 16: there is

$12k in the budget for photography). Review minor sports and sports that receive no Council support. Conduct an independent external review of the staffing structure. Satisfaction and ideas survey all Greater Bendigo rural and urban traders

(not just CBD) $30K. (Note 17: Council undertakes a range of specific and general surveys).

Monitor local media 'position vacant' advertisements by category. Construct safety roundabouts at the junction of Thistle and Hargreaves

Streets, and Thistle and Adam Streets - ~$300K. (Note 18: Addressed later in the report).

3. Examples of items to drop from budget Mall screen. Art House Cinema (Note 19: There is no funding for the Star Cinema in

this budget). 4. Community Consultation - lack of effective consultation prior to the draft budget.

ConclusionWith sensible adjustments to unit allocations and the dumping of some budget initiatives and the take up of new initiatives, a further $1M to $5M can be found, to be either redeployed or determined as a saving offset against the proposed rate increase.

Colin Campbell

Mr Campbell states that the community of Strathfieldsaye is poorly served by the 2012/2013 Budget. The only capital works in the area is the Strathfieldsaye Recreation Reserve landscaping, Stage 1; $115,000. He states that capital works require the Council to fund operating and maintenance costs. Capital Theatre, the Town Hall and the Exhibition Centre have a net operating cost to Council of $1,373,000. He asks what will be the annual net cost of a 1,000 seat theatre? (Note 20: It is estimated that the additional net costs for the 1000 seat theatre will be between $190,000 - $240,000).


PAGE 91

He says that Strathfieldsaye Pre School Committee advised that funds were not available to repair a leaking roof, replace worn floor covering or renovate the kitchen to comply with current standards. (Note 21: These works were referred for maintenance rather than capital works. The leaking roof has been fixed).

He suggests a failure of Council to provide sufficient funds to maintain the local road network, with no prospect of improvement to cater for traffic growth and new urban development. He questions matching replacement expenditure with depreciation and what is the detail contained in this budget? (Note 22: Renewal projects are 116% of total depreciation).

He indicates Tourism, Major Events and Special Projects continue to grow exponentially.

He is also concerned that the increase in staffing levels is out of step with other levels of Government. Perhaps a review of all staffing positions may be in order to determine which relate to core business and which may be made redundant.

Mr Campbell is concerned about $0.5 million cost to operating revenue for the Community Theatre and collection of charges prior to the project being completed. (Note 23: Funds are allocated for works, not operating expenses.)

Michael McKenzie

Mr McKenzie asks that Council includes in the forthcoming budget, provision for the cost of an independent, non government, external public review of the Greater City of Bendigo.

He suggests reviewing the proposed budget expenditure of $900,000 on the O'Keefe Rail Trail.

He identifies an imbalance on support to industry sectors need to be addressed. Tourism earns approximately $300 million and employs approximately 1,600 people yet it receives a disproportionately large amount of funding.

He indicates employee costs in the order of 7.65%, are out of step with general industry increases. The $15 million spent on waste management requires urgent and thorough review. (Note 24: A major review is currently underway). Parks and natural reserves in the budget show an outlay of $7,956,000, there must be further scope for cost savings and efficiencies. (Note 25: Service standards are currently being reviewed but there areincreasing numbers of assets and responsibilities).

Bendigo Domain Village

The Bendigo Domain Village are requesting the City of Greater Bendigo Council to set a differential rate for the retirement village reducing rates on units by 25%. A spokesperson from the retirement village presented a case well to the committee of the whole Council.


PAGE 92

Their reasons are as follows:

The village provides library, pool and other services Council does not provide maintenance for roads, footpaths, kerb and channel, street

sweeping or power for street lights. There is no freehold title to individual residences and units are not available for

purchase by the general market place

Strathfieldsaye & Districts Community Enterprise

The Strathfieldsaye & Districts Community Enterprise (SDCE) are proposing that a walking track be created along Sheepwash/Emu Creek, from Sullivans Road to the North East Corner of St Francis of the Fields Primary School.

The estimated costs are: Walking Track Construction - $35,000 (could be funded by SDCE if needs be); Creek bridge/culvert crossing - $25,000 (to be funded by Council). St Francis of the Fields Primary School has been approached as part of this discussion also.

Also, all affected landholders have been engaged, and can see the benefits of the paths and are willing to fund half of the fencing required.

Radius Disability Services

Radius Disability Services (RDS) express disappointment that the Ewing Park redevelopment proposal has again been deferred. The key interest for RDS with this redevelopment is the formalisation and paving of the car park area around the oval.

RDS indicate that current light poles (Ewing Park) are not particularly safe which is of concern as RDS clients and staff often spend time on the oval. From an occupational, health and safety perspective RDS would hope to see the light poles replaced as soon as possible. (Note 26: The light poles can still be used and are similar to many others in the municipality).

Sandhurst Football Netball Club

The Sandhurst Football Netball Club request that the City of Greater Bendigo adopt the complete upgrade of Ewing Park in its expenditure for the 2012/13 budget.

Sandhurst Marist Junior Football Club Inc

The Sandhurst Marist Junior Football Club hopes that development of Ewing park receives favourable reconsideration by Council.

United Cricket Club

The United Cricket Club asks that decision by the City of Greater Bendigo to discontinue funding of the Ewing Park development be reviewed.


PAGE 93

Lyn Goodall

Ms Goodall states that Council has aimed to balance the execution of the budget by providing resources for Children & Family, Recreation, Community & Cultural Development and for Aged and Disabled people. She does not see anything for over 65's who wish to remain active as well. She would like to see the Council of Greater Bendigo lead the way in providing support for groups that offer services to over 65's.

The City of Greater Bendigo has a Positive Ageing Strategy, and Ms Goodall hasn't seen anything much come out of this initiative. She also hopes the Council seeks input to the definition of positive ageing and healthy communities from the community, before they put any plans in place. (Note 27: The Positive Ageing Strategy has been developed with considerable community involvement).

Anglican Diocese of Bendigo

The Anglican Diocese of Bendigo request assistance with works in Bush Lane at the rear of the Cathedral to do with drainage and water management. The Diocese is also seeking some contribution from the Council to enhance the entrance area and visual street appearance including the external lighting of the Cathedral.

(The Acting Director Organisation Support Peter Davies declares that he has a conflict of interest in this submission as he is a member of the Council of the Diocese.)

Bendigo Downtown Traders Association Committee

The Bendigo Traders Association wish to make the following requests to have elements of the proposed funding for the reactivation of the Hargreaves Mall, broadened to include a series of play ground or play structures. They are of the opinion that the current approach, suggested by Council, is an unnecessary waste of council resources. They believe that the cost for the activation of one of two screens will be far greater and that the screens will only have limited use.

(Councillor Ruffell has previously declared a conflict of interest in this submission as she operates a business in the Hargreaves Mall.)

Marg Gaskell

Mrs Gaskell believes Council should review the decision to "scrap" or delay the return of the children's playground. She is concerned the Council is considering spending $200,000 attempting to activate the video screen in the Mall. Mrs Gaskell also believes there should be regular events on a set day in the Mall so that people build it into their "diary" and they know if they go to the Mall on that day there will be an added attraction for them and their family. At the hearing of submissions, Mrs Gaskell provided Councillors with a range of playground options.

(Councillor Ruffell has previously declared a conflict of interest in this submission as she operates a business in the Hargreaves Mall.)


PAGE 94

Bendigo Agricultural Show Society Inc

The Bendigo Agricultural Show Society (BASS) are concerned about the cost of fire services required for the new pavilion. Some assistance within the Council's forthcoming budget is requested to enable the Society to meet CFA requirements.

(Cr Reade has consistently declared a conflict of interest in relation to any matter associated with BASS as his father is a member of the governing body).

Response to Key IssuesAll of the issues raised in the budget submissions are important. Some of the key issues have been responded to specifically either because they are significant costs, projects for the City of Greater Bendigo or they have been raised by more then one submitter. Some issues raised in submissions have been previously dealt with by Council and other suggestions are of assistance to internal continuous improvement.

Employee Costs Three submissions refer to the employee costs. Employee costs include all labourrelated expenditure such as wages and salaries and on-costs which includes allowances, leave entitlements, employer superannuation. Employee costs also include some positions externally funded as well as new positions required to service a growing population and increasing demands and complexity.

Comparatively, Greater Bendigo is not among the high paying Councils and has lower total employee costs (as a % of total income and total operating expenditure) when comparing with similar sized Councils.

Bendigo is fortunate in many respects being a desirable community in which to live and work. The most important attraction factor reported by new staff members is ‘challenging and meaningful work’. Salary is considerably less important as an attraction factor and the organisation has been able to recruit staff who have been willing to work for a salary less than they where earning in another workplace.

Factors relating to Local Government salary increases are complex and those factors include the structure of enterprise bargaining agreements, centralised vs. decentralised wage setting policies, bargaining processes, competition for staff within and across the sector, increasing complexity of Local Government roles leading to reclassification of positions and Union negotiations across Councils. It is recognised that work needs to be done within the sector and with Unions in the current economic climate to ensure that wage growth is not out of step with the other sectors and the economy.

It is recognised that the percentage salary increases in Local Government may differ from increases elsewhere. Trends in federal enterprise bargaining for December 2011 quarter show all sectors 3.9%, private sector 4.1% and public sector 3.7% The lastfederal enterprise bargaining increase negotiated in 2010 for City of Greater Bendigo was 3.8/3.9%.

Hargreaves Mall ScreensThree submissions refer to the Hargreaves Mall screens questioning the use and proposed cost.


PAGE 95

The $200,000 that was allocated in the budget towards the Hargreaves Mall screens was an indicative amount only and was set aside to explore the opportunity to install a 5mx3m Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) screen. Further investigation of the likely costs by officers in conjunction with a structural engineer and a screen manufacturing company of the likely costs indicate that the overall cost is likely to be in the vicinity of $500,000 including audio, power and structural works, with more ongoing costs such as power and maintenance.

There are also concerns about security of the LCD screen as it is in an open public space and also the quality of the viewing associated with viewing distances to the screen.

It is recommended that in response to the submissions, the screens not be funded in the 2012/13 budget.

O’Keefe Trail Two submissions expressed concern about the expenditure on the O’Keefe Trail.

This is a joint project between CoGB and Victorian Government and a contractual agreement exists between the two parties for this project. The project spans over a number of financial years and is to be completed by December 2014. The Victorian Government is contributing $1.9M and CoGB $1.3M. Works have commenced with 7 bridges being constructed between Bendigo and Axedale. Planning work is well advanced in the extension of the trail between Axedale and Heathcote.

In 2012/13 path works will be undertaken in both Axedale and Heathcote along with the construction of a bridge across the Campaspe River at Heathcote.

There is evidence from across the state about the economic benefit to small towns of such activity infrastructure. The project is strongly supported by the Knowsley and Heathcote communities.

Ewing Park The development of Ewing Park was raised in four submissions. It is a major development in the order of $1.5M including:

Drainage Cricket Nets x3 Irrigation System Lighting Oval Kerb and Channel Car Parking Footpaths Fencing Cricket Pitches x 2

There is opportunity to deliver the project over a number of years based on a fully designed project. The first stage that has been committed is the drainage and cricket nets. Future works will be considered as part of the 2013/2014 budget process.


PAGE 96

The completion of this project is a high priority. Safe accessibility to Radius Disability Services and heavy demand and flow on effect from the QEO and other facilities sees this project as one of the highest recreation priorities to be referred to the 2013-2014 budget estimates.

St Paul's Cathedral Public WorksIn response to the Anglican Diocese of Bendigo the CoGB will work with the Anglican Diocese of Bendigo in regard to works in the public domain, associated with repairs and restoration of St Paul's Cathedral. The scope and cost of works needs to be determined before a contribution from CoGB can be considered. There are currently no plans or funding for works adjoining the Cathedral.

Roundabouts: Thistle and Adams Sts, Thistle and Hargreaves Sts The submission by Ted Coleman raised these roundabout projects. Adam Street is an arterial Road under the management of VicRoads.

There are no plans for the construction of a roundabout at Thistle and Hargreaves Street. Whilst the alignment of the intersection is poor, only one casualty accident has been reported in the last 5 years. This intersection will be reviewed as part of the reconstruction of Hargreaves Street in this area in the coming years.

Sheepwash Creek Walking Track Strathfieldsaye and District Community Enterprise (SDCE) submission highlighted this work. A one-year agreement was in place for previous work and honoured by both parties. Further works and commitment from CoGB were subject to review and agreement. This project was not considered the highest priority for shared paths and has not been included in the draft budget. Further work is required in regard to the scope andcost of works, land tenure, approvals, Committee of Management and native vegetation assessment.

Should the SDCE wish to fund and undertake works, an agreement will be required from CoGB prior to works in regard to design and construction standards as CoGB is likely to be responsible for the management and maintenance following works.

Bendigo Domain Village In response to the Bendigo Domain Village submission it must be said that there are a number of retirement villages in the municipality including Bendigo Retirement Village Spring Gully (strata title), Golden Oaks Village in Golden Square, RSL Village in Kangaroo Flat, Alawara Retirement Village in Golden Square, St Laurence Court in California Gully, Lions Village in Heathcote, Village Life in Kennington (Strata Title) and Living Well at Bendigo in Kangaroo Flat.

Essentially, all of these properties are run as businesses which comprise residential dwellings. Some of the business owners require the tenants to pay outgoings while others ‘build in’ the outgoings to the rental. It is difficult for Council to justify a reduced differential rate on these residences.


PAGE 97

Council completed the review of its approach to rating across the municipality last year and determined that the current rating structure of residential, vacant land, farm land and a mix of business rates is fair and equitable to our ratepayers. Council considers that all residential ratepayers should contribute rates according to their property valuations and does not support the introduction of a differential rate for retirement village units.

The Local Government Act provides for rating on the basis of valuation rather than the benefit derived from the municipality. Most residents are able to utilise a wide range of Council services as well as those provided by retirement villages.

The situation is similar to strata title developments, where ratepayers may also claim that they are contributing to a corporate body which provides services internal to the facility.

The valuation for rating purposes is completed in accordance with the Valuation of Land Act which requires that if a portion of land on which a building is erected is occupied separately, or obviously adapted to being occupied separately, from other land in the parcel, that portion must be regarded as forming a separate rateable property and must be valued accordingly.

The unit values are based on sales of comparable units which inherently would take into consideration the communal facilities and common areas which are for the use of the residents (the common property is not valued separately).

Hargreaves Mall Play SpaceTwo of the submissions requested that Council invest in a play space in the Hargreaves Mall and Councillors were provided with some ideas from one submitter about what the play space might look like and the type of equipment that could be installed.

In December 2011, a survey was conducted of the community with a total number of 2878 people invited to participate in all community engagement undertaken, and 952 people responded totalling a 33.07 % response rate. Concurrent to this process, the Ward Councillor and Director Community Wellbeing also met with mall traders to listen to their views on the Mall and what their preferred priorities are.

When the question was asked as to where Council should put its resources, the top answers (in order of priority) included:

shade/ shelter, grass, colour, vibrancy, flowers, installing a play space /play ground, more activities, use of the screens, and toilets (cleanliness).

The report to Council’s ordinary meeting on 21 March 2012, endorsed that officers conduct a workshop with representatives from each school to determine a preferred design model for the proposed play space, and a range of community events and activities and entertainment.

It is recognised that the development of a play space requires the input from a range of stakeholders, especially children, so the workshop is an important step in the planning process.


PAGE 98

It is recommended that Council address the two top priorities identified in the survey in the next financial year and that the planning and delivery be completed during the 2012-2013 financial year and efforts be made to identify any other funding sources to deliver a play space/ play ground.

Fire Services Bendigo Show Grounds The matter raised in the Bendigo Agricultural Show Society submission needs detailed investigation. The Manager Building and Property Services is investigating the issues and this will be subject to a further report. Once all the information is available and we understand the extent of the problem and the cost of any required intervention or remediation, a funding strategy will be recommended to Council'.

Communication and Consultation

The calling of submissions on the budget is a statutory process that Council must follow. While this submission process is at the end of the budget development process, a lot of information is gathered from the community throughout the year. A Community Priorities Forum was held on 24 November 2011, to encourage groups and organisations to identify projects early so that they could be considered for the 2012/13 budget.

There may also be value in a formal process to call for public submissions early in the financial year to help prepare for the following financial year. Council have requested a policy to ensure that all costs associated with projects are clearly identified. This often takes considerable work, investigation and the preparation of a business case and subsequent report to Council.

Some projects identified as part of this submission process and even the Hargreaves Mall screen proposal (which was put forward late in the budget development process) have not been subjected to the rigour of investigation that Council expects. Staff will give further consideration to the timing of an earlier process for another Communities Priorities Forum and/or a call for public submissions having regard for the election later this year and the development of the new four year Council Plan.

Conclusion

Council has spent considerable time considering the budget for 2012/13 and the budget placed on exhibition was the result of consideration of numerous competing programs, services and projects.

Most of the issues raised on the submissions had been previously considered and discussed. Projects included in the draft budget had been identified as priorities and changes to those priorities are not proposed. The only change recommended is the deletion of the new screen proposed to be added to the Hargreaves Mall for reasons outlined in the report.

Some new issues have been raised relating to the way in which Council communicates and presents budget information and this helps with the continuous improvement process.


PAGE 99

Attachments

1. A full copy of all attachments has been circulated to Councillors and are available as an attachment to the Agenda on the website.

RECOMMENDATION

That having considered all submissions and in response to the submissions, Council resolve to:

1. Consider a further report on:a. fire services for the new pavilion at the showgrounds. b. drainage associated with Bushs Lane and St Paul's Cathedral.c. the Sheepwash Creek Walking Track.

2. Reallocate the $200,000 for the Hargreaves Mall screen from the 2012/2013 budget as follows:

a. $150,000 for the development of a play space.b. $50,000 towards Hargreaves Mall amenity improvements.

3. Express its appreciation to all submitters for their contributions to the budget process and that the submitters be provided with a formal response to their submissions that will include where appropriate:

a. Feedback as outlined in this report.b. Clarification of any misunderstandings and responding to questions

raised in the submissions.c. A commitment to promoting and conducting a Council Priorities Forum

prior to the next budget cycle and consideration of an earlier opportunity for budget submissions in addition to the formal statutory process.

d. Acknowledgement of contributions which will enable the budget and rating to be communicated more effectively and clearly in the future.

e. An outline of further opportunities to contribute to the development of a new Council Plan including Strategic Resources Plan and Strategic Indicators for the next four year Council term.

f. The level of detail Council requires for a proposal to be considered in a future budget.

g. A commitment to continuous improvement in aligning the Council Plan and Budget, and the development of strategic indicators.


PAGE 100

5.2 ADOPTION OF COUNCIL BUDGET 2012-2013


Author Marg Allan, Director Organisation Support Peter Davies, Acting Director Organisation SupportKathy Constable, Management Accountant

Responsible Peter Davies, Acting Director Organisation SupportDirector

Summary/Purpose

To consider the formal adoption of the 2012/2013 budget.

Policy Context


Council Plan 2009 – 2013 (2011) states:



In accordance with: Section 127 of the Local Government Act 1989, Council must prepare a budget

for each financial year commencing 1 July and Section 158 of the Local Government Act 1989, the Council must declare the

amount it intends to raise by general rates.

Report

Council considered the Proposed Budget at its meeting on May 30, 2012 and resolved to advertise the budget and this occurred on Saturday June 2, 2012. At the end of the 28 day statutory period for public exhibition, 15 submissions were received and five were heard at a Committee meeting of the whole Council. A report on submissions has been dealt with separately as part of this meeting.

A Financial Plan for the years 2012/2013 to 2015/2016, included in the Strategic Resource Plan of the Council Plan, has been developed to assist Council in adopting a budget within a longer term financial framework. The key objective of the Financial Plan is to achieve the Council's strategic objectives, while ensuring financial sustainability in the medium to long term.


PAGE 101

Since the budget has been on public exhibition, Council has been advised by Vision Super that it will require a payment to bring up the balance of the defined benefits superannuation scheme. At this time it is still not known specifically how much will be required from the City of Greater Bendigo, but it will be a share of $450M and staff have estimated that it may be in the vicinity of $10-11M. There will be further consideration of the way in which the superannuation liability will be funded during the 2012/13 financial year and implications for the long term financial planning.

The 2012/13 budget has been developed to facilitate the achievement of the strategic objectives and strategies included in the 2009/2013 Council Plan. The budget principles were determined by Council at its meeting on 25 January 2012 and have been utilised in the formation of the budget. In preparing the 2012/2013 budget, a number of external influences have been taken into consideration because they are likely to impact on the services delivered by Council in the budget period.

These external influences are:

Constrained Federal and State Government fiscal environment The increasing regulatory environment which requires City of Greater Bendigo to

apply resources to meet legislation standards specifically:o The increase in the levy which City of Greater Bendigo is required to pay to the

Environment Protection Authority for the disposal of waste to landfill o The impact of carbon price related to the disposal of waste to landfillo Expected substantial increase in utility costso Changes in emergency management requirementso The increased environmental standards relating to waste management impacting

on the future development of the landfill siteo Changes to Child Care Centre regulations requiring higher staff to child ratioso The unfunded superannuation liability.

There are a number of internal influences which have had a significant impact on the preparation of the 2012/13 Budget being:

Prioritisation by Council of several large capital works projects that will require increased funding both through rate revenue and loan borrowings

Recognition that the achievement of Strategic Objectives must allow for the organisational capacity to deliver them in an environment of limited financial resources and the availability of appropriately skilled staff

Additional staffing required to meet service requirements Investment in developing workforce capability The requirement to address the renewal gap caused by ageing infrastructure by

funding capital renewal and upgrades Introduction of a 1% efficiency target on operations Improvement to on-line presence through website development Commitment to increased service standards regarding tree clearances in rural and

urban roadsides Increased effort in drainage maintenance and upgrade of drainage assets Introduction of a higher quality road resheeting program.


PAGE 102

Since advertising the budget Council has discussed offering an incentive for early full payment of rates. Section 168 of the Local Government Act 1989 provides -

‘(1) At the meeting at which a Council declares any rates or charges, the Council may declare that incentives are to be given by it for the payment of those rates and charges before the due date and must include in the declaration details of the circumstances in which an incentive will be given.

When the discount was previously offered in 2004/2005, the cost in dollars was offset by the saving in either the cost of overdraft interest or the earnings on investment interest on the amount of ‘additional’ rates ‘paid early’ to produce a ‘break even’ situation. It is proposed to offer the discount once again.

Budget Details The budget has been prepared in accordance with relevant statutory requirements including the Local Government (Finance and Reporting) Regulations 2004. The key features of the budget are:

1. Capital and Major Works of $53.6M including:

Road Construction Program ($11 million) Drainage ($5.4 million) Footpaths ($1.1 million) Final payment for Edward St car park and commercial development ($2.0

million) Bendigo Art Gallery Extension ($6.5 million) Bendigo Library Redevelopment ($6.5 million) Recreation Facilities ($3.1 million)

2. An operating surplus of approximately $14.34M including capital revenue of approximately $11.65M.

3. An increase in total income of Rates and Municipal Charge of 5.50%.

4. An increase in Garbage charge of 6.9% and the Recycling charge of 2.6%.

5. Repayment of debt of approximately $2.14M.

6. An amount of $79.4M to be raised by general rates, municipal charge and service charges as follows:

General Rates $ 63,877,710Municipal Charge $ 3,369,730Service Charges $ 10,784,490Supplementary Rates/Charges $ 1,335,108

7. The budget includes differential rates to be declared as follows:

Residential 0.353% of Capital Improved ValueBusiness A (Urban/non-CBD) 0.660% of Capital Improved ValueBusiness B (Rural areas) 0.640% of Capital Improved Value


PAGE 103

Business C (CBD) 0.690% of Capital Improved ValueFarm Land 0.308% of Capital Improved ValueVacant Land 0.433% of Capital Improved Value

8. In accordance with the Cultural and Recreation Lands Act 1963, the following be declared:

Class 1 0.1765% of Capital Improved ValueClass 2 0.08825% of Capital Improved ValueClass 3 0.0353% of Capital Improved ValueClass 4 $258.00Class 5 $359.00

9. The Municipal Charge will be $64.80 for each rateable property (or part) in respect of which a Municipal Charge may be levied. The Municipal Charge has been reduced from $97.20 to $64.80 which is a further 25% reduction on the 2010/11 charge. This reduction directly benefits ratepayers of lower valued properties.

10. Services Charges to be declared as follows:

Garbage Charge 240 Litre Bin $ 210.00 Garbage Charge 120/140 Litre Bin $ 123.00Garbage Charge 240 Litre Bin (other Commercial) $ 231.00*Garbage Charge 120/140 Litre Bin (other Commercial) $ 135.30*Recyclable Garbage Charge $ 58.50Additional Recyclable Garbage Charge (per bin) $ 45.00Garbage Charge (Business Areas) One Day per Week $ 231.00*Garbage Charge (Business Areas) Two Days per Week $ 462.00*Garbage Charge (Business Areas) Three Days per Week $ 693.00*Garbage Charge (Business Areas) Five Days per Week $ 1,155.00*Garbage Charge (Business Areas) Seven Days per Week $ 1,617.00*

* Includes GST

Note: These charges have been reduced from the advertised budget due to a clarification of the impact of the carbon price. This was the subject of a report to the meeting of Council held on July 4, 2012.

Priority/Importance:

High

Commencement Date:

This budget comes into effect on the date it is adopted by Council. The planned date is 25 July 2012.


PAGE 104


Internal Consultation:

Prior to the preparation of the budget, the Council adopted the budget principles. These principles were utilised by unit managers to guide the preparation of service unit plans and budgets for 2012/13. The budget has been prepared by the Systems and Management Accounting Unit with extensive input from Councillors, Executive Management Team and Managers.

External Consultation:

Formal notification of the budget was given in the Bendigo Advertiser on 2 June 2012. Submissions closed on 29 June 2012. During the public exhibition process, the budget was also available for inspection at the City of Greater Bendigo offices and on the City of Greater Bendigo’s website being www.bendigo.vic.gov.au. Publicity was undertaken in the local media during the exhibition period.

Conclusion

All submissions have been considered by Council and have been the subject of a separate report. Proposed changes to the budget are reflected in the resolution.


The formal budget documentation details the resources required and applied to deliver services programs operations and capital projects during 2012/2013.

Attachments

1. The budget document included under separate cover 2. Addendum will be provided to reflect changes resolved by Council at this

meeting.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Greater Bendigo City Council, having considered the submissions to the budget, resolve to:

1. Adopt the Budget, annexed to this resolution and initialled by the Mayor for identification, being the budget prepared for the 2012/2013 financial year for the purposes of Section 127 of the Local Government Act 1989 with the attached addendum initialled by the Mayor which includes: correction of typographical errors replacement page on Key Strategic Activities details of the impact carbon price liability reduction rates payment discount acknowledgement of the unfunded superannuation liability the reallocation of the $200,000 for the Hargreaves Mall screen to:

a. $150,000 for the development of a play space, and

http://www.bendigo.vic.gov.au

http://www.bendigo.vic.gov.au


PAGE 105

b. $50,000 towards Hargreaves Mall amenity improvements.

2. Give public notice of the adoption of the Budget in accordance with Section 129 of the Local Government Act, and make available for public inspection the information required by the Local Government Act 1989 (as amended) and the Local Government (Finance and Reporting) Regulations 2004.

3. Display the Budget at City of Greater Bendigo offices and on the City of Greater Bendigo website.

4. Implement the differential rate as follows:

Residential 0.353% of Capital Improved ValueBusiness A (Urban/non-CBD) 0.660% of Capital Improved ValueBusiness B (Rural areas) 0.640% of Capital Improved ValueBusiness C (CBD) 0.690% of Capital Improved ValueFarm Land 0.308% of Capital Improved ValueVacant Land 0.433% of Capital Improved Value

5. In accordance with the Cultural and Recreation Lands Act 1963 the following be adopted:

Class 1 0.1765% of Capital Improved ValueClass 2 0.08825% of Capital Improved ValueClass 3 0.0353% of Capital Improved ValueClass 4 $258.00Class 5 $359.00

9. The Municipal Charge of $64.80 for each rateable assessment, in respect of which a Municipal Charge may be levied, be adopted.

10. Service Charges be adopted as follows:

Garbage Charge 240 Litre Bin $ 210.00 Garbage Charge 120/140 Litre Bin $ 123.00Garbage Charge 240 Litre Bin (other Commercial) $ 231.00*Garbage Charge 120/140 Litre Bin (other Commercial) $ 135.30*Recyclable Garbage Charge $ 58.50Additional Recyclable Garbage Charge (per bin) $ 45.00Garbage Charge (Business Areas) One Day per Week $ 231.00*Garbage Charge (Business Areas) Two Days per Week $ 462.00*Garbage Charge (Business Areas) Three Days per Week $ 693.00*Garbage Charge (Business Areas) Five Days per Week $ 1,155.00*Garbage Charge (Business Areas) Seven Days per Week $ 1,617.00*

* Includes GST

11. Early full rate payment discount of 1.5% on current year rates and charges be granted if full payment (including any arrears and interest) is received on or before Monday 24 September 2012.


PAGE 106

BUDGET ADDENDUM INFORMATION


PAGE 107


PAGE 108


PAGE 109

5.3 OPTIONS FOR DEALING WITH THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES SUPERANNUATION LIABILITY


Authors Travis Harling, Manager FinanceSamantha Stanton, Manager People and LearningPauline Gordon, Director Community Wellbeing

Responsible Pauline Gordon, Director Community WellbeingDirector

Summary/Purpose

The purpose of this report is to respond to the Council resolution requesting options to deal with the $10 million - $11 million superannuation liability as reported to the last Ordinary Meeting of Council on the 4th July, 2012.

Policy Context

The Chief Executive Officer and Acting Director Organisation Support (Peter Davies) have declared that they are contributors to the Defined Benefits Scheme. Those involved in the presentation of this report to Council have declared that they are not contributors to the scheme.


Council Plan 2009-2013 (2011) states:



The Local Authorities Superannuation Fund (LASF) Defined Benefit Scheme is a superannuation plan that covers employees of Victorian local government bodies, certain water authorities and other government and semi-government authorities (‘Authorities’) within Victoria. It was a scheme legislated by the State Government where unfunded liabilities were deemed “acceptable”.

The Defined Benefit Scheme was introduced in 1982 and backdated to 1947 with no prior funding. It was a compulsory scheme for all local government employees, requiring higher than average contributions from both employer (9.25% plus 4% for unfunded liability) and employee (6%). In 1988, following the 3% National Productivity case, the State Government closed lifetime pensions within the scheme but improved benefits on retirement, resignation and retrenchment based on a projected 30 year funding plan.


PAGE 110

In 1993 the State Government closed the Defined Benefit Scheme abandoning the 30 year funding plan. It has been closed to new members since 1 January 1994. Only those employees who were employed by an Authority prior to 1994 and have continuously remained employed by a Victorian Authority since that time, or those people who have retired on the scheme and their spouses, are members.

In 1995 the Scheme had $217 million of unfunded liability. Local Government reform resulted in 4,670 retrenchments in 18 months placing extreme pressure on the Scheme. In 1998 the State legislation was repealed and the LASF became regulated by the Commonwealth Government. These changes meant that since that time the Scheme has differed from other defined government superannuation schemes in that this regulation “requires” local government to be fully funded. As a result of this requirement there have been a number of calls on the local government sector to provide additional funding to "top up" the scheme.

Nationally all states have a defined benefits scheme, and all are Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) regulated. They are required to be fully funded and for any shortfall in the fund a contribution is required. The impact is varied because of the number of active members.

New South Wales had a very similar issue in 2009, where there was a significant call in of around $300 million. The shortfall was funded by increasing employer contributions, as they had a much larger pool of active employees still contributing to the fund. Their super contribution increased dramatically as a result of the 2009 shortfall.

The first call impacting the Victorian Local Government sector was in 1998, when the call of the shortfall of the fund of $321 million was directly required to be paid by employers.

The CoGB has had a number of calls over the years to contribute towards scheme shortfalls. In previous years the CoGB share of the shortfall and subsequent contributions have been:

1998 $6.87 million (Borrowed interest repaid during term $2.3 million) 2003 $2.9 million (Borrowed interest repaid during term $253,000)2010 $1.9 million (Funded from cash reserves) Total: $14.2 million

Information provided by the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) on the 2nd July 2012 confirmed that the aggregate Defined Benefit shortfall for the Victorian sector is expected to be approximately $450- $460 million plus a 15% contributions tax (Federal Government Tax).

The Scheme includes Victorian councils, library corporations, water authorities, crematoria, cemetery trusts and MAV employees.

Of this overall amount, the shortfall and aggregate for Councils is approximately $400 million plus a 15% contributions tax.


PAGE 111

Individual Council contributions are based on the share of the LASF Defined Benefit Superannuation scheme members at the time of the fund closing on the 1st January 1994. Based on these historical calculations the CoGB's share of the shortfall (2.1-2.3%) is estimated to be between $10 million and $11 million. The $10-11 million includes an interest component which represents a charge on the amount due at the 31st December 2011 (Actuarial date) and the due date for payment, 1st July 2013.

This amount is an estimate only and has not been confirmed by Vision Super at the time of preparing this report. It has been compiled by officers based on previous calls.

Council’s share of the call will always remain at the percentage share determined back in 1998 irrespective of whether the CoGB has any staff remaining in the scheme either as active members or as retired members.

Individual Council contributions are still unknown and will not be confirmed until the Trustee's auditor (Ernst & Young) have signed off both the actuarial review and the proposed methodology (this process is underway).

It is likely the details will be available sometime in July and the MAV are working with Vision Super to ensure they provide Councils with individual contributions as soon as possible. Once our Council contribution is formally known we will be required to recognise the liability in the 2012 financial accounts. This is the accounting (book) entry; the due date for cash payment is not until the 1st July 2013.

Should the CoGB contribution not be confirmed at the time of the financial report being signed off (early September) a contingency will be included in the 2011-12 accounts recognising the call (a monetary amount will not be disclosed because it is still unknown).

Whilst Vision Super has indicated no payment will be required in the 2012-13 financial year, steps will need to be taken by CoGB to ensure the payment can be made on the 1st July 2013.

Councillors attended a briefing on defined benefits superannuation held by the MAV on Wednesday 4 July 2012. At that meeting Councillors were advised that the method of calculating the liability was using total Services Liability shortfall, rather than Vested Benefits Index (VBI); however the Australia Prudential Regulatory Authority expects the fund to be paid to the level of the VBI within three years which will mean there is an additional $126 million that Victorian Councils will have to contribute.

The contribution required by CoGB is a serious and ongoing issue. There is suggestion that another contribution will be required when the next actuarial is carried out at 30 June 2014. The current contribution is only for the shortfall in the Scheme up to and including 31 December 2011. It is unknown what additional funding will be required to contribute to the Scheme in any future calls.

Following the MAV briefing, an urgent report was prepared for Council at its ordinary meeting that evening.


PAGE 112

At the Council meeting held on the 4 July 2012 Council resolved:

That in order to address the call from Vision Super in regard to the Local Authorities Defined Benefits Superannuation Fund:

1. Council request an urgent meeting with the State Minister for Local Government and the Federal Minister for Finance and that a letter stressing the seriousness of the matter to the Prime Minister, the Premier, relevant Minister and all Members of Parliament in the Bendigo region.

2. That Council write to the Municipal Association of Victoria to request that it strongly represent member Councils in regard to this matter.

3. That a report be prepared for Council on all options to address the issue and that the report be prepared in relation to the current draft budget.

Letters in response to the resolution have been sent and this report has been prepared as a start of the detailed work required to address the issue.

In addition, Cr Cox requested that no officer involved in the preparation of this report would be a contributor to the scheme. The authors were required to source payroll information from one such officer that would otherwise not be available to Council.

Report

Although Council has still not formally been advised of the level of contribution required, the matter is considered extremely urgent in light of the decisions to be made about how the CoGB may address this and any future calls.

At the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) briefing session on the Local Authorities Superannuation Fund (LASF) Defined Benefit Plan shortfall last week, councils clearly expressed a desire for a taskforce to be established to guide an advocacy campaign to achieve the following:

further advice on limiting the exposure of councils to defined benefit call-ins given the primary responsibility of the trustees is to members of the fund

a transition back to a state-managed scheme (and therefore remove the requirement to ensure full-funding)

access to borrowing capacity at a cheaper rate through the Treasury Corporation of Victoria

removal of the Federal contribution tax and State Workcover liabilities associated with defined benefits call-ins.

The MAV Board have called for expressions of interest as well as the terms of reference for the taskforce, to determine at its next meeting on Friday 3 August. The CoGB should nominate a representative from Council to articulate its strong position on this issue.

Since its Ordinary Meeting on the 4th July, Council has requested urgent meetings with the Hon. Jeanette Powell, State Minister for Local Government and the Hon. Penny Wong, Federal Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Letters have also been sent to the following political leaders;


PAGE 113

The Hon. Julia Gillard MP, Prime Minister, The Hon. Ted Baillieu, Premier of Victoria, Steve Gibbons MP, Federal Member for Bendigo, Damian Drum MLC, Member for Northern Victoria Region, State Parliamentary

Secretary for Regional Development, Jacinta Allan MP, State Member for Bendigo East, Maree Edwards MP, State Member for Bendigo West, The Hon. Michael Ronaldson, Senator for Victoria, Shadow Minister for

Veterans' Affairs, Senator Bridget McKenzie, Senator for Victoria, Paul Weller MP, State Member for Rodney, Wendy Lovell MLC, State Minister for Children and Early Childhood

Development and Minister for Housing, Donna Petrovich MLC, State Member for Northern Victoria and Parliamentary

Secretary for Sustainability and Environment, Kaye Darveniza MP, State Member for Northern Victoria, and Candy Broad MP, State Member for Northern Victoria.

A further letter has been sent to Cr Bill McArthur, President, Municipal Association of Victoria, requesting that MAV strongly represent member Councils in regard to the matter.

The MAV prepared a range of payment options which are included in this report. Officers have also prepared a range of other options, for council’s consideration.

Options/Alternatives:

GENERAL OPTIONS – OVERALL FUND

Option 1

Transition back to a state-managed scheme (and therefore remove the requirement to ensure full-funding).

This requires extensive lobbying of the Federal Government to change the status of the Scheme to allow contributions to be spread more evenly over time and to waive the contributions tax and workcover liabilities.

This option should occur irrespective of Council’s consideration of any other options. The risks identified from the projection of the defined member benefit membership shows that Council is locked into this scheme for many years (based on the original percentage allocation). It makes no difference to CoGB’S ongoing obligation to pay until the last scheme member (from any council) or their spouse leaves the scheme. Projected figures estimate that there will still be nearly 3,000 members in 2031, though the majority of these will be retired. Nevertheless, this continues to have a significant impact on Council’s financial resources for the next 30 plus years, depending on the success or otherwise of global financial trends and scheme investments.


PAGE 114

Attempts have been made to determine if and where there are other superannuation schemes that are required to be fully funded. Nationally all states have a defined benefits scheme, and all are APRA regulated, they are required to be fully funded and any shortfall in the fund a contribution required. The impact is varied because of the number of active members.

The State and Commonwealth Governments do not have the requirement to contribute shortfalls imposed on them. It therefore seems unreasonable that Victorian local government should be penalised for years to come for a State government scheme that was compulsory for local government employees.

Option 2

Lobbying the State Government to offer interest free or low interest loans to Local Government.

The Defined Benefit Scheme was introduced in 1982 and backdated to 1947 with no prior funding. It was a compulsory scheme for all local government employees, requiring higher than average contributions from both employer (9.25% plus 4% for unfunded liability) and employee (6%). In 1988, following the 3% National Productivity case, the State Government closed lifetime pensions but improved benefits on retirement, resignation and retrenchment based on a projected 30 year funding plan.

In 1993 the State Government closed the Defined Benefit Scheme and abandoned the 30 year plan. It could be argued that the current impact on local government has been brought about as a result of the changes imposed by the State Government in 1993 and the local government reform that shortly followed, resulting in high numbers of retrenchments and over $1 billion plus benefits paid to exiting employees.

The significant reliance by the State Government on local government to partner in the delivery of local services and infrastructure will be compromised if Council is required to redirect its funds to Defined Benefit Scheme loan repayments.

Should all efforts fail in changing the status of the scheme, then State Government, which is not required to comply with the same level of rigor in its superannuation scheme, should arguably come to local governments’ aid in a lending capacity.

Option 3

Lobbying Vision Super to consider offering voluntary cash payouts to members of the scheme

As this option relates to CoGB individual employees and is of sensitive and confidential nature, it has been distributed separately to Councillors for consideration.

Option 4

Staff retrenchment/ redundancy

As this option relates to CoGB individual employees and is of sensitive and confidential nature, it has been distributed separately to Councillors for consideration.


PAGE 115

CURRENT OPTIONS - CoGB

Option 1

Borrow.

Several options to borrow funds to make the required contribution by the 1st July 2013 are available to the CoGB. These options are as follows:

Vision Super loan facility Commercial bank loan facility Department of Treasury Bond issue

Below is a table of data comparing the options available to the CoGB to fund the contribution by the way of loan borrowings.

Funding Option Indicative Interest rate

Estimated annual cash payments for CoGB

Bond issue ##Bank Loan - CoGB # 5.84% $1.21 million (15 yr term)Vision Super Loan - Including interest and contribution tax payable on interest. #

7.5% $1.42 million (15 yr term)

# Both loan options are based on principal and interest repayments and a loan of $10.5 million plus 15% contribution tax.## Details of a possible Bond issue by the Department of Treasury are not known at this stage.

Vision Super have presented a loan facility option for Councils to utilise. However, it is not attractive given the high interest rate charge when compared to the commercial market. As a result of the inclusion of a contribution tax charge on the Vision Super loan option and a higher interest rate, the increased cash outflow for CoGB to retire the loan would be $ 3.15 million.

CoGB could borrow the full amount of the contribution plus applicable tax during the 2012-13 financial year subject to a revised budget approval process and remain within Councils current Borrowing policy limits. The policy provides clear direction to management and Council in relation to the treasury function and states that Council will maintain a Debt Commitment Ratio of not more than 10%. It should be noted that borrowing the full value of this contribution may decrease the ability to borrow in future years for Capital expenditure works.

Option 2

Fund from existing resources.

There are a range of proposed funding models that have been identified and can be further developed after formal notification has been made by Vision Super. These models will include the review of the potential reduction of budgets against operating programs and the impact on service provision.


PAGE 116

Option 3

Borrow and fund from existing resources.

A combination of Option1 and Option 2: CoGB borrows a proportion of the liability and funds the remaining amount through operational savings in Capital Works and Operating expenditure.

It is important to note the payment must occur on or before the 1st of July 2013. Depending on the timing of the payment further consideration of the options listed above needs to be undertaken.

Risk Analysis:

The potential risk to the CoGB and local government in general is significant.

Council's long term financial planning is compromised and uncertain as a result of this ongoing issue. Entering into further debt to fund the call will reduce CoGB's capacity to borrow funds to deliver future Capital Works, services and major projects that Councillors have identified as priorities.

It is anticipated that there would be a wider impact on employee morale, engagement and productivity across CoGB. The emotional wellbeing of 105 CoGB current employees and former staff and their spouses who are now pensioners needs to be handled sensitively and respectfully. These current officers have each served the community since 1993 or longer. The average length of membership in Defined Benefits was 24.6 years at 31 December 2011. This issue should not be a burden placed on their shoulders for a compulsory scheme they were required to join, nor any pressure placed on them totake personal action.

It is expected, backed up by the history of the fund, that future calls will be made on local government to fund shortfalls of the LASF Defined Benefit Scheme. Depending on how the CoGB settles the current pending liability, in combination with possible future calls by the Scheme, it will force the CoGB to pay significant instalments (repayments) to the fund or to financing institutions to pay its share of the Scheme shortfall. The higher than expected instalments/repayments may hamper the CoGB's ability to deliver future services at required levels.

Priority/Importance:

This report is considered a high priority, as a funding option must be selected to ensure CoGB makes the 1 July 2013 contribution deadline.


Councillor / MAV briefing session on the Local Authorities Superannuation Fund (LASF) Defined Benefit Scheme, 4th July 2012.


PAGE 117


It is clear that the financial impacts will be significant and ongoing, not only to the CoGB but for local government and library corporations in general.

The Victorian Auditor Generals Office have advised officers that the amount due to be paid to the LASF Defined Benefit Scheme will be required to be accounted for in the 2011/12 financial accounts. As such, CoGB's financial results for 2011/12 will record a substantial variation to the results presented in the May 2012 Management Financial Report and in the draft 2012/13 budget.

Though it is anticipated that the call will not be due to be paid until 1 July 2013, unless another option becomes available to mitigate this cost to Council, interest will being accruing from the date of the actuarial (31 December 2011) up until the payment is made.

Council has proposed to proceed with the adoption of the 2012/13 budget recognising that the Local Government Act does provide a mechanism for the ability to advertise and adopt a revised budget if necessary. There is opportunity for Council to consider adjustments as part of the mid-year budget review as it is likely to take at least 6 months to fully explore and determine the best option/s.

Given the increasing frequency of calls on local government to contribute to the Scheme, it is probable that this process may become more frequent unless the Commonwealth agree to a transition back to a state-managed scheme that does not require the scheme to be fully funded.

Conclusion

As part of the conclusion, officers wish to highlight a number of issues that they see with the current state of the LASF Defined Benefit Scheme:

Council is locked into this Scheme for many years (based on the original percentage allocation). It makes no difference to CoGB’s ongoing obligation to pay until the last scheme member (from any council) or their spouse leaves the scheme. Projected figures estimate that there will still be nearly 3,000 members in 2031, though the majority of these will be retired. Nevertheless, this will continue to have a significant impact on Council’s financial resources for the next 30 plus years, depending on the success or otherwise of global financial trends and scheme investments.

As the amount expected to be paid by the CoGB, as part of its identified share of the scheme, is well in excess of the budgeted and forecast reserve transfer amounts, this issue will now have a significant effect on the financial operations of the CoGB for both the 2012/13 year and on CoGB's financial planning in the medium to long term.


PAGE 118

The Victorian Auditor Generals Office have advised officers that the amount due to be paid to the LASF Defined Benefit Scheme will be required to be accounted for in the 2011/12 financial accounts. As such, CoGB's financial results for the 2011/12 will record a substantial variation to the results presented in the May 2012 Management Financial Report and in the draft 2012/13 budget.

While the LASF Defined Benefit Scheme remains a fully funded scheme local government will continue to be called upon to provide additional funds. The funding comes at the cost of future capital projects and services to the community.

It is anticipated that there would be a wider impact on employee morale, engagement and productivity across CoGB.

The emotional wellbeing of 105 CoGB current employees needs to be handled sensitively and respectfully. These officers have each served the community since 1993 or longer. The average membership in the Defined Benefit Scheme was 24.6 years at 31 December 2011. This issue should not be a burden placed on their shoulders for a compulsory scheme they were required to join, nor any pressure be placed on them to take personal action.

Consideration also needs to be given to the impact of this issue on the many pensioners in our community who are beneficiaries of the scheme, many of whom are advanced in years.

Attachments

Nil


PAGE 119

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

(1) adopt Option 1 on page 5 of this report (page 113 of this agenda) which requires extensive lobbying of the Federal Government to change the status of the Scheme to transition back to a state-managed scheme and therefore remove the requirement to ensure full-funding;

(2) nominate the Mayor, Councillor Alec Sandner, to represent Council on the MAV taskforce to articulate its strong position on this issue;

(3) request a further report to consider proposed funding models after formal notification has been made by Vision Super;

(4) write to Vision Super and advocate not to back date any interest on the CoGB share of the shortfall;

(5) write to MAV requesting:

a. that the MAV prepare a report on the impact of this issue on all organisations with defined benefit members within Victoria, and

b. that the MAV review its representation on the Vision Super Board to ensure independence;

(6) conduct a extensive media campaign to communicate the anomalies between defined benefit schemes and the impact on Victorian local government and its residents.


PAGE 120

5.4 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE AND CONTRACTS AWARDED UNDER DELEGATION


Author Janet Worthington, Accounts Payable Officer

Responsible Peter Davies, A/Director Organisation SupportDirector

Summary/Purpose

The purpose of this report is to provide information on accounts payable issued under delegation.

Policy Context

Provide high quality professional services by undertaking responsible business planning to ensure long-term sustainability.

Report

Cheque Nos. 154677 to 154776 $ 339,827.00154777 to 154845 $ 119,235.28

Electronic Funds Transfer 085846 to 086090 $ 10,076,346.64086091 to 086515 $ 5,331,440.05

The pre-payments as listed above totalling $459,062.28 and Electronic Funds Transfer $15,407,786.69 are submitted for the information of Council.

Contracts Awarded under Delegation

The following contracts subject to public tender, have been issued under delegation by the officer as listed (Instrument of Delegation - August 5, 2009):


PAGE 121

Attachments

1. A listing of the cheques and electronic funds transfer are included in the attachments to the Business Paper.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Delegated Authority for Accounts Payable and Contracts, as outlined in this report, be endorsed by Council.

Contract No

ProjectSuccessful Contractor

Value (GST Excl)

Delegated Officer

Date Signed

2547Bituminous Products Supply and Services

Boral Resources (Vic) Pty Ltd T/A Boral Asphalt

289,951.00Darren Fuzzard

26 June 2012

2543 Long Gully Recreation Reserve Car Park

WM Loud (Aust) Pty Ltd

117,845.76Pauline Gordon

5 July 2012

2551Shoulder Widening – Allies Road between Williams Road and Schumakers Lane

VH & HM Drechsler Pty Ltd

266,820.00Darren Fuzzard

21 June 2012


PAGE 122

5.5 RECORD OF ASSEMBLIES


Author Andrew Lyons, A/Manager Executive Services

Responsible Craig Niemann, Chief Executive OfficerDirector

Summary/Purpose

The purpose of this report is to provide the record of any assembly of Councillors, which has been held since the last Council Meeting, so that it can be recorded in the Minutes of the formal Council Meeting.

Policy Context

An amendment to the Local Government Act 1989, which came into effect on September 24, 2010, requires the record of any assembly of Councillors to be reported to the next practicable Council Meeting and recorded in the Minutes.


The Local Government Act provides a definition of an assembly of Councillors where conflicts of interest must be disclosed.

A meeting will be an assembly of Councillors if it considers matters that are likely to be the subject of a Council decision, or, the exercise of a Council delegation and the meeting is:

1. A planned or scheduled meeting that includes at least half the Councillors (5) and a member of Council staff; or

2. an advisory committee of the Council where one or more Councillors are present.

The requirement for reporting provides increased transparency and the opportunity for Councillors to check the record, particularly the declarations of conflict of interest.

Report

Outlined below are the details of assemblies of Councillors held since the last meeting.


PAGE 123

Meeting InformationMeeting Name/Type

Councillors' Forum

Meeting Date Wednesday June 20, 2012Matters discussed 1. Future direction of the municipality's swimming pools

2. Aged and Disability Services Review3. Early Payment of Rates4. Williams United site5. TAFE funding cuts - Minister for Education6. Trees in McGlashans Road7. RDA Round 3 Grants8. Trial closure of Clarke Street, Harvey Town and signage9. Carbon price and landfills10. Visit to VATMI recycling facility11. Leave of absence - Cr Reynard for July 4 Council Meeting12. Amendment C13113. Tannery Lane Recreation Reserve14. Coman trail signage15. Star Cinema16. Quonset Huts17. Hospital development (impact on tourism)18. 2012 Election19. Queen Elizabeth Oval20. Rubbish bins in the CBD21. Ban on smoking in public places22. Community Satisfaction Survey23. Land acquisition24. Chinese Museum Board25. Australian Local Governance Association Conference and Regional Forum26. Absence of Cr Sandner from next Councillors' Forum (June 27)27. Junior Brass Band Championships28. Defined Benefits Superannuation

Attendees/ApologiesCouncillors Cr Alec Sandner

Cr Rod FyffeCr Rod CampbellCr Peter CoxCr Barry LyonsCr Bruce PhillipsCr James ReadeCr Keith ReynardApology: Cr Lisa Ruffell


PAGE 124

Staff/Community Representatives

Mr Craig NiemannMs Pauline GordonMs Marg AllanMr Peter DaviesMrs Alison CampbellApologies: Messrs Darren Fuzzard and Stan Liacos, Ms Prue Mansfield

Conflict of Interest disclosuresMatter

No.Councillor making disclosure Councillor left meeting


PAGE 125


Councillors' Forum

Meeting Date Wednesday June 27, 2012Matters discussed 1. Planning matters and Draft Ordinary Meeting Agenda

review2. Revision of Fees and Charges for Landfill3. Black Street, Long Gully - speed of traffic4. Bagshot composting facility5. Smoking by external contractors6. Hospital traffic and parking impacts7. Cycling tourism8. Urban scale wind turbines9. MAV Lighting Customer Innovation Committee10. Disabled parking permits11. Police Remembrance Day Service12. Bagshot composting facility13. Green travel plan14. Council position on Fortuna15. Graffiti Removal Program16. Proposed Sewer Scheme - Markovich Lane17. Building and Planning Permit Changes to Legislation

Attendees/ApologiesCouncillors Cr Rod Fyffe

Cr Rod CampbellCr Peter Cox (part)Cr Barry LyonsCr Bruce PhillipsCr James ReadeCr Keith ReynardCr Lisa RuffellApology: Cr Alec Sandner


Mr Craig NiemannMs Marg AllanMr Darren FuzzardMs Prue MansfieldMs Rachel LeeMr Peter DaviesApology: Mr Stan Liacos, Mrs Pauline Gordon



1. Cr Phillips Yes1. Cr Ruffell Yes


PAGE 126


Hearing of Budget Submissions

Meeting Date Wednesday July 4, 2012Matters discussed 1. Bendigo Domain Village

2. Strathfieldsaye Community Enterprise3. Mr Ted Coleman4. Mrs Marg Gaskell5. Bendigo Traders' Association


Cr Rod CampbellCr Peter CoxCr Barry LyonsCr Bruce PhilipsCr James ReadeCr Keith ReynardCr Lisa RuffellApology: Cr Rod Fyffe


Ms Pauline GordonMs Rachel LeeMr Darren FuzzardMs Prue MansfieldMr Peter Davies



4 & 5 Cr Lisa Ruffell Yes


PAGE 127


Bendigo Airport Advisory Committee

Meeting Date Tuesday July 10, 2012Matters discussed 1. Airport Amendment

2. Availability of lots3. Opportunity for soil removal4. Funding5. Business Plan6. Committee term report


Cr Lisa RuffellStaff/Community Representatives

Jack MooreNeil SammonsMatt LawrenceRay WaltersSteve MusgroveKen BelfrageStan LiacosBridget ConroyApologies: Rob Jarvis, Chris Gobel



Yes / No


PAGE 128


Audit Committee

Meeting Date Friday June 22, 2012Matters discussed 1. Review of IT - Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity

Planning2. Review of Compliance with recent changes to the Food Act 3. Risk Management - Capability Development4. Internal Audit Plan5. Presentation and Assets Directorate update6. External audit update7. Chief Executive Officer's report 8. Review of High Outstanding Past Recommendations Report9. VAGO - Fraud Prevention Strategies in Local Government10. Audit Committee Charter and Remuneration Review11. Vision Super Defined Benefits Scheme

Attendees/ApologiesCouncillors Cr Barry Lyons

Cr Lisa RuffellStaff/Community Representatives

Ms Kate ScarceMr Ken BelfrageMr Graham BastianMr Craig NiemannMs Marg AllanMr Travis HarlingMr Bradley ThomasMr Mark HollowayMr Gary BenbowMr Darren FuzzardMs Susannah MilneMs Janine GouldMr John Salter


No.Councillor/representative making disclosure

Councillor/representativeleft meeting

1. Mr Bastian declared that he has a family member employed in the IT Unit at the City of Greater Bendigo

No

2. Cr Lyons declared that he owns a food business in Bendigo.

No


PAGE 129


Finance Committee Meeting

Meeting Date Thursday June 28, 2012Matters discussed 1. Kangaroo Flat Football Netball Club

2. Capping of the landfill3. Bendigo South East Secondary College netball lighting4. Operating report5. Capital Works report6. LASB Defined Benefits7. Sandhurst Venue Management 8. Restructure within Organisation Support Directorate

Attendees/ApologiesCouncillors Cr Rod Fyffe

Cr Peter CoxCr James ReadeCr Alec SandnerCr Barry Lyons


Mr Craig NiemannMs Marg AllanMr Darren FuzzardMs Pauline GordonMs Kathy ConstableMr Travis HarlingMr Bradley ThomasMr Graeme EleyMs Janine Gould



Yes / No

RECOMMENDATION

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


PAGE 130

6. URGENT BUSINESS

Nil.

7. NOTICES OF MOTION

Nil.

8. COUNCILLORS' REPORTS

9. MAYOR'S REPORT

10. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT

11. CONFIDENTIAL (SECTION 89) REPORTS

11.1 Contractual Matter

11.2 Contractual Matter

RECOMMENDATION

That the meeting be closed to the public to consider reports in accordance with Section 89(2)(d) of the Local Government Act 1989, as amended, relating to contractual matters.


PAGE 131

Council Meeting Agenda 25 July 2012

Documents

Transcript of Council Meeting Agenda 25 July 2012