Council Agenda

AGENDA
Ordinary Meeting of Council

6.00pm Wednesday 2 March 2016
*** Broadcast live on Phoenix FM 106.7 ***
VENUE:
Reception Room,
Bendigo Town Hall,
Hargreaves Street, Bendigo
NEXT MEETING:
Wednesday 23 March 2016
Bendigo Town Hall
Copies of the City of Greater Bendigo Councils Agendas & Minutes
can be obtained online at www.bendigo.vic.gov.au
PAGE 1
Council Vision
Greater Bendigo - Working together to be Australia's most liveable regional city.
Council Values
Council wants the community to continue to have reason to be proud of the city and will
do this through:
Transparency - Information about Council decisions is readily available and easily

understood;
Efficiency and effectiveness - Council provides services based on evidence of
need and demonstrates continuous improvement in the delivery of services;
Inclusion and consultation - Council uses a range of engagement strategies to
ensure community members can understand and take part in discussion that
informs the development of new strategies and actions;
Clear decisive and consistent planning - In a rapidly growing municipality, Council
undertakes to plan effectively for our long-term future;
Respect for community priorities and needs - Council will advocate for improved
services for community members and will consider community impact and
feedback the decisions it makes.
Themes
1.
Planning for Growth
2.
Presentation and Vibrancy
3.
Productivity
4.
Sustainability
5.
Leadership and Good Governance
PAGE 2
ORDINARY MEETING
WEDNESDAY 2 MARCH 2016
ORDER OF BUSINESS:
ITEM
PRECIS
PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY
PRAYER
PRESENT
APOLOGIES
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
PUBLIC QUESTION TIME
RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS
CR WERAGODA'S REPORT
DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
1.
PETITIONS AND JOINT LETTERS
2.
PLANNING FOR GROWTH
10
2.1
42 Milroy Street, Bendigo - Construct Second Dwelling on

a Lot, Subdivide Land Into 2 Lots, Construct Front Fence,
Construction of Vehicle Crossover and Retrospective
Construction of Carport and Partial Front Fence
Demolition
10
2.2
66 Kirkwood Road, Eaglehawk - Construction of Second

Dwelling on a Lot (Two Storey) and Removal of Vegetation
25
2.3
575 Sedgwick Road, Sedgwick - Use and Development of

a Store (Machinery) and Use Land for Agriculture
(Cropping)
39
2.4
1 Arlington Court, Maiden Gully - Subdivide Land into 2

Lots
51
2.5
Intensive Animal Industries Advisory Committee

Discussion Paper - Submission by the City of Greater
Bendigo
58
2.6
Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy and Adoption of

Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215
69
PAGE 3
3.
PRESENTATION AND VIBRANCY
93
3.1
Greater Bendigo Municipal Early Years Plan (2015-2018)
93
3.2
Proposed Changes in the Outdoor Dining System
102
4.
PRODUCTIVITY
106
5.
SUSTAINABILITY
107
5.1
Proposed Kerbside Organics Service for Urban Residents

of Bendigo and Marong
107
5.2
Potential Disposal of Lot 1 Raglan Place West, Axedale
128
6.
LEADERSHIP AND GOOD GOVERNANCE
136
6.1
Council Plan 2015-2016: Second Quarter Report,

December 2015
136
6.2
Record of Assemblies
183
6.3
Contracts Awarded Under Delegation
190
6.4
Election Period Policy
192
6.5
Finance Report as at 31 December 2015 and Mid-Year

Budget Review 2015-2016
198
6.6
Proposed Citizens Jury as the First Step to the Council

Plan for the New Council
206
7.
URGENT BUSINESS
210
8.
NOTICES OF MOTION
211
8.1
NOTICE OF MOTION: Hopley Recycling
211
9.
COUNCILLORS' REPORTS
213
10.
MAYOR'S REPORT
213
11.
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT
213
12.
CONFIDENTIAL (SECTION 89) REPORTS
213
____________________________
DARREN FUZZARD
ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PAGE 4
Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016
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 Purpose
Council has provided the opportunity for members of the public to ask questions of broad
interest to Council and the community. Matters relating to routine Council works should
be taken up with Councils Customer Service Officers through its Customer Request
System.
No questions relating to planning matters on the Agenda will be accepted. 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 and in most
instances, mediation has been held between the parties involved. Throughout the
process there are many opportunities for people to ask questions.
Public Question Time Where, When And Who
The public question time is held at every Ordinary Meeting of the 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.
Questions will be put to the Council by the individual posing the question; the question
will be answered by the Mayor or Chief Executive Officer, or where appropriate,
Councillors or Council Officers.
PAGE 5
Acceptance of Questions
Each person asking a question of Council is required to stand, state their name and
address the Mayor. Public Question Time is not an opportunity for the making of
statements or other comments. Councils 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 written question is raised by more than one
person, an answer may be given as a combined response.
3.
In the event that time does not permit all questions registered to be answered,
questions will be answered in writing or referred to the next meeting if appropriate.
4.
The Mayor and or CEO have the right to decline registration on basis of:
Legal proceedings;
More appropriately addressed by other means;
Vague or lacking in substance, irrelevant, frivolous, insulting offensive,
improper, defamatory or demeaning;
Answer likely to compromise his / her position;
Confidential, commercial-in-confidence.
RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS

That Standing Orders be resumed.
CR WERAGODA'S REPORT
PAGE 6
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)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
direct financial interest

indirect interest by close association
indirect interest that is an indirect financial interest
indirect interest because of conflicting duties
indirect interest because of receipt of an applicable gift
indirect interest as a consequence of becoming an interested party
indirect interest as a result of impact on residential amenity
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 7
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Wednesday 10 February 2016.
The following items were considered at the Ordinary Council meeting held on
Wednesday 10 February 2016 at 6:00pm.
Petition: Empire Road and Lancashire Road, Long Gully

Lot A Lynch Lane and CA 6Z Taig Road, Axedale - 9 Lot Subdivision and Removal
of Native Vegetation in Road Reserve
Progress Report: Independent Review Implementation
Record of Assemblies
Appointment of An Acting Chief Executive Officer
Confidential Section 89 Report - 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 10 February
2016 as circulated, be taken as read and confirmed, with the inclusion of the following
mandatory condition associated with the Planning for Growth Report No. 2.1 (Lot A
Lynch Lane and CA 6Z Taig Road, Axedale - 9 Lot Subdivision and Removal of Native
Vegetation in Road Reserve) as outlined in page 30 of these Minutes:
9.
COUNTRY FIRE AUTHORITY MANDATORY CONDITION (SUBDIVISION)

Before the statement of compliance is issued under the Subdivision Act 1988
the owner must enter into an agreement with the responsible authority under
Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The agreement must:
(a) State that it has been prepared for the purpose of an exemption from a
planning permit under Clause 44.06-1 of the Greater Bendigo Planning
Scheme;
(b) Incorporate the plan prepared in accordance with Clause 52.47-2.4 of this
planning scheme and approved under this permit; and
(c) State that if a dwelling is constructed on the land without a planning permit
that the bushfire mitigation measures set out in the plan incorporated into
the agreement must be implemented and maintained to the satisfaction of
the responsible authority on a continuing basis.
PAGE 8
1.
PETITIONS AND JOINT LETTERS
Nil.
PAGE 9
Planning for Growth - Reports
2.
PLANNING FOR GROWTH
2.1
42 MILROY STREET, BENDIGO - CONSTRUCT SECOND DWELLING

ON A LOT, SUBDIVIDE LAND INTO 2 LOTS, CONSTRUCT FRONT
FENCE, CONSTRUCTION OF VEHICLE CROSSOVER AND
RETROSPECTIVE CONSTRUCTION OF CARPORT AND PARTIAL
FRONT FENCE DEMOLITION
Document Information
Author
Lachlan Forsyth, Statutory Planner
Responsible
Director
Prue Mansfield, Director Planning & Development
Summary/Purpose
Application details:
Construct second dwelling on a lot, subdivide land into 2 lots,

construct front fence, construction of vehicle crossover and
retrospective construction of carport and partial front fence
demolition
Application No:
DS/653/2015
Applicant:
Penno Drafting & Design
Land:
42 Milroy Street, BENDIGO
Zoning:
General Residential Zone
Overlays:
Heritage Overlay 841
No. of objections:
Six (6)
Consultation
meeting:
19 November 2015 attended by Councillors Cox and

Williams.
A second on-site meeting was attended by the assessing
officer, the applicant and the objectors. Amended plans were
submitted and re-advertised following this meeting. No
objections have been withdrawn following the submission of
amended plans.
Key considerations:
Whether the proposal accords with Planning Scheme

policy relating to medium density infill housing;
Whether the proposal represents an appropriate outcome
with reference to Neighbourhood Character Policy and
ResCode.
Whether the proposal is an acceptable heritage outcome.
PAGE 10
Conclusion:
Planning Scheme policy and the General Residential Zone

supports construction of a second dwelling and subdivision of
the land. The development is also consistent with the majority
of ResCode standards.
However, the design response is non-compliant with
neighbourhood character and heritage policy, and the
Heritage Overlay. Whilst the site is suitable for development subject to an appropriate design, on balance the proposed
design response is not acceptable.
Policy Context
City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013 2017 (2015-2016 Update)
Planning for Growth
Housing options provide broader choice in order to meet current and future
community expectations and needs.
Productivity
Council fosters business and industry growth.
Sustainability
The built and natural qualities that make Greater Bendigo an attractive and appealing
place are valued and conserved.
Report
Subject Site and Surrounds
The subject site is a rectangular shaped parcel of land located on the north-eastern side
of Milroy Street, approximately 60 metres north-west of Moran Street.
The lot has a frontage width of 24.21 metres, a depth of 29.20 metres and a total area of
705m. The topography of the land sees a gradual slope away from the street, with a
change in level from front to rear of approximately 1.0m.
A single storey weatherboard dwelling is located on the site. City records indicate this
building was constructed circa 1922. Vehicle access is provided by a concrete driveway
along the north-western side of the lot, which links to a newly constructed carport.
The south-eastern part of the site has been fenced off form the existing dwelling. This
section has also been cleared and the front fence has been removed. This part of the
site now presents to the street as a small, independent vacant parcel of land, even
though it is part of the parent title (refer to street photograph below).
The broader area is residential in nature, with most of the dwelling stock being detached,
single storey, clad in weatherboard or brick and featuring pitched roof forms. Several
original miners' cottages are found in the area, with few examples of double storey
buildings evident.
PAGE 11
The clear built form anomaly in the area is the adjoining building to the south-east which
features high, solid masonry walls built to the lot boundary and a flat roof.
Figure 1: Location map showing subject site. Objectors properties marked with a star. Note: Objection
from 9 Bannerman Street outside of map area.
Figure 2: Aerial photograph of subject site.
PAGE 12
Figure 3: Streetscape photograph. Note: The tree in the background is sited on neighbouring land.
Proposal
The applicant seeks approval to construct a second dwelling and a front fence, and to
subdivide the land into two lots. Permission is also sought to retrospectively approve the
partial removal of the front fence and for construction of the carport.
Dwelling
The proposed dwelling is a double storey building which features a single garage, living
areas, laundry, bathroom and kitchen at lower level and three bedrooms with two
bathrooms at the upper level.
The design includes a 15 degree hipped roof at upper level and an 18 degree gable
fronted roof at ground level with the gable sited over the garage and entry door.
Materials include weatherboard at upper level, brick at ground level and rendered
brickwork on the faade at ground floor.
Subdivision
Lot 1 (containing existing dwelling) = 466m.
Lot 2 (containing the new dwelling) = 239m.
Front fence
Construction of a 1.5m high capped timber picket fence is proposed for Lot 2.
Vehicle Crossover
Construction of a 3.0 metre wide concrete vehicle crossover and driveway.
PAGE 13
Figure 4: Proposed site plan
Figure 5: Streetscape elevation. Note: Existing fence not shown in front of existing dwelling.
PAGE 14
Figure 6: 3D diagrams of proposed dwelling.
Planning Controls - Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme

The following clauses are relevant in the consideration of this proposal:
State Planning Policy Framework
Integrated decision making (cl. 10.04)
Regional development (cl. 11.05)
Urban environment (cl. 15.01)
Sustainable development (cl. 15.02)
Heritage (cl 15.03)
Residential development (cl. 16.01)
Movement networks (cl. 18.02)
Development infrastructure (cl. 19.03)
Municipal Strategic Statement
Municipal profile (cl. 21.01)
Key issues and influences (cl. 21.02)
Vision - strategic framework (cl. 21.03)
PAGE 15
Strategic directions (cl. 21.04)

Settlement (cl. 21.05)
Housing (cl. 21.06)
Environment - Heritage (cl. 21.08)
Reference documents (cl. 21.10)
Local Planning Policies

Heritage Policy 22.06
Central Bendigo Residential Character Precinct 5 (cl. 22.11)
Other Provisions
General Residential Zone (cl 32.08)
Heritage Overlay Schedule 1 (cl. 43.01)
Car Parking (cl. 52.06)
ResCode Two or more dwellings on a lot (cl. 55)
Decision guidelines (cl 65)
Referral and notice provisions (cl. 66)
Permit Triggers
Clause 32.08-4 General Residential Zone: Construction of two or more dwellings on a
lot.
Clause 32.08-2 General Residential Zone: Subdivision.
Clause 43.01-1 Heritage Overlay:
o Subdivision.
o Construction of a building.
o Construct or carry out works.
o Remove and construct a fence.
o Construct a vehicle cross over.
Consultation/Communication
Referrals
The following internal departments have been consulted on the proposal:
Department
Comments
Heritage Advisor
Concerns raised over the tall, narrow form of the

building and the prominence of the garage door. Initial
concerns have been partly addressed by recessing the
upper level further away from the street.
Proposal not supported in current form.
Traffic & Design
No objection subject to standard driveway/cross over

construction conditions
Drainage
No objection subject to drainage infrastructure and

plans conditions.
PAGE 16
Public Notification
The application was advertised by displaying a notice board on the site and by posting
letters to adjoining and nearby owners and occupiers. A statutory declaration was
provided as evidence that the notice was given in accordance with the requirements of
the Act.
As a result of advertising, six objections were received, with the grounds of objection
being:
(a) Dwelling design not in keeping with the character of the area (specifically the height,
bulk, site coverage, narrow form, excavation of the site and front setback at ground
and first floor level).
(b) Dwelling design not appropriate for the heritage precinct.
(c) Small lot size.
(d) Lack of landscaping.
(e) Overshadowing to neighbours.
(f) Visual dominance of garage.
(g) Concerns over tandem car parking bay length and driveway gradient.
The objections are discussed below.
Planning Assessment
Is the proposal consistent with the Planning Scheme policy regarding housing and infill
development?
The following is a brief outline and discussion on the relevant Planning Scheme policies.
State Policies
Clause 11.05 (Regional development) seeks to promote the sustainable growth and
development of regional Victoria.
Clause 15.01 (Urban environment) seeks to create urban environments that are safe,
functional and provide good quality environs with a sense of place and cultural identity.
Clause 15.03 (Heritage Conservation) has the objective of ensuring the conservation of
places of heritage significance. A key strategy is to encourage appropriate development
that respects places with identified heritage values and creates a worthy legacy for future
generations.
Clause 16.01 (Residential development) seeks to provide for housing diversity,
affordability and to ensure the efficient provision of supporting infrastructure.
PAGE 17
Comment
Infill development of this style is broadly supported by State policy at Clause 11
(Settlement) and 16 (Housing) and the Loddon Mallee South Regional Growth Plan (Cl.
11.12).
The proposed development will allow for urban consolidation which will utilise existing
services and infrastructure. The proposal would also assist in implementing urban
containment policy aims found with the MSS Housing Policy (Cl. 21.06), as well as the
residential diversification aims of the zone.
The urban context of the site is suitable for further development, particularly due to the
existing service infrastructure, good proximity to recreational public open space
(approximately 300m from Fenton Street Reserve) and its short commuting/walking
distance of the Bendigo CBD.
Whilst provision of housing is generally supported by the above policies, the importance
of design and heritage protection is also emphasised under Clause 15, local policy and
the zone.
In this case the proposal is found to be inappropriate with regards to heritage and
neighbourhood character, due to the narrow, vertically oriented building form which is out
of keeping with surrounding buildings. Detailed discussion on heritage and
neighbourhood character is found below.
Local Policies
Clause 21.04, 21.05 and Clause 21.06-1 sets out the policies which aim to provide
sufficient housing to support a forecasted increase in population for Bendigo of nearly
43,000 individuals by 2030. The policy and associated Residential Development
Strategy have been prepared to guide future residential development in the urban areas
of Bendigo. Relative to this application the Strategy promotes an increase in density on
land which is suitable for infill development.
Clause 22.06 Heritage Policy builds on the MSS objective in Clause 21.08-2 to protect
and enhance the municipalitys built heritage for future generations. The policy also
states that protecting cultural and natural heritage assets is important in maintaining the
municipalitys character and sense of place.
Councils Heritage Policy has the following objective which is most relevant to the subject
site and application:
To ensure that new land uses and developments are sympathetic with the
appearance and character of heritage places.
Comment
In consideration of the Bendigo Residential Development Strategy 2004, the proposed
development would allow for consolidation of residential land in an established urban
area which is close to numerous services and infrastructure.
PAGE 18
A balance must be struck however, between accommodating residential growth and

respecting neighbourhood character and areas of heritage significance. The major
question in this case is whether the proposed infill development and subdivision is
acceptable, with regards to heritage conservation and neighbourhood character.
It has been assessed that the proposal is an inappropriate heritage and neighbourhood
character outcome. Again this is discussed in depth later in this report.
Is the development acceptable with regard to neighbourhood character policy?
The State and Local Planning Policy Framework, as well as the MSS and the purpose of
the General Residential Zone encourage development that is respectful of
neighbourhood character. This is also a requirement of ResCode.
The site is located within Central Bendigo Residential Character Precinct 5, which is
described under Clause 22.11 as follows:
This precinct has a consistency created by the regular front and side setback to the
dwellings. In some areas dwellings are sited at an angle to the street. The horizontal
emphasis of the dwelling form adds to an open feel to the streetscape due to the long,
low elevations of the buildings in relation to their height. Occasional tall trees in the low
level gardens and low or open style fencing and consistent side setbacks provide a
sense of spaciousness to the streetscape.
The statement of desired future character seeks to ensure that: the openness of the
streetscapes and spaciousness of the dwelling settings will be maintained.
The desired future character is to be achieved by the objectives and design responses
outlined and discussed in the table below:
Objectives
Response
To maintain and strengthen the garden Prepare a landscape plan to accompany

settings of the dwellings.
all applications for new dwellings,
showing the incorporation of substantial
vegetation.
Retain large, established trees and
provide for the planting of new trees
wherever possible.
Comment:
No vegetation is required to be removed to facilitate the development.
The small size and narrow width of the proposed lot, as well as the new dwellings
footprint and driveway location leaves little opportunity for landscaping opportunities.
A landscape plan has been provided which allows for one small tree to be planted in
the front yard of the new dwelling. This is by no means a substantial amount of
vegetation, however; it would partly add to the garden character of the street and
would help soften the appearance of the new building.
To maintain the consistency, where The front setback should be not less than
PAGE 19
Objectives
Response
present, of building front setbacks.
the average setback of the adjoining two

dwellings.
Comment:
The dwellings front wall would sit approximately half way between the existing
dwellings faade and the adjoining propertys front wall (which is built to the
footpath). The upper level will also be further recessed from the street to be in line
with the front wall of the existing dwelling.
This design response would generally respect the consistency of front setbacks
within Milroy Street and would comply with ResCode requirements.
To reflect the existing rhythm of dwelling Buildings should be setback between 1
spacing.
and 3 metres from one side boundary,
based on the predominant pattern in the
streetscape.
Comment:
The ground level side wall (NW) of the new dwelling is to be set back approximately
2.8 metres from the existing dwellings wall. The upper level would be recessed a
further 480mm which would allow for a clearance of more than 3.0 metres between
the buildings.
The SE ground level side wall is proposed to be constructed to the side boundary.
This is seen to be generally acceptable as the neighbouring dwelling has a visually
dominant solid wall built across the entire front boundary.
To ensure that buildings and extensions Respect the predominant building height
do not dominate the streetscape.
in the street and nearby properties. The
height of the dwelling at the front of the
dwelling should match the typical single
storey wall height.
Use low pitched roof forms.
Comment:
It is recognised that the proposed dwelling is double storey, where most surrounding
buildings are single storey. It is also recognised that this is a major concern of
objectors.
The single storey nature and horizontal emphasis of dwellings in the surrounds forms
a recognisable character. Whilst double storey dwellings are not opposed in theory,
the narrow vertical form of the proposed double storey dwelling would sit oddly within
the streetscape.
Efforts have been made to setback the upper level of the building further from the
street, to articulate the form of the building. Whilst this is an improvement, the
building will still be out of keeping with the form and appearance of surrounding
buildings. This will have an adverse impact on the character of the area.
It should be noted that the proposed lot does not exist, and is currently part of the
existing dwellings yard.
To use building materials and finishes In streetscapes, where weatherboard
PAGE 20
Objectives
Response
that complement the dominant pattern predominates, use timber or other nonwithin the streetscape.
masonry cladding materials where
possible, and render, bag or paint brick
surfaces.
Comment:
The use of weatherboards and corrugated roofing materials would generally
complement the dominant pattern within the streetscape and the wider area. If a
permit were to be approved, face brickwork to the faade would be a more
appropriate cladding option as it would pick up on common building materials found
in the surrounds.
To maintain
streetscape.
the
openness
of
the Provide low or open style front fencing up

to a maximum of 1.2 metres.
Front fences should not exceed 1.2
metres other than in exceptional
circumstances.
Comment:
A 1.5m high fence would be generally acceptable due to the existing dwellings high
fence and the adjoining dwellings masonry walls built to the boundary. The
proposed site cut and the dwellings siting below natural ground level would result in
a fence height which screened much of the dwellings ground floor. This would be an
unsatisfactory urban design outcome.
The proposal is found to be inconsistent with key aspects of the Central Bendigo
Residential Character Policy for Precinct 5. Whilst many design objectives of Clause
22.11 have been satisfied, the proposed narrow lot size and the vertical orientation of the
dwelling would be generally out of keeping with the existing neighbourhood character of
the area.
Does the proposal comply with ResCode?
Clause 55 sets out the relevant standards and objectives to assess internal and external
amenity provision/protection, neighbourhood character/design detail and building siting
considerations (i.e. site coverage, overshadowing, wall heights, boundary setbacks, etc.).
Compliance with the objectives of Clause 55 (ResCode) is a mandatory requirement for
developments of two or more dwellings on General Residential Zone land.
The proposed development has been assessed as being compliant with all Clause 55
standards and objectives with regard to building siting and internal and external amenity
considerations.
Compliance with Clause 55.02-1 Neighbourhood character objective and Clause
55.06-1 Design detail objective has not been achieved, as discussed in the table
above.
Due to this non-compliance, ResCode is not met, and no permit should be issued.
PAGE 21
Will the proposal result in an acceptable heritage outcome?

The purposes of Clause 43.01 Heritage Overlay, relevant to this proposal are:
- To conserve and enhance heritage places of natural or cultural significance,
- To conserve and enhance those elements which contribute to the significance of
heritage places, and;
- To ensure that development does not adversely affect the significance of heritage
places.
The decision guidelines of the Heritage Overlay reflect this, with the most relevant being
the following:
- Whether the location, bulk, form or appearance of the proposed building will
adversely affect the significance of the heritage place.
- Whether the location, bulk, form and appearance of the proposed building is in
keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings and the heritage
place.
- Whether the proposed subdivision will adversely affect the significance of the heritage
place.
The property at 42 Milroy Street is covered by HO841 Bannerman Street, Long Gully &
Bendigo, which forms part of the Bannerman Street Precinct.
The existing dwelling is identified as being contributory to the Bannerman Street Precinct
(Ironbark Heritage Study 2010).
Comment
The Citys Heritage Advisor has raised concerns over the form of the building, with the
following comments provided in the referral response:
"The proposed townhouse will sit forward of the dwellings on the north west side, and
will have a tall narrow form. The location and form are not in keeping with the
character and appearance of adjacent buildings in the heritage precinct, and are
likely to have an adverse effect on the significance of the heritage precinct."
To address this, the applicant took the advice of the Heritage Advisor to setback the
upper level further from the street, and amended the plans accordingly. Whilst this has
improved the design, the tall and narrow form remains, as does the new dwellings height
difference over surrounding dwellings.
No concerns have been raised with the subdivision, particularly as it leaves a reasonable
curtilage around the existing dwelling. The narrow width of the proposed lot would
require a sensitive design if the proposal were to be respectful of the heritage precinct
however.
Generally speaking, the roof forms and cladding materials are found to be acceptable for
the heritage precinct. The garage door is also generally acceptable in the context of the
adjoining modern building (subject to careful selection of materials and design detail).
PAGE 22
In consideration of the purpose and decision guidelines of the Heritage Overlay,

Councils Heritage Policy and the Ironbark Heritage Study citations, the proposed
development is found to be inappropriate for the following reason:
The narrow width of the new lot and tall, vertically oriented form of the proposed
building are not in keeping with the form and siting of buildings within the precinct.
This has potential to have an adverse impact on the significance and character of
the heritage place.
Both the assessing officer and the Citys Heritage advisor do not support the proposal in
its current form.
Objectors concerns not already addressed:
Concerns over tandem car parking bay length and driveway gradient.
The development complies with the applicable requirements of Clause 52.06 (Car
Parking), including the driveway widths, and car parking dimensions (including the
minimum car parking bay length requirements for tandem car parking spaces). It is
noted that the gradient requirements of Clause 52.06-8 do not apply to single
property driveways.
Overshadowing to neighbours
Shadowing diagrams have been submitted which demonstrate compliance with
ResCode standard B21 (Overshadowing).
Conclusion
In conclusion, although the site is in a good location in terms of meeting infill
development objectives, the application should be refused on the basis that the design
response represents an unacceptable outcome with regard to Councils Heritage Policy,
the Heritage Overlay, Neighbourhood Character Policy and ResCode.
Options
Council, acting as the responsible authority for administering the Planning Scheme, may
resolve to: grant a permit, grant a permit with conditions, or refuse to grant a permit.
Attachments
Objections.
PAGE 23
RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to section 61 of the Planning and Environment Act (1987), Greater Bendigo
City Council resolve to refuse to grant a permit for the construction of a second dwelling
on a lot, subdivide land into 2 lots, construct front fence, construction of vehicle cross
over and retrospective construction of car port and partial front fence demolition at 42
Milroy Street, BENDIGO on the following grounds:
1. The tall and narrow form of the building would adversely impact the significance and
appearance of the heritage place, contrary to clauses 15.03, 21.08, 22.06 and 43.01
of the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme.
2. The proposed subdivision and development does not comply with Clause 22.11
(Central Bendigo Residential Character Policy) and is inconsistent with the purposes
of Clause 32.08 (General Residential Zone) which call for new development to
respect neighbourhood character and to implement neighbourhood character policy.
3. The proposal does not comply with ResCode (Clauses 55.02-1 and 55.06-1) due to
the design responses inconsistency with existing and preferred neighbourhood
character.
PAGE 24
2.2
66 KIRKWOOD ROAD, EAGLEHAWK - CONSTRUCTION OF

SECOND DWELLING ON A LOT (TWO STOREY) AND REMOVAL OF
VEGETATION
Author
Lachlan Forsyth, Statutory Planner
Responsible
Director
Summary/Purpose
Construction of second dwelling on a lot (two storey) and

removal of vegetation.
Application No:
DR/690/2015
Applicant:
Penno Drafting & Design
Land:
66 Kirkwood Road, EAGLEHAWK
Zoning:
General Residential Zone (GRZ)
Overlays:
Environmental Significance Overlay 1 (ESO1)
No. of objections:
Six (6)
Consultation
meeting:
25 January 2016 - attended by Cr Williams, Cr Ruffell and Cr

Cox. No resolution of issues.
Key considerations:
Whether the proposal is consistent with Planning Scheme

policy regarding housing, design and infill development;
Whether the proposal is consistent with neighbourhood
character policy and the provisions of the General
Residential Zone;
Compliance with ResCode.
Conclusion:
Planning Scheme policy and the General Residential Zone

supports construction of a second dwelling on the lot. The
design is found to be appropriate with regards to
neighbourhood character and the proposal is compliant with
ResCode. Overall the development is an appropriate and
orderly planning outcome.
Policy Context
Planning for Growth
PAGE 25
Productivity
Sustainability
Report
The subject site is a semi-regular shaped parcel of land located on the southern side of
Kirkwood Road, Eaglehawk to the north of Lake Neangar.
The lot has a frontage width of 18 metres, an average depth of ~60 metres and a total
area of 948m. The topography of the land sees a gradual slope away from the street,
with a change in level from front to rear of approximately 1.5m.
A single storey Victorian-era weatherboard dwelling is located at the front of the site.
Vehicle access is provided by a gravel driveway along the south-western side of the lot.
A small colorbond shed is also located in the rear yard.
Noteworthy landscaping includes one large gum tree in the rear yard, a conifer in the
front yard and numerous shrubs/bushes.
The broader area is residential in nature, with most of the dwelling stock being single
storey, clad in weatherboard or brick and featuring pitched roofs. There are examples of
double storey and flat roof buildings in the immediate surrounds.
Land adjoining to the west and south is a small Crown land park which contains a Scout
hall. The adjoining residential land to the east is vacant. The rear of the site is visible
from Simpsons Road, although it is set back 40+m from the street.
Figure 1: Location map showing subject site. Objectors properties marked with a star.
PAGE 26
Proposal
The applicant seeks approval to construct a second dwelling on the lot and to remove
vegetation in the rear section of the lot.
Dwelling
The second dwelling is a double storey, contemporary cuboid design which is oriented
to face south (looking towards Lake Neangar).
The dwelling features four bedrooms and a double garage. Living rooms and bathrooms
are located at both ground and first floor level, as well as a south facing balcony.
A range of cladding materials are proposed including:
- Ground level: concrete panels, face brickwork, rendered brickwork and stacked
stone.
- Upper level: horizontal lightweight stria cladding and matrix panel cladding.
Vehicle access is to be provided via the existing driveway which runs along the south
west boundary of the lot. A new crossover, driveway and car parking area is proposed to
be installed on the north eastern boundary of the lot to service the existing dwelling. Both
driveways will be concreted.
Vegetation Removal
Vegetation removal includes one mature gum tree, two small trees/shrubs and bushes
on the rear boundary.
Figure 2: Proposed site layout plan.
PAGE 27
Figure 3: Side elevation of existing and proposed dwelling at rear.
Figure 4: 3D diagrams of proposed dwelling.

Integrated decision making (cl. 10.04)
Regional development (cl. 11.05)
Urban environment (cl. 15.01)
Sustainable development (cl. 15.02)
Residential development (cl. 16.01)
Movement networks (cl. 18.02)
Development infrastructure (cl. 19.03)
Municipal profile (cl. 21.01)
Key issues and influences (cl. 21.02)
Vision - strategic framework (cl. 21.03)
Strategic directions (cl. 21.04)
Settlement (cl. 21.05)
Housing (cl. 21.06)
PAGE 28
Reference documents (cl. 21.10)

Local Planning Policies
Eaglehawk Residential Character Precinct 2 (cl. 22.13)
Other Provisions
General Residential Zone (cl 32.08)
Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 1 (cl. 42.01)
Car Parking (cl. 52.06)
ResCode Two or more dwellings on a lot (cl. 55)
Decision guidelines (cl 65)
Permit Triggers
Clause 32.08-4 General Residential Zone: Construction of two or more dwellings on a
lot.
Clause 42.01 Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 1: Removal of
vegetation.
Referrals
The following authorities and internal departments have been consulted on the proposal:
Referral Authority / Department
Comment
Department of Environment, Land, No objection to the removal of vegetation, no

Water and Planning (s.55)
conditions relating to vegetation removal
recommended.
North
Central
Catchment No objection, no conditions.
Management Authority (s.52)
Traffic & Design
No
objection
subject
to
standard
driveway/cross over construction conditions
and garage door width modifications.
Drainage
No objection subject to drainage conditions.
Public Notification
The application was advertised by erecting a notice board on the site and by posting
letters to adjoining and nearby owners and occupiers. A statutory declaration was
provided as evidence that the notice was given in accordance with the requirements of
the Act.
As a result of advertising, six objections were received, with the grounds of objection
being:
a) Building will obstruct views to the lake.
b) Not enough car parking provided.
PAGE 29
c) Building will have negative impacts on the neighbourhood character of the area.
d) Concerns with the character of potential future occupants (concerns the building will
be used for public housing).
e) Tree removal concerns.
f) Traffic concerns.
g) Development will have negative impact on property values.
h) Inconsistencies with application documents.
i) Potential noise impacts for new occupants from park and Scout hall.
j) Concerns that the building will remain unfinished.
k) Concern with the character of the property developer.
Planning Assessment
Is the proposal consistent with the General Residential Zone and relevant Planning
Scheme policy regarding housing and infill development?
The subject land is zoned General Residential and is situated within the Bendigo Urban
Growth Boundary. The property is situated in an established residential area of
Eaglehawk which is served by existing civil infrastructure, local services, the Eaglehawk
town centre and public recreation facilities.
The most relevant purposes of the General Residential Zone include:
To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy
Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning
policies.
To encourage development that respects the neighbourhood character of the
area.
To implement neighbourhood character policy and adopted neighbourhood
character guidelines.
To provide a diversity of housing types and moderate housing growth in locations
offering good access to services and transport.
The proposal is found to be consistent with these purposes, as detailed below.
The construction of a second dwelling will allow for an increase in dwelling stock which
will provide for the growing population of Greater Bendigo at a small scale. In doing so,
the land will be consolidated and used to its full potential.
This will assist in implementing urban containment policy aims found with the MSS
Housing Policy (Cl. 21.06), which seeks to accommodate an additional 3,164 dwellings,
housing 6,000 new residents by 2030.
Infill development of this style is also broadly supported by state policy at Clause 11
(Settlement) and 16 (Housing), Councils Residential Growth Strategy, and the Loddon
Mallee South Regional Growth Plan (Cl. 11.12).
PAGE 30
The proposal will also allow for residential diversification that will utilise the existing
services and facilities local to the area. It is noted that the subject site is located within
close proximity to recreational public open space (adjoining Crown land, Lake Neangar
60m south and Canterbury Park 350m west) and is within short walking/commuting
distance of the Eaglehawk town centre. The property is also within walking distance of
public transport options (buses and trains) operating out of Eaglehawk.
Development within established urban areas is also beneficial from a sustainability
viewpoint as all civil and service infrastructure exists, and can be taken advantage of
(electricity, water, sewerage, roads, telecoms, etc.).
The design of the dwelling is also considered to be satisfactory and will be suitably
integrated within the surrounding established neighbourhood. A more thorough
discussion on design and neighbourhood character is detailed below.
Overall the proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant State and Local
Planning Policy Framework objectives and the purposes and decision guidelines of the
zone.
Is the development acceptable with regard to neighbourhood character policy?
The State and Local Planning Policy Framework, as well as the MSS and the purpose of
the General Residential Zone encourage development that is respectful of
neighbourhood character. This is also a requirement of ResCode.
The site is located within Eaglehawk Residential Character Precinct 4, which is described
under Clause 22.13 as follows:
This precinct contains housing mainly built since the 1950s that constitute the outer
suburbs' of Eaglehawk. Consistency of setbacks within street scapes is important, as are
roof shapes, because they can be dominant in streetscapes and provide a consistent
theme. The horizontal emphasis of the dwelling form is also important, resulting from the
long, low elevations of the buildings in relation to their height. Mature vegetation in
private yards and public reserves often provides a backdrop.
The statement of desired future character seeks to ensure that the consistency of siting
and horizontality of the dwellings will be maintained.
The desired future character is to be achieved by the objectives and design responses
outlined and discussed in the table below:
Objectives
Response
To maintain and strengthen the garden Prepare a landscape plan to accompany

settings of the dwellings.
all applications for new dwellings.
Retain large, established trees and
provide for the planting of new trees
wherever possible.
Comment:
PAGE 31
Objectives
Response
One large tree is proposed to be removed from the rear of the site to facilitate the
development.
Whilst this tree does contribute partly to the character of the area, its removal will not
significantly alter the character or appearance of the neighbourhood. The existing
trees within the adjoining reserve and neighbouring lot and the retention of the
mature conifer within the front yard ensure the garden character of the area is
maintained.
Further to this, a landscape plan has been submitted which includes planting around
the new dwelling.
A further condition will require replanting of a suitably chosen and sited canopy tree
to replace the removed tree.
To minimise site disturbance and impact Buildings should be designed to follow
of the building on the landscape.
the contours of the site or step down the
site.
Comment:
The dwelling has been designed to follow the contours of the site as much as
practicable. Minimal site cuts are proposed which allows for minimal site disturbance,
particularly when viewed from the street.
To reflect the consistency, where The front setback should be not less than
present, of building front setbacks.
the average setback of the adjoining two
dwellings.
Comment:
The new dwelling is to be sited at the rear of the existing dwelling. This will ensure
that building setbacks within the Kirkwood Road streetscape are maintained. Further
to this, the new building is setback 40+m from Simpson Road. Given the large street
setbacks, the building will not be visually prominent from either road.
To reflect the existing rhythm of dwelling Buildings should be setback between 1
spacing.
and 3 metres from both side boundaries,
based on the predominant pattern in the
streetscape.
Comment:
Again it should be noted that the new dwelling is sited at the rear of the existing
dwelling. Further to this, no dwelling abuts the site on either side due to the Crown
land to the west and a vacant lot to the east. As a result, the rhythm of building
spacing within the streetscape is maintained.
To ensure that buildings and extensions Respect the predominant building height
do not dominate the streetscape.
in the street and nearby properties.
Use low pitched roof forms.
Comment:
It is recognised that the proposed dwelling is double storey, where most surrounding
PAGE 32
Objectives
Response
buildings are single storey. The design response is seen to be appropriate, however,
for the following reasons:
- The dwelling is set behind the existing building which will partly screen it from
street view.
- The fall of the land away from the street helps reduce the overall height of the
building when viewed from Kirkwood Road.
- The upper level of the building will be set back approximately 15m beyond the
existing dwelling, and approximately 37 metres from the front boundary. This
siting will ensure the building is not visually prominent when viewed from the
street. Rather than being prominent within the streetscape, the building will form a
common backdrop in an established suburban area.
- The building is setback more than 40 metres from Simpsons Road.
- The buildings upper level has been visually articulated by use of varied materials
and physical wall articulation.
- The staggered built form of the dwelling (upper level set back further from the
street than the lower level) allows a graduation in height between the existing and
new dwelling.
- Similar built forms exist in Kirkwood Road, particularly the double storey square
faade and flat roof of 71A Kirkwood Road.
To use building materials and finishes In streetscapes where weatherboard
which complement the dominant pattern predominates, render, bag or paint brick
within the streetscape.
surfaces.
Comment:
The most visually prominent walls of the building from the street will have brick
cladding on the SW ground floor and horizontal lightweight board cladding at upper
level NW and SW elevations. These materials are commonly found in the precinct
and are acceptable.
The other materials (rendered brick, matrix cladding and concrete) will also
respectfully sit within the neighbourhood.
To maintain
streetscape.
the
openness
of
the Provide low or open style front fences.
Comment:
No front fencing is proposed. This will maintain the open character of Kirkwood
Road.
With regards to neighbourhood character the proposal is considered to be appropriate.
Does the proposal comply with ResCode?
Compliance with the objectives of Clause 55 (ResCode) is a mandatory requirement for
developments of two or more dwellings on General Residential Zone land.
PAGE 33
To achieve automatic compliance with an objective, a number of standards are detailed

within Clause 55. It is noted that compliance with the standard is not mandatory, and that
alternate options can be considered where particular siting or design contexts warrant a
variation.
In this case, the majority of standards are complied with, and thus the objectives are also
met. There are two standards which the proposal does not meet, but are considered to
meet the objective as outlined below:
Cl. 55.04-1 Side and rear setbacks objective
To ensure that the height and setback of a building from a boundary respects the
existing or preferred neighbourhood character and limits the impact on the amenity of
dwellings
Comment:
To meet the standard, the side walls of the dwelling would have to be setback the
following distances:
- North east elevation: 2.4m rather than the 1.64m proposed.
- South west elevation: 2.5m rather than the 1.5m proposed.
The objective (outlined above) is considered to be met as both of these walls abut
vacant land and as such, will have no adverse amenity impacts. The design
response is also seen to be an acceptable neighbourhood character outcome, as
detailed earlier in this report.
Cl. 55.04-2 Walls on boundaries objective
The ensure that the location, length and height of a wall on a boundary respects the
existing or preferred neighbourhood character and limits the impact on the amenity of
dwellings
Comment:
The new dwellings garage wall is the only wall to be built on a boundary. The length
and setback of this wall meets the requirements of the standard, however the height
does not as the average height exceeds 3.2m by approximately 600mm.
This wall abuts the small neighbourhood park (Crown land). Due to this context, the
wall will have no adverse impact on residential amenity as it does not abut a
dwelling. The height variation is also seen to be minor, and will not have an
unreasonable impact on neighbourhood character.
Removal of vegetation within the Environmental Significance Overlay 1
The purpose of the ESO1 is to protect waterways and their riparian zones. A permit is
required to remove any vegetation from an area covered by an ESO1.
In this case the waterway in question is a drainage depression running along the rear of
the site towards Lake Neangar.
PAGE 34
The advice of the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning has been
sought (determining authority). The Department has offered no objection and has
recommended that no offset conditions are necessary in this circumstance. With regard
to the purpose and decision guidelines of the overlay, the City agrees that the proposed
removal of vegetation does not pose unreasonable environmental risk to the waterway,
and should be allowed.
Objectors' concerns not already addressed:
Building will obstruct views to the lake.
The question of whether impacts on views are a valid ground has been tested
numerous times at VCAT. VCAT has found (and the City agrees) that potential
impacts on views as a result of developments is rarely a relevant planning
consideration.
Not enough car parking provided.
Both dwellings been provided with two car spaces (with at least one covered car
space provided). This meets the Planning Scheme requirements for car parking
provision (Cl. 52.06).
Concerns with the character of potential future occupants (concerns the building
will be used for public housing).
The character and nature of potential occupants is not regulated by the planning
system and is not a valid ground of objection.
Traffic concerns.
The new dwelling and its vehicle accessway have been designed to allow vehicles to
enter and exit the site in a forwards direction. The Citys engineers have assessed
this arrangement (and the new driveway/carport for the existing house) and have
raised no concern with the safety or functionality of the layout. Adequate sight lines
for pedestrian and vehicle entry/exit are also provided at the site frontage.
Development will have negative impact on property values.
Potential property devaluation is not a relevant planning consideration. There is a
long standing position by VCAT and the City that other than in exceptional cases,
and where clear evidence can be presented, loss in property value will not be
entertained as a valid ground of objection.
Potential noise impacts for new occupants from park and Scout hall.
The adjoining park and Scout hall is not considered to pose significant risk to the
amenity of future residents with respect to noise. It is commonly held that public
parks are a necessary and complimentary land use/asset in residential areas.
Concerns that the building will remain unfinished.
There is no evidence to suggest the building will not be completed.
Concern with the character of the property developer.
This has no planning relevance and should be given no weight whatsoever.
PAGE 35
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the application is found to comply with the Planning
Scheme and a permit should be granted.
The proposal is compliant with ResCode and relevant housing and neighbourhood
character policy found within the planning scheme.
The proposal represents an orderly and sustainable land use and development outcome
which will utilise existing, serviced residential land.
Options
Attachments
Objections
RECOMMENDATION
City Council resolve to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for construction of
second dwelling on a lot (two storey) and removal of vegetation at 66 Kirkwood Road,
EAGLEHAWK 3556 subject to the following conditions:
1.
MODIFIED PLAN REQUIRED

Before 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
2 copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with
the plans submitted with the application but modified to show:
(a) Existing dwellings side window which adjoins the driveway to be removed
and replaced with window which has a sill height of no less than 1.7m
above finished floor level.
(b) Amended landscape plan in accordance with Condition 3 (additional
canopy tree).
(c) Driveways to be concrete or similar.
(d) Provision of carport for existing dwelling (set behind the front wall of the
existing building).
(e) Proposed dwellings garage door widened to 5.40 metres.
2.
NO LAYOUT ALTERATION
The use and development permitted by this permit as shown on the endorsed
plans and/or described in the endorsed documents must not be altered or
modified (for any reason) except with the prior written consent of the
responsible authority.
PAGE 36
3.
LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIRED

Before the development starts, a landscape plan to the satisfaction of the
responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible
authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of
the permit. The plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and two copies
must be provided. The plan must show:
(a) A survey (including botanical names) of all existing vegetation to be
retained and/or removed.
(b) Details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways.
(c) Planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers,
including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity,
and quantities of each plant.
(d) Provision of one (1) appropriately selected canopy tree (minimum two
metres tall when planted and 8+ metres tall when mature, preferably native
species) in the rear yard of the new dwelling.
4.
COMPLETIOJN OF LANDSCAPING
Before 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.
LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE
The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained to the
satisfaction of the responsible authority, including that any dead, diseased or
damaged plants are to be replaced.
6.
GENERAL EXTERIOR TREATMENT

The exterior treatment of the buildings 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.
7.
REFRIGERATION AND AIR-CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT

Any 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.
8.
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
All activities associated with the construction of the development permitted by
this permit must be carried out to the satisfaction of the responsible authority
and all care must be taken to minimise the effect of such activities on the
amenity of the locality.
9.
STORMWATER DRAINAGE
Prior to commencement of the development, drainage plans, including
computations and longitudinal sections, must be provided to and approved by
the Responsible Authority for the lot in the development to the responsible
authoritys nominated point of discharge. Once approved, the plans will be
PAGE 37
endorsed as part of the planning permit and must not be further altered without
the prior written consent of the responsible authority.
10.
GENERAL DRAINAGE
The proposed building(s) and works must be drained to the satisfaction of the
City of Greater Bendigo as the responsible drainage authority.
11.
VEHICLE CROSSINGS
Vehicular 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 Engineering & Public Space Unit prior to any work
commencing in the road reserve.
12.
SEALED CAR PARKING AND DRIVEWAY AREAS

Areas 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.
13.
USE OF CAR PARKING AND DRIVEWAY AREAS

Areas 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.
14.
NO MUD ON ROADS
In 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.
15.
EXPIRY
This permit will expire if the development permitted by this permit is not
completed within 2 years from the date hereof. The time within which the
development must be completed may be extended, on written request to the
responsible authority, before or within 6 months after the expiry of this permit
where the development has not yet started or 12 months where the
development has commenced.
PAGE 38
2.3
575 SEDGWICK ROAD, SEDGWICK - USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF

A STORE (MACHINERY) AND USE LAND FOR AGRICULTURE
(CROPPING)
Author
Nick Butler, Student Planner
Responsible
Director
Summary/Purpose
Use and development of a store (machinery) and use land for

agriculture (cropping)
Application No:
DG/772/2015
Applicant:
W G Aylett
Land:
575 Sedgwick Road, SEDGWICK
Zoning:
Rural Living Zone
Overlays:
Environmental Significance Overlay 1
No. of objections:
Consultation
meeting:
A consultation meeting was held on 17 December 2015 attended

by one Ward Councillor, two planning officers, applicant (and
family member) and 5 objectors.
Key considerations:
Conclusion:
The site is an undersized Rural Living zoned property with a

primary frontage to Sedgwick Road. Whilst the site is suitable for
an agricultural use, the design and location of the store fails to
address the landscape values of the area and is detrimental to the
character of the area.
Whether the proposed uses are appropriate for the site;

What impact the proposed store will have on the landscape;
Proposed measures to minimise potential impacts.
The objections received from residents.
It is recommended Council refuse the application.
Policy Context
Planning for Growth
PAGE 39
Productivity
Sustainability
Background Information
The original proposal was for the construction of an outbuilding (for machinery). The
applicant was advised that the use was classified as a store which required planning
approval. It also became apparent that the land would also be used for agriculture (crop
raising).
The application was amended on 2 November 2015 to include in the permit description
Use and development of a store (machinery) and use of land for agriculture (cropping).
The minimum lot size in the rural living zone varies across the Municipality but the lot
size required in this area is 8 hectares. The average lot size in the immediate vicinity is
7. hectares with lots ranging from 0.5 to 14 hectares. This site is 3.66ha and these
smaller lots are historical and would be prohibited under the current Planning Scheme
controls.
Report
PAGE 40
Figure 1: Location map showing subject site. Objectors' properties marked with a star.
The site is a 3.66ha irregular rectangular shaped allotment located east of Sedgwick
Road and north of Boyd Lane. The site is zoned Rural Living and an Environmental
Significance Overlay (Schedule 1 Watercourse Protection) applies to part of the south
western section of the site. The site has an approximate frontage to Sedgwick Road of
372m and at its widest point is 156m wide. A dam is located adjacent to the Sedgwick
Road frontage towards the south of the site.
A single storey cream brick dwelling and associated outbuildings and landscaped areas
are present along the Sedgwick Road frontage approximately 110m from the northernmost point of the property. The dwelling is setback approximately 40m from the road
frontage.
With the exception of a remnant patch of native vegetation in the south-west corner of
the property, and a mix of native and exotic trees surrounding the dwelling, the site is
mostly cleared of vegetation, featuring a number of scattered trees around the site.
The predominant use in the area immediately surrounding the subject land is rural living,
often with a low scale hobby farm use subsidiary to the dwelling. This includes a
number of outbuildings. Opposite Boyd Lane is the Sedgwick Hall (including playground
and tennis courts) and Sedgwick Country Fire Authority brigade. Adjoining the site to the
east is the Sedgwick conservation reserve.
PAGE 41
Proposal
The applicant proposes to use and develop the land for a machinery store, and to use
the land for agriculture (crop raising). Plans detailing the site layout in terms of
agricultural use have not yet been supplied, however the applicant has proposed to
spray irrigate Lucerne as well as fruit and vegetables.
The proposed store would accommodate tractors and other machinery associated with
both the agricultural use and to store produce from the land.
The proposed store would be setback 25m from Sedgwick Road and located 30m to the
north of the dwelling. It will be 42.5m in length, 16m wide and have a total height of
7.91m. The shed will cover 680 square metres. The roof will have a 20 degree pitch with
a 5m eave height. The applicant proposes to place 40 kilowatts of solar panels on the
north facing roof panel.
On the south side, the store is proposed to have 7 bays comprising of a combination of
electric and manual roller doors. See the site and elevation plans below:
Figure 2: Site plan showing location of proposed store.
PAGE 42
Figure 3: Elevation plans of the proposed store.
The proponent has submitted a draft landscaping plan, however the plan does not enter
into specific detail of what is proposed with the exception of some planting surrounding
the proposed store.
The subject land is zoned Rural Living. Under the zoning provisions, a permit is required
to:
Use land for agriculture (crop raising).
Use land for a store (equipment, goods, or motor vehicles used in conjunction with
the occupation of a resident of a dwelling on the lot).
Construct a building associated with an agricultural use.
Construct a building within 100m of a waterway.
Loddon Mallee South regional growth (cl 11.12)

Significant environments and landscapes (cl 12.04)
Agriculture (cl 14.01)
Sustainable development (cl 15.02)

Key Issues and Influences (cl 21.02)
Economic Development (cl 21.07)
Other Provisions
Rural Living Zone (cl 35.03)
PAGE 43
Referrals
The following internal department has been consulted on the proposal:
Referral
Comment
Environmental Health
No objection subject to standard notation.
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, 5 objections were received, with the grounds of objection
being:
Size and siting of proposed store.
Eyesore to passing traffic and impact on landscape due to visual bulk.
Out of character for the area.
Storage of hay is a fire hazard.
Impact on land values.
Potential future uses of store.
Planning Assessment
Is the site suitable for the proposed uses?
The site is zoned rural living. The zone primarily serves to provide for a residential use,
but also allowing agricultural land uses that do not affect the amenity of the neighbouring
residential properties. There is evidence to suggest that at some stage an agricultural
use - be it low-scale grazing or cropping - may have been subsidiary to the use of land
for the existing dwelling. Further, State and local policy (clauses 11.12-6, 14.01-2, 21.024) encourage the retention and use of agricultural land, the ongoing investment in high
value agriculture and assisting the development of innovative approaches to sustainable
practices. One strategy relevant to the proposed use is listed in clause 11.12-6, which
states:
Facilitate new opportunities in agriculture that respond to the potential impacts of climate
change.
PAGE 44
Although minimal details of the agricultural use have been supplied, the applicant has
explained their proposed practices, utilising solar panels, moisture sensitive drip-feeding
and hanging gardens, ultimately aiming to innovate and set a precedent for future
operations worldwide. It is considered that the proposed agricultural use has the potential
to be innovative and acceptable in close proximity to rural residential properties (subject
to further information being provided), and could be consistent with State and local
policy. Furthermore, the objectors concerns only related to the proposed store and not
the agricultural use.
Similarly, many other lots in the Sedgwick area have outbuildings used to store
machinery assisting maintenance of the property or in conjunction of the occupation.
Such a use in the Rural Living Zone requires planning permission, however, this is not to
say it is unreasonable to store machinery in a rural residential setting.
The objectors have a number of concerns about the proposed store. These include:
Storage of hay a fire hazard.
Size of store not justified for size of property.
Potential future uses if land is sold.
Siting of proposed store.
The applicant operates a similar cropping operation on a leased parcel of farming land
approximately 10 kilometres from the subject site. The proposed store would not only
house machinery and produce from the agricultural use on the subject land, but also
machinery and produce from the external farm.
The storage of hay being a fire hazard is not so much a planning issue but building and
maintenance. If the use of the proposed store were to change to industry (as raised by
objectors), rural or otherwise, the new use would likely be either prohibited or require
planning approval.
In summary, it is considered that both an agricultural use and store of machinery could
be appropriate to the site.
What impact will the design and siting of the proposed store have on the landscape?
State Planning Policy (clause 12.04-2) and zoning provisions aim to mitigate poorly
thought out development in order to protect the landscape. State policy has an objective
to:
Protect landscapes and significant open spaces that contribute to character, identity and
sustainable environments.
As above, the zone serves a purpose to:
Protect and enhance the natural resources, biodiversity and landscape and heritage
values of the area.
Notably, in the decision guidelines of the zone (clause 35.03-5) are environment, and
design and siting issues, listed below as relevant:
PAGE 45
The impact of siting, design, height, bulk, colours and materials to be used, on the
natural environment, major roads, vistas and water features and the measures to be
undertaken to minimize any adverse impacts.
The impact on the character and appearance of the area or features of architectural,
historic or scientific significance or of natural scenic beauty or importance.
Several objectors in their submissions made reference to the Sedgwick valley and the
aesthetics and landscape values of the area. The proposed store is located just 25m
from the property boundary abutting Sedgwick Road, the main thoroughfare in the area.
Figure 4: View from Sedgwick Road to location of proposed store looking east.
The visual bulk of a structure that is 42m wide and 8m high, only partially screened by
some smaller vegetation in the road reserve will be significant. Given its size and siting
just 25m from the main road the shed would be in a high-profile location. Driving south
along Sedgwick Road, the proposed structure will be visible from over 400m away.
PAGE 46
Figure 5: View from Sedgwick Road from North to location of proposed store. Note The shipping
container is approximately one quarter of the bulk of the proposed store.
Some objectors offered potential solutions to relocate the proposed store to a lower
profile location and it is possible that a different location may be considered in a different
light. However, the applicant is not prepared to consider alternative locations or a
reduction in size of the shed. A structure such as the one proposed in such a location
has a considerable impact on the landscape.
What measures are proposed to minimize the impact on the landscape?
As an alternative to refusing the application it is prudent to consider whether any
mitigation measures could be applied to make the development acceptable.
The applicant has submitted a landscape plan (see figure 6) which identifies 4 key areas,
those being around the proposed store, around the dwelling, west of the dam and the
northern-most pocket of the site. At present, details are lacking for the area west of the
dam and the fruit and vegetable plot to the North of the proposed store.
PAGE 47
Figure 6: Draft Landscape Plan
Of these areas, the fruit and vegetable plot and area around the proposed store are
particularly relevant in acting as a screen for the proposed store. Although the fruit and
vegetable area lacks detail, the area around the proposed store goes into some detail
about what is to be planted.
Figure 7: Draft Landscape Plan around proposed store (highlighted area edited due to poor scanning).
PAGE 48
The plan makes reference to planting trees with a mature height of at least 5m, three
rows deep. A 30m section is proposed to be planted along the Sedgwick Road end of the
proposed store, a 50m section to the north of the store and a 45m section along the
eastern end of the store. This will result in the planting of approximately 100 Pittosporum
angustifolium (Weeping Pottosporum), 20 Santalum acuminatum (Sweet Quandong) and
100 Callistemon viminalis (Dawson River Weeper).
Whilst the proposed planting will somewhat minimise the impact the proposed structure
will have on the landscape, the trees will take many years to mature and even then it is
unclear the extent that this vegetation will screen the store as no concept elevation plans
or view lines have been provided. The report mentions that the trees will have a
minimum mature height of 5m, however, the store is proposed to be 7.912m high. The
north facing roof panel will be covered in solar. Considering that vegetation higher than
eave height minimises the gain from the solar panels, it is unlikely that the mature height
of the trees will screen the roof and solar panels from vantage points, including Sedgwick
Road to the North of the site.
The applicant has not selected a colour for the proposed store, offering that the objectors
choose the colour in an effort to minimise their concerns. Regardless of colour, the
proposed store is of excessive bulk in the proposed location.
Whilst the landscape plan has some merit, it is considered that the lack of detail in the
report/plans, the size of the proposed store and the high profile location in close
proximity to the main road servicing the area have not satisfactorily considered the
landscape values of the area and other design and siting issues.
Conclusion
The site lends itself to the proposed uses, however a range of issues have not been
addressed by the design and siting of the proposed machinery store. Even with the
proposed landscaping, the visual bulk of the proposed store is excessive for the siting.
A building of such scale is not appropriate for this Rural Living zoned site and other
design responses such as staggered roof heights and smaller stores were discussed
with the applicant. Unfortunately the changes were not agreed to and could not be
required by way of conditions on a permit as the applicant seeks approval for the plans
as submitted.
Ultimately, the proposal fails to satisfactorily consider and address the landscape values
of the area, the impact of the proposed structure on nearby major roads and the visual
amenity of nearby residences which the rural living zone seeks to protect.
Options
PAGE 49
Attachments
Objections
Draft Landscape Plan
RECOMMENDATION
City Council resolve to Refuse to Grant a Permit for the Use and Development of a Store
(Machinery) and Use of Land for Agriculture at 575 Sedgwick Road, SEDGWICK 3551,
for the following reason:
1.
The visual bulk and siting of the proposed store would unreasonably impact on
the landscape values of the area, contrary to clauses 12.04-2 and 35.03 of the
Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme.
PAGE 50
2.4
1 ARLINGTON COURT, MAIDEN GULLY - SUBDIVIDE LAND INTO 2

LOTS
Author
Liz Commadeur, Subdivision Planner
Responsible
Director
Summary/Purpose
Subdivide land into 2 lots
Application No:
DS/712/2015
Applicant:
Hadden Farren Land Surveyors Pty Ltd
Land:
1 Arlington Court, MAIDEN GULLY
Zoning:
General Residential Zone
Overlays:
Design and Development Overlay 10

Environmental Significance Overlay 2
No. of objections:
Consultation
meeting:
26 November 2015
Key considerations:
Central to an assessment of the application is the small size

of Lot 1 relative to the character of the neighbourhood where
large allotments predominate.
Conclusion:
It is considered that the proposed subdivision does not satisfy

the requirement of the Design and Development Plan 10
which requires that subdivisions respect neighbourhood
character.
Policy Context
Planning for Growth
Productivity
PAGE 51
Sustainability
Report
The subject site is located in an established residential area of Maiden Gully on the
corner of Highland Way and Arlington Court. The site is generally rectangular in shape
with an area of 1,291 square metres. A brick dwelling is located on the southern end of
the site. The backyard is devoid of vegetation and outbuildings. There is a reasonable
slope from north east to the west.
The subject site is formally described as Lot 59 on Plan of Subdivision 518344E. A
covenant (AF022210B) was initially registered on the land title precluding further
subdivision of lots but has now extinguished as of 13 April 2013.
Services, including reticulated water and sewerage, power, gas and telecommunications
are able to be connected to the site.
Lot sizes in the area range from 620 square metres to 1,600 square metres. The
dwellings in the area tend to be large with reasonable side setbacks. The site is located
within close proximity to the Maiden Gully shopping precinct, primary school and
recreation reserve. Highland Way and Arlington Court are sealed roads with kerb and
channel. A footpath has been constructed along the Highland Way frontage of the site.
Figure 1: Location map showing subject site. Objectors properties are marked with a star.
PAGE 52
Proposal
The applicant seeks approval to subdivide the site into two residential lots. It is proposed
to subdivide the backyard off from the existing house to create a new vacant lot suitable
for a dwelling.
Lot 1 will have an area of 501 square metres.

Lot 2 will have an area of 790 square metres and will retain the existing dwelling.
Access to Lot 1 will be from Highland Way.
Access to Lot 2 will continue from Arlington Court.
Figure 2: Proposed Subdivision Layout.
PAGE 53

The site is in the General Residential Zone (GRZ) and is affected by The Design and
Development Overlay 10 (DDO10) and Environmental Significance Overlay 2
(ESO2)(Groundwater Recharge Protection Area). A permit is required to subdivide land
under the GRZ and ESO2.
State Planning Policy Framework:
Regional development (clause 11.05).

Urban environment (clause 15.01).
Sustainable development (clause 15.02).
Integrated transport (clause 18.01).
Movement networks (clause 18.02).
Municipal Strategic Statement:
Municipal profile (clause 21.01).

Key issues and influences (clause 21.02).
Vision - strategic framework (clause 21.03).
Strategic directions (clause 21.04).
Settlement (clause 21.05).
Housing (clause 21.06).
Environment (clause 21.08).
Infrastructure (clause 21.09).
Reference documents (clause 21.10).
Local Planning Policies:

Salinity and erosion risk policy (clause 22.04).
Other relevant provisions:
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
Goulburn-Murray Water
No objection subject to one condition
Drainage
No objection subject to conditions
PAGE 54
Public Notification
As a result of advertising, two objections were received, with the grounds of objection
being:
Proposed subdivision will compromise the existing neighbourhood character.
Future development on Lot 1 will cause amenity issues for the abutting neighbours.
Proposed subdivision will cause devaluation of their properties.
Planning Assessment
Neighbourhood Character
Maiden Gully has been the subject of detailed planning through the implementation of
the Maiden Gully Structure Plan and in more recent times the inclusion of the Design and
Development Overlay 10 (Maiden Gully Structure Plan) into the Greater Bendigo
Planning Scheme. The Maiden Gully Structure Plan has general aims consistent with
the DDO10 to maintain the areas amenity and rural residential character and also
ensuring new residential development complies with the lot sizes indicated in the
relevant precinct. With regard to this proposal, the subject site is included in Precinct 4 of
the Maiden Gully Structure Plan. The Plan seeks the following outcomes with respect to
Precinct 4:
No minimum lot size. Consideration must be given to achieving a range of lot
sizes - generally from about 600 square metres at the northern end of this
precinct up to about 1500 square metres."
An outline development plan has been approved for Precinct 4 that shows broad-scale
residential development at a range of densities. A considerable amount of Precinct 4 has
been developed, in the form of new housing estates such as "The Meadows", "Lorient
Park" and "Parklands".
The site is a part of "The Meadows Estate", which is located in the northern part of
Precinct 4. Lot sizes throughout the neighbourhood are mostly 1,000 square metres or
larger with single-storey detached dwellings backyards typical. Some smaller lots (600700 square metres) are scattered throughout the northern end of the neighbourhood.
These lot densities have created a neighbourhood with a somewhat semi-rural character
which is reinforced by scattered native vegetation, low-rise built form and spaciousness
between buildings.
PAGE 55
Even though the DDO10 does not preclude lots less than 600 square metres in Precinct
4, the assessment of proposed subdivisions needs to occur in a manner that meets the
Decision Guidelines, including consideration of the existing character of the area and
taking into account of the Maiden Gully Structure Plan.
The pattern of development along this part of Highland Way and Arlington Court is
characterised by medium to large dwellings that are single storey and have generous
setbacks from the street, which is in contrast to the likely siting of any new dwelling on
Lot 1. If the proposed subdivision is approved it will have a detrimental impact on the low
density character of Precinct 4 and it will set a poor precedent for future development
within Maiden Gully. The area available for construction of a dwelling is half the size of
the abutting lots. The area is too small to allow for the flexible siting of a dwelling - site
coverage is likely to be high and front and side setbacks minimal.
The proposed size of Lot 1 is not in keeping with the general range of lot sizes in the
area, particularly being located in the northern part of the precinct. Whilst a small number
of two lot subdivisions have been approved to the south of the site, it is noted that the
average size lots here are generally much smaller than those in the north.
A future dwelling on Lot 1 will leave little room for the planting of trees and other
vegetation. Vegetation coverage is important to the character of Precinct 4 and the wider
Maiden Gully area.
Amenity
The objectors are concerned that the future construction of a dwelling on Lot 1 will
impact on the privacy and amenity of their properties. The neighbours have enjoyed a
sense of openness in the past and suddenly could be confronted with some overlooking
into the back and side yards. One neighbour to the west is also concerned that the
construction of a dwelling on Lot 1 will compromise the integrity of the solar panels on
the roof of their home.
The proposal will potentially enable the construction of an additional dwelling on the site.
Whether the dwelling is single or double storey, it is difficult to suggest that this would
result in a loss of privacy or other adverse impact on residential amenity over and above
what could be expected in a suburban environment.
There is potential for some overshadowing of the objectors property at 2 Arlington Court
in the mid-morning, however, the overshadowing effect on the this property for the
balance of the day will be minimal.
Any new development within the backyard of a site can potentially create amenity issues.
In regards to this application, the abutting neighbour to the west argues that their privacy
will be greatly curtailed by the construction of a future dwelling on Lot 1. Some
overlooking may occur because any future dwelling on Lot 1 would be constructed
reasonably close to the common boundary and the site is situated at a slightly higher
elevation than the abutting property. However, in the event of the future construction of a
dwelling on Lot 1, the minimisation of potential overlooking can be assessed at the
Building Permit stage.
So, in conclusion it is unlikely that the proposed subdivision will have any significant
impact with either overshadowing or overlooking into the back yard of the abutting
neighbours.
PAGE 56
Devaluation of properties in the neighbourhood

The objectors are concerned that the proposed subdivision will cause devaluation of their
own properties.
Devaluation of property is not a town planning consideration and has been repeatedly
tested at VCAT in the past.
Conclusion
The amenity issues raised by the objectors are unlikely to have any significant impact on
the neighbouring properties.
However, it is considered that the application to subdivide land into 2 lots at 1 Arlington
Court not be supported on the grounds that the proposed size of Lot 1 does not meet
the preferred lot size of 600 square metres and subsequently does not accord with the
character of the neighbourhood.
Options
Attachments
Objections
RECOMMENDATION
City Council resolve to issue a Refusal to Grant a Permit for a two lot subdivision at 1
Arlington Court, MAIDEN GULLY 3551 for the following reason:
1. The subdivision is not in keeping with the neighbourhood character due to the small
size of the lots and in this regard it is contrary to the Maiden Gully Structure Plan.
PAGE 57
2.5
INTENSIVE ANIMAL INDUSTRIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION PAPER - SUBMISSION BY THE CITY OF GREATER
BENDIGO
Author
Trevor Budge, Manager Strategy
Responsible
Director
Prue Mansfield, Director Planning and Development
Summary/Purpose
This report provides a copy of the Council submission to the Intensive Animal Industries
Advisory Committee Discussion Paper and seeks endorsement of that submission. The
Committee was established by the Minister for Planning to provide advice to both him
and the Minister for Agriculture. The Discussion Paper was released on 21 December
2015 and required submissions to be forwarded to the Committee by 5 February 2016.
This did not provide sufficient lead time to enable the submission to be prepared in time
to be placed on an earlier Council agenda. The development of the submission has been
informed by input from relevant CoGB staff, members of the Bendigo Manufacturing
Group who are intensive animal industries producers (who have also made their own
submission) and from Councils Farming Advisory Committee chaired by Cr Williams.
Trevor Budge Manager, Strategy is also a member of a Reference Group established by
the Ministers Advisory Committee to assist in the process. The Committee has indicated
that it will hold hearings in late February to early March 2016 with the view to finalising its
advice to the Ministers by 29 April 2016.
The submission sets out the importance and potential of intensive animal industries to
Bendigo, issues that have arisen in respect to land use planning in the City of Greater
Bendigo in relation to intensive animal industries and specific responses to a series of
policy directions posed by the Advisory Committee in their Discussion Paper.
Policy Context
Council Plan Reference:
Leadership and Good Governance Strategy 1.3 Contribute to policy and strategy
development being led by government and other agencies
Planning for Growth - Strategy 2.2 Council manages the planning and development of
the City through the preparation of major strategies and effective amendments to the
planning scheme.
Productivity - Strategy 4.1 Council fosters business and industry growth
PAGE 58
Strategy Reference:
An Intensive Animal Industries Strategy was endorsed by Council at its meeting in
November 2013. It identified the importance of intensive animal industries to the Bendigo
and regional economy. It set out proposals to amend the Greater Bendigo Planning
Scheme to protect existing operations from encroachment by ad hoc residential
development. Subsequently Council drafted an Amendment to require planning permits
for development in the buffers of existing intensive animal industries and sought
authorisation from the Minister for Planning to exhibit the amendment. This amendment
is now on hold pending the governments response to the Advisory Committee report.
Regional Strategic Plan Reference:
The Loddon Mallee South Regional Growth Plan identifies the major economic role that
intensive animal industries play in the region and supports the potential to grow the
industry and the need to ensure that potential land use conflicts are minimised.
In late 2015 the Minister for Planning established an Advisory Committee to provide
advice to the Minister for Planning and the Minister for Agriculture on how the planning
system can support the establishment and expansion of productive, competitive and
market-responsive animal industries in Victoria, while balancing environmental outcomes
and community expectations.
Specifically the Advisory Committee was asked to provide advice and present findings
and conclusions on:
The role and function of the planning system in supporting the establishment and
expansion of animal industries in the context of changing industry practice to increase
production, be competitive and respond to market changes.
The adequacy of the definition of intensive animal husbandry in Clause 74 of the
Victoria Planning Provisions and all planning schemes having regard to emerging
farming systems and practices, incremental changes to existing operations over time
and changing consumer preference.
In late December 2015 the Advisory Committee released a Discussion Paper and invited
submissions. The Discussion Paper noted that:
Livestock production systems are changing. On the one hand, free range pig and
poultry production systems are growing to meet consumer demands, while on the
other hand more intensive grazing and production systems are being adopted in the
sheep, beef and dairy industries.
The trend towards more intensive production systems is likely to continue, some say
it needs to continue, if Victorian agriculture is to meet growing overseas demand for
its produce.
All livestock production systems have the potential for off-farm impacts on the
environment and community.
Community and local resident expectations are changing with more non-farming or
hobby farm residents living in farming zones.
Tourism-based agricultural enterprises, such as wineries with cellar door sales and
restaurants, eco-tourism, and farm stays are taking advantage of Victorias rural
amenity and increasing in number.
PAGE 59
The potential impacts from farming activities can be broadly categorised as:
Animal welfare and biosecurity
Environment
Residential amenity
Rural economic development
Infrastructure.
A submission (attached) was drafted with input from relevant CoGB staff, members of
the Bendigo Manufacturing Group who are intensive animal industries producers (who
have also made their own submission) and from Councils Farming Advisory Committee
chaired by Cr Williams which includes Councillors Campbell and Chapman and
forwarded to the Committee prior to the closing date of submissions 5 February 2016.
Report
The Council submission sets out the economic importance of intensive animal industries
to the City of Greater Bendigo and the wider Loddon Mallee South region and specifically
addresses 16 questions that the Committee sought responses to. In summary the major
points made in the submission are that:
The Farming zone should be constructed to provide greater certainty from
encroachment on existing industries by residential development.
A system of buffers should be established in planning schemes to provide greater
certainty for intensive animal industry operations.
Codes of Practice need to be the major way that the industry is regulated.
Compliance against Codes should be responsibility of a well-equipped EPA rather
than local government.
Priority/Importance:
The final outcomes of this process are important as it relates to a major industry in the
City.
Options/Alternatives:
The Council has the option of endorsing the submission or amending it.
Timelines:
Council in its submission has requested the opportunity to discuss its submission with
the Advisory Committee when it holds hearings in late February / early March. If the
Advisory Committees Report (due on 29 April 2016) is publicly released Council may
wish to make any further submission. Further action would await the release of the
governments response. The content of the governments response will determine what
action Council needs to take in regard to the amendment to the Greater Bendigo
Planning Scheme that Council has on hold pending the outcomes of the Advisory
Committee work.
PAGE 60
Risk Analysis:
Not applicable
Internal Consultation:
Internal consultation from staff with particular interests and responsibilities related to this
area.
External Consultation:
Input from members of Councils Farming Advisory Committee and from intensive animal
producers who are members of the Bendigo Manufacturing Group informed the
preparation of the submission.
Resource Implications
Budget Allocation in the Current Financial Year:
Council in its submission has requested the opportunity to discuss its submission with
the Advisory Committee when it holds hearings in late February / early March. This is
covered by existing budget arrangements.
Previous Council Support:
Council has resolved to exhibit a planning scheme amendment to implement a number of
the items included in the submission.
Projected costs for future financial years:
Not Applicable
Conclusion
Intensive Animal Industries are a significant component of the Bendigo and wider
regional economy. Bendigo is one of Australias major regional centres for intensive
animal industries. Greater certainty is required for the industry and this can be achieved
by relevant changes in the current planning system and planning scheme provisions.
Attachments
1.
Council submission to the Intensive Animal Industries Advisory Committee

Discussion Paper.
RECOMMENDATION
1.
That the Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to endorse the submission to the
Intensive Animal Industries Advisory Committee Discussion Paper.
PAGE 61
City of Greater Bendigo Submission to the Intensive Animal Industries Advisory Committee Discussion
Paper
Background
In late 2015 the Minister for Planning established an Advisory Committee to provide advice to the
Minister for Planning and the Minister for Agriculture on how the planning system can support the
establishment and expansion of productive, competitive and market-responsive animal industries in
Victoria, while balancing environmental outcomes and community expectations.
Specifically the Advisory Committee was asked to provide advice and present findings and conclusions on:
The role and function of the planning system in supporting the establishment and expansion of
animal industries in the context of changing industry practice to increase production, be
competitive and respond to market changes.
The adequacy of the definition of intensive animal husbandry in Clause 74 of the Victoria
Planning Provisions and all planning schemes having regard to emerging farming systems and
practices, incremental changes to existing operations over time and changing consumer
preference.
In December 2015 the Advisory Committee released a Discussion Paper and invited submissions.
The Discussion Paper noted that
Livestock production systems are changing. On the one hand, free range pig and poultry
production systems are growing to meet consumer demands, while on the other hand more
intensive grazing and production systems are being adopted in the sheep, beef and dairy
industries.
The trend towards more intensive production systems is likely to continue, some say it needs to
continue, if Victorian agriculture is to meet growing overseas demand for its produce.
All livestock production systems have the potential for off-farm impacts on the environment and
community.
Community and local resident expectations are changing with more non-farming or hobby farm
residents living in farming zones.
Tourism-based agricultural enterprises, such as wineries with cellar door sales and restaurants,
eco-tourism, and farm stays are taking advantage of Victorias rural amenity and increasing in
number.
The potential impacts from farming activities can be broadly categorised as:
Animal welfare and biosecurity
Environment
Residential amenity
Rural economic development
Infrastructure.
The Discussion Paper invited general comments and specifically sought responses to 16 questions.
General Comments
Intensive animal industries are one of the major employment industries across the City of Greater
Bendigo. It is an industry that has the capacity to expand further. About 2,000 persons are
PAGE 62
directly and indirectly employed in the City in this industry. There is considerable employment in
processing as well as production. In November 2014 Council engaged REMPLAN to prepare an
Agribusiness Economic Contributions Study using available ABS data. While it is not possible to
separate intensive animal production and processing from other production and processing it
showed in summary that
Food product production and processing (mostly from intensive animal production) was worth
about $500m in total output to the Greater Bendigo economy, employed around 1,300 people,
value added (value-added represents the marginal economic value that is added by each industry
sector in a defined region) just over $1.06billion to the Citys economy and the multiplier effect of
the agribusiness industry as a whole was 1.8. A copy of the report is attached.
Bendigo sits in a strategic location in regional cluster of such industries across the Loddon Mallee
South region. Industry estimates are that there are over 4,000 persons employed directly or
indirectly in intensive animal industries across the Loddon Mallee South region. The Loddon
Mallee South Regional Growth recognises the importance of this industry and its capacity for
expansion. The industry provides many jobs for unskilled and semi-skilled persons.
The region is one of the major national intensive animal production and processing areas.
This situation reflects long established production, processing plants, skilled and unskilled local
labour force, supply of feed for animals from the wider region, and support industries such as
trucking.
There is capacity and private sector support to further expand this industry and create greater
levels of employment.
A copy of the Citys adopted Intensive Animal Industry Strategy is attached.
The Greater Bendigo Councils position is that the intensive animal industry is a vital component of the
local and regional economy which has considerable further capacity to expand and it should be strongly
supported by the state government.
The land use planning system in respect to intensive animal industries should be geared to provide the
maximum level of certainty for existing operators to protect their investment.
Once established and operating with the appropriate permits and controls through state wide industry
codes operators should not be subject to uncertainty due to issues like protecting biosecurity and
amenity complaints from adjoining land owners.
Planning provisions in the Farming Zone should clearly set a framework where dwellings and other uses
and developments cannot be allowed within the established buffer distances from intensive animal
operations. If there is discretion for uses or developments within the buffer distance then the planning
provisions must clearly give Council the discretion to refuse the development based on the likely
detrimental impact on the intensive animal industry. Prior to the governments establishment of the
Intensive Animal Industry Advisory Committee Greater Bendigo Council had sought authorisation for an
amendment to its planning scheme to allow it to refuse dwellings that were sited within the buffer
distance. In the absence of the work of the Advisory Committee establishing such a position and the
government making relevant changes to the Victoria Planning Provisions Council will further pursue its
own amendment.
PAGE 63
Council supports a new regime where the EPA is charged with the responsibility and provided with the
resources to deal with the technical aspects of compliance with relevant state wide intensive animal
industry codes. Achieving mandatory sign off by the EPA of compliance with the relevant code should be
part of the planning process. Councils are not necessarily equipped with the staff or financial resources to
pursue the technical aspects of compliance with the relevant code. Multiple agencies responsible for
regulations and enforcement create uncertainty confusion and potential for overlap and conflict.
The Greater Bendigo Councils position is that state wide planning scheme provisions should be
strengthened so as to prevent land uses and developments impacting on the ongoing operation of
intensive animal industries and that the EPA should be resourced to deal with compliance with relevant
industry codes.
Representatives from the poultry industry in the City of Greater Bendigo are members of the Bendigo
Manufacturing Group - a peak industry advisory committee to the City of Greater Bendigos Economic
Development Unit which has been operating since 2001. They are of the view that the Farming Zone (and
its forerunners) has been diluted over time and it no longer provides the level of protection for the right
to farm. In particular, the conflict between farming operations and sensitive land uses (such as nonfarming related housing), and rezoning of farming land to residential uses without proper consideration
of its impact on commercial intensive animal operations has been a product of the evolving planning
system to the detriment of farming. Further they believe that there has been insufficient farming
protection and priority policy to guide planners in assessing planning permit applications related to this
matter. They contend that intensive farming operations have been adversely impacted resulting in the
relocation of parts of farming enterprise operations, limiting further growth at an enterprises principal
operational site and in some cases leading to the cessation of the farming operations.
While the Advisory Committee has been established to focus on issues associated with the planning
system Greater Bendigo Council submits that the issues and opportunities associated with the intensive
animal industry are wider than this and warrant government attention. The economic opportunities for
Victoria in this industry are extensive and they revolve around Australias bio-security, reputation and
ability to deliver product that is safe and world class. There is an increasing demand in Asia for product
and particularly protein. Australia including Victoria is a large exporter of grain as a raw product. Value
adding in Victoria can provide increased jobs and higher returns. Maintaining this advantage and
producing product that is both ethically and environmentally sound is important to these outcomes.
The Greater Bendigo Councils position is that supporting an improved land use planning regime is
important in this whole process of capitalising on the advantages of this industry sector. It needs to be
matched by other state government initiatives and support that can fully capitalise on the potential of
the industry. The Loddon Mallee South region is ideally placed to further expand on its leading regional
role in intensive animal industry production and processing.
In respect to the sixteen questions posed by the Intensive Animal Industries Discussion Paper
and on which comment has been sought, the Greater Bendigo Council submits:
Proposed Policy Direction
1. Provide stronger strategic guidance by undertaking regional agricultural land capability assessments
and identifying appropriate areas for intensive agriculture in local planning policies.
PAGE 64
Response
This direction is completely misplaced. The siting of most intensive animal industries has little if anything
to do with regional agricultural land capability assessments. Siting is largely a factor of access to grain and
other feed, provision of water and power, access to a large pool of labour particularly where production
and processing are combined on a single site, good transport infrastructure and ready access to markets.
It is this combination of factors that has made the Loddon Mallee South region such an attractive area for
production and processing. The fact that industry production can take place on land with low quality
agricultural land capability is often seen as a bonus. In fact it can be argued that siting such uses on land
of high quality is a waste of such a resource.
Council submits that there are considerable advantages in strengthening the State Planning Policy
Framework to clearly indicate that this is an industry which government supports and that Councils in
their Municipal Strategic Statement should if relevant identify areas where they would support such
industries.
2. Strengthen the purpose of the Farming Zone to promote agriculture activity as the priority activity and
remove reference to encouraging dwellings as a means of promoting population growth.
Response
Agree. This is a fundamental change that is required. Changing the role and purpose of the Farming Zone
periodically has sent confusing messages. Treat the Farming zone as essentially an outdoor industrial
type zone and protect its integrity and role accordingly.
3. Identify in planning schemes defined buffer distances for different types and scales of intensive animal
industries.
Response
Agree. Minimum distances required by Codes could be clearly stated. Currently all the relevant Codes are
incorporated documents in all schemes. Few people have access to the relevant most up to date codes,
stating the distances in the planning scheme would assist. The first reference people make to a planning
scheme is to check the zone and then the overlay. There is inconsistency across the state in the
application of Overlays relating to developments with potential off site impacts some waste water
treatment plants, intensive operations etc. have an Overlay which alerts someone looking at the planning
scheme most dont. A uniform approach across the State on a buffer which recognises an impact area
would assist everyone.
4. Require a permit in the farming zones for new dwellings within the buffer distance of intensive animal
operations.
PAGE 65
Response
Support strongly. The potential to apply an absolute prohibition in close proximity should be considered.
Where properties are in Faming zone adjoining parcels are relatively large and alternative sites are
generally possible. For instance, in the City of Greater Bendigo we examined every parcel of land within
500 metres of an existing intensive animal operation. There were about 600 such parcels. There were
only four parcels where an owner could not locate a house more than 500 meters from the existing
operation. The City was therefore proposing an Amendment to its Planning Scheme which would have
proposed a requirement for a planning permit in the Farming Zone within 500 metres of a broiler shed
and 700 metres from a piggery. Very few landowners would have been impacted. Other uses and
developments should be considered for a planning permit; subdivision (which usually has an expectation
that a potential house lot has been created, dams (issues of birds landing on with consequent waterbiosecurity issues), tourist uses etc.
5. Base the generic definition of intensive animal husbandry on the impacts of the operation.
Response
Agree, include impact as part of the definition.
6. Base the requirement for a permit for animal industries on the potential environmental and amenity
impacts of the operation derived from an assessment with an online tool.
Response
Support to the extent that online tool can deliver on this requirement. It is not likely that a tool could
achieve tis in all circumstances. Such a tool could easily indicate that a proposal would not meet the code
and scheme requirements but it is likely that there will be circumstances where further inflation is
required.
7. Create specific land use terms for poultry farms (broiler, egg and hatcheries), cattle and sheep feedlots
and piggeries and other clearly intensive uses, to avoid reliance on a generic intensive animal husbandry
definition where possible.
Response
Agree but these need to be subject to periodic review. Farming techniques and operations change.
8. Strengthen permit triggers, application requirements and referral arrangements for animal industry
applications.
PAGE 66
Response
Agree on the basis that it is very clear in the planning scheme and relevant codes when and where a
planning permit is required.
9. Limit the right to object in the Farming Zone when standards prescribed for an animal husbandry
enterprise type are met.
Response
Does the term limit mean prevent? Where the standards are fully met the right to object and have any
decision subject to review can be removed through relevant clauses in the planning scheme. If the Code is
properly framed and there is confidence that it can be enforced than the planning provisions in the
Farming zone can establish that many elements that are currently subject to a planning permit can be as
of right subject to compliance with conditions.
10. Clarify when farming operations have existing use rights.
Response
Agree. Farming operations are subject to change over time. What may now be common practice may not
have existed ten years ago. This would need some process of periodic review. There is a danger that over
time as farming operations change what would once be considered usual practices could effectively
become a non-conforming use.
11. Create a single point of contact for all enforcement actions whose role it is to oversee enforcement
activities.
Response
Strongly support on the basis that this is not local government. Qualified and experienced personnel from
a single agency suitably equipped to undertake inspections and compliance.
12. Increase the role of the EPA as an enforcement body.
Response
Strongly support an appropriately resourced EPA is the most effective course of action. Compliance and
enforcement action undertaken by the EPA should be in consultation with the relevant local Council.
Policy Proposed Direction
13. Set clearer prescribed standards and conditions for intensive animal industries in planning schemes
using the Codes of Practice approach.
PAGE 67
Response
Strongly agree
14. Develop and maintain a contemporary Codes of Practice for all intensively farmed livestock (as a
minimum for poultry (broiler, egg and hatchery), piggeries, cattle feedlots, sheep feedlots, and feedlot
dairies).
Response
Strongly agree
15. Introduce a fast track process for applications that meet defined standards.
Response
Agree. If this is to be pursued than it applies equally to all relevant state government authorities and
agencies not just local government.
16. Formally recognise participation in compliant industry assurance programs in the planning process.
Some examples include APIQ, NFAS, Chicken Care and Egg Corp Assured.
Response
Agree
PAGE 68
2.6
GREATER BENDIGO RESIDENTIAL STRATEGY AND ADOPTION OF

GREATER BENDIGO PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C215
Author
Andrew Cockerall, Coordinator Strategic Planning
Responsible
Director
Summary/Purpose
Amendment details:
The amendment proposes to implement the Greater

Bendigo Residential Strategy (2014). Changes proposed by
the amendment include:
Updating the Municipal Strategic Statement to include a
new clause Compact Bendigo, strengthen the
provisions relating to the Urban Growth Boundary,
introduce new provisions relating to 10 minute
neighbourhoods and including the strategy as a
Reference Document.
Various zone and overlay changes.
No. of submissions:
71 in total (27 supporting, 32 seeking changes to the

amendment, 12 opposing)
Key issues:
Inclusion of other land within the amendment.

Urban Growth Boundary.
Panel recommendations.
Recommendation:
That Council adopts Amendment C215 to the Greater

Bendigo Planning Scheme as recommended by the Panel,
with changes set out in this report, and request approval
from the Minister for Planning.
Policy Context
City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013 2017 (2015-16 update)
Planning for Growth
Complete and implement the following major strategies through planning scheme
amendments:
Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy
The key steps in the Amendment process are summarised below:
PAGE 69
Amendment and Planning permit

application prepared
Council decides whether to seek

Ministerial Authorisation
Public Exhibition of Amendment

and permit application
Submissions received
Council requests an Independent

Panel to consider submissions
Panel Hearing held
Council decides to Adopt or

Abandon the Amendment
We are at this
point
Send to Minister for Approval

and Gazettal and issue of
Planning permit
Previous Council Decisions

15/06/11
29/02/12
06/03/13
21/08/13
26/03/14
22/10/14
06/05/15
Council endorsed the brief for the review.

Council adopted the Audit of the Residential Development Strategy.
Council releases the Issues and Options Paper.
Council seeks Ministerial Amendment for the conversion of the residential
zones.
Council releases the draft Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy for
community comment.
Council adopts the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy and resolves to
commence the amendment process.
Council considers submissions received to the exhibition of the amendment
and requests the appointment of an Independent Panel.
Report
Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy
The Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy (2014) was adopted by Council on 22 October
2014. The strategy establishes a framework to guide the residential growth of the
Municipality to 2040 and beyond.
PAGE 70
The strategy is focussed on accommodating Bendigos future residential development

through creating a compact city, vibrant City Centre, neighbourhoods and small towns
where people can readily access their daily needs and where there is real transport
choice rather than relying on the car.
What the amendment does
Amendment C215 implements the recommendations of the Greater Bendigo Residential
Strategy (2014) into the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme.
The amendment is largely focussed on making strategy and policy changes within the
Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) to reinforce the overall strategic direction of
promoting a compact urban form.
Among the key changes to the MSS proposed by Amendment C215 are:
Updating the Key Issues and Influences clause to include issues such as liveability,
transport integration and planning for health.
Combining the Housing and Settlement clauses into a new clause Compact
Bendigo.
Strengthening the provisions around the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
New strategies around 10 minute neighbourhoods, key development sites, housing
density and diversity and design quality.
Inclusion of the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy (2014) as a Reference
Document within the Planning Scheme.
A number of zone and overlay changes are proposed in the amendment including:
Land identified in the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan and Huntly Township Plan that
was identified for residential development but is yet to be rezoned. These areas are
being rezoned from a Rural Living Zone to either a General Residential Zone or a
Low Density Residential Zone.
Inclusion of land off Goynes Road, Epsom in the General Residential Zone.
Removal of the Design and Development Overlay 10 which requires larger lot sizes
from parts of Precinct 6 in Maiden Gully to allow for more conventional subdivision
consistent with the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy (2014).
Exhibition procedures
The Amendment was exhibited for 6 weeks between 5 February and 20 March 2015.
Notice was provided in the following manner:
Individual notices were sent to 700 residents, government agencies and interest
groups who were affected by the amendment or had previously registered an interest
in the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy.
Notices to the prescribed Ministers under Section 19(1)(c) of the Planning and
Environment Act.
Public Notice of the Amendment in the Bendigo Advertiser on 4, 7, 11, 14, 21 and 28
February and in the McIvor Times on 5 and 12 February 2015.
PAGE 71
Public Notice of the Amendment in the Government Gazette on 5 February 2015.

As a result of these procedures, 68 submissions were received. Of the 68 submissions,
27 supported the amendment, 31 submissions sought to have changes made (such as
including additional land within the amendment) and 10 submissions were objections.
Three late submissions were received immediately prior and during the Panel Hearing
that were accepted by the Panel.
Submissions
The major issues raised in the submissions were:
Support for the strategic direction of the GBRS and the focus on promoting a
Compact Bendigo.
Submissions seeking to have additional land included within the UGB at various
locations around the City.
Inclusion of a number of parcels of land as Key Development Sites.
Review of the zoning of individual parcels of land within the UGB.
Support and opposition for the zone and overlay changes proposed by the
Amendment.
A submission regarding the lack of recreation facilities and clear strategic direction for
Marong.
Submissions from service authorities regarding aspects of Clause 21.05.
Submissions from the planning and development industry relating to land supply,
resourcing, capacity to realise infill development and consistency in decision making
and the application of the UGB.
Response by the City to major issues raised in submissions
Generally speaking the responses to the issues raised in the submissions were:
Additional land should not be included within the amendment at this stage as they
were not exhibited. These submissions are being considered in the context of the
Housing Strategy.
The submissions from government / servicing agencies and those seeking changes
to the MSS are generally supported.
The objecting submissions are not supported.
The submissions relating to land supply and the UGB are acknowledged but not
supported.
The Panel Hearing
The Minister for Planning appointed an Independent Panel to consider the Amendment.
The Hearing was held on 20-23 July, 7-12 August and 11 September 2015. The Panel
considered all written and oral submissions and material presented to it in connection
with the Amendment.
The Panel Report and Recommendations
Included in the key findings of the Panel were:
PAGE 72
Strong support for the Compact Bendigo model and recognition of the significant and
comprehensive background work that supports the strategy.
Support for all proposed zone and overlay changes, subject to some minor
modifications.
The Panel was particularly impressed by how the City and the development industry
have worked together.
Planning for an eventual population of 200,000 needs to be actively pursued.
The Panel expressed some concern regarding land supply given the time it takes to
prepare structure plans, rezone land and lag times for development.
The Panel supported the UGB but were concerned that the UGB is a medium term
proposition and not a longer term planning tool and recommended that the alignment
of the UGB should be reviewed as part of the Housing Strategy.
There is a need to review all zones and overlays, especially those related to
neighbourhood character if infill development is to be pursued.
Minor changes to the wording in the MSS which were agreed to during the hearing.
In considering the Panels report in respect to:
Land supply agreement that we have 13-17 years greenfield land supply within the
UGB and Marong but concern about whether it all can be brought on stream in a
timely manner
Planning for 200,000 people being able to identify where Bendigo will grow.
The Panels recommendation to include two areas (Balgownie and Cherry Tree Lane)
in the UGB but without setting out a clear strategic justification for the choice of
Balgownie over other sites the Panel identified as suitable for residential development
in the longer term.
The Panels acceptance that the Housing Strategy and Housing Audit will identify and
detail land supply to ensure the governments 15 year requirement will be met
considerable further analysis has been undertaken to clarify land supply and t to give
greater certainty about where and how the City could accommodate a population of
200,000.
That analysis has demonstrated with two separate exercises (one undertaken by staff
and one undertaken by id consulting) that without bringing on more land through
rezoning from within the UGB a 15 year land supply is currently available and that
supply will be further tested by an annual Housing Audit. If land supply is not
adequate the City will bring timelines forward.
That taking into consideration the adopted Residential Strategy and ITLUS, current
growth patterns, land suitability, likely take up rates, servicing, and land availability,
Council should identify an area termed Maiden Gully North West embracing all of
Balgownie, Eaglehawk Golf Course and the intervening land and including the
proposed site of the Maiden Gully Railway Station and land to the north of the
Eaglehawk Marong railway line, as a Structure Plan investigation area, to be
considered as part of the next Residential Strategy Review which will commence in
2022 and be ready for a scheduled adoption by Council in 2024. Noting that this
does not preclude landowners from undertaking relevant investigations in preparation
for consideration in the Structure Planning process. This area is indicated on the
following map:
PAGE 73
Maiden Gully North West is clearly signalling that the area is confirmed as the next
area for urban growth, not just potential for future growth. The Structure Planning
process will involve the comprehensive technical analysis and design and community
engagement needed to resolve the exact boundary and the area would be developed.
It is anticipated that the Structure Plan would commence in around 2022, depending
on land take up.
The following table lists the Panel's recommendations and recommended response.
PAGE 74
Table 1 Panel Recommendations

Rec. Panel Recommendation
No.
1.
Officer Recommendation
Amend Clause 21.05-2 under Urban

Growth Boundary Objective to add
the wording:
AGREE
To better manage the Citys growth

by focusing development into
designated growth areas, preventing
development in areas which Council
wants to protect, and discouraging
proposals to expand the urban area
except where consistent with the
Bendigo Urban Area Residential
Growth Framework.
2.
Amend Clause 21.05-2 under

Strategies to change the wording:
AGREE
(a) Dot point 1 - Rezoning proposals

for sites that are not contiguous
with the Urban Growth Boundary
are strongly discouraged and will
not be supported unless they give
effect to the Residential
Development Objectives in the
Greater Bendigo Residential
Strategy 2014.
(b) Dot point 2 - Rezoning proposals
for sites outside but abutting the
Urban Growth Boundary are
discouraged with an assumption
they will not be supported unless
they are consistent with or give
effect to the Residential
Development Objectives in the
Strategy 2014. Consideration of
any sites will be on the merits of
the proposal and must be
accompanied by a report that
demonstrates the suitability of the
land for urban development and
addresses the following matters:
3.
Amend Clause 21.05 2 to include the

following criteria when considering
future rezoning:
AGREE
PAGE 75

No.
(a) Whether the area is identified in

the Bendigo Urban Area
Residential Growth Framework as
Potential Longer Term Growth.
(b) Whether the site assists in building
the catchment for a township,
neighbourhood centre or local
school and supports the 10 Minute
Neighbourhood principle.
(c) Whether the site is within walking
distance of a proposed or existing
railway station or bus route.
4.
Amend Clause 21.05 Framework Plan

to include the Kangaroo Flat South
Investigation Area (excluding Furness
Street) within the Urban Growth
Boundary and a notation subject to
detailed structure planning.
The Panel considers that the area is a
logical inclusion in the UGB and the
forest is a natural boundary.
The Residential Growth Framework
Plan should identify the Kangaroo Flat
South Investigation Area within the
UGB with a recommendation that,
prior to any rezoning, the land be
subject to detailed structure planning
and a planning regime that manages
the issues of risk and environmental
values.
DISAGREE
This is a relatively small area of land
and its inclusion is likely to be
incidental to the overall strategy.
However, this land is not needed to
accommodate residential
development in the short to medium
term to 2024.
It is noted that Coliban Water has
expressed concerns regarding water
pressure and sewer capacity on the
southern fringes of urban Bendigo.
The CFA have also indicated a
concern from a bushfire risk
perspective. These are key issues
that are yet to be addressed.
This site forms a significant part of
Bendigos major gateway-entrance.
Design and presentation of this site
from the Highway is very important
and must be a major consideration
in terms of the approval of any
structure plan.
As an alternative it is recommended
that the Residential Growth
Framework Plan be amended to
identify the land as being a Future
Growth Area and for it to be actively
considered as part of the 2024
PAGE 76

No.
review of the strategy.
This approach doesnt preclude the
owners of the land undertaking their
own assessment and background
studies and drafting a structure plan
and list of infrastructure they
propose to fund.
5.
Amend Clause 21.05 Residential

AGREE
Growth Framework Plan to identify the
Simpsons Road Investigation Area as
for Potential Longer Term Growth.
This area abuts an area that is
currently developing, to be supported
with a neighbourhood activity centre.
Given the size of the investigation
area and the need to clarify the
context of the Waste Water Treatment
Plant, it is recommended that the
Simpsons Road Investigation Area
remain outside the UGB at this point
in time but that it be identified as
Potential Longer Term Growth in the
Residential Growth Framework Plan.
6.
Amend Clause 21.05 Framework Plan

to include the land west of
Schumakers Lane, north of Hermitage
Road and south of the railway line
(Balgownie) within the Urban Growth
Boundary and a notation subject to
detailed structure planning.
The Panel considers that the land
west of Schumakers Lane, north of
Hermitage Road and south of the
railway line should be included within
the UGB as a logical inclusion having
regard to its location and attributes
and a strategic inclusion to support
service infrastructure delivery into the
wider Maiden Gully PSP area.
DISAGREE
This land is not needed to
accommodate residential
development in the short to medium
term to 2024.
This land is considered as
potentially suitable to meet the post
2024 15 year land supply category
as identified in the Bendigo Urban
Area Residential Growth Framework
Plan
It is recommended that the
Residential Growth Framework Plan
be amended to identify the land as
being part of a Maiden Gully North
West Structure Plan area, subject to
a structure planning exercise which
will be undertaken as part of the
lead up to the next Residential
PAGE 77

No.
Strategy review scheduled to be
completed and adopted by 2024.
This approach doesnt preclude the
owners of the land undertaking their
own assessment and background
studies and drafting a structure plan
and list of infrastructure they
propose to fund.
7.
Amend the Neighbourhood Character

section in Clause 21.02 to include:
The residents of Greater Bendigo
value the neighbourhood character
and as a consequence Council is
committed to ensuring the
neighbourhood character of Greater
Bendigo is both protected and
enhanced through new residential
developments while furthering the
objectives of the Greater Bendigo
Residential Strategy 2014.
AGREE
8.
AGREE
Amend Clause 21.035
Implementation to delete the
reference to the Residential
Development Strategy, 2004, insert
Applying the Residential Growth Zone
to identified Key Development Sites
and include Prepare Structure Plans
and a Housing Strategy under
Further strategic work.
9.
Replace the Incorporated Plan City of

Greater Bendigo Residential Growth
Plan (2009) (Amended 2012) with a
plan consistent with the Bendigo
Urban Area Residential Growth
Framework Plan.
10.
Change the legend for the Bendigo

AGREE
Framework Plan by replacing the
words Major Infill and Renewal Site
with the words Key Development Site
to ensure clearer cross referencing
with Clause 21.05.
11.
For the Forest Park development,
AGREE
AGREE
PAGE 78

No.
244 Edwards Road, Maiden Gully:

(a) Identify part of the site as a Key
Development Site on the Bendigo
Framework Plan in the Greater
Bendigo Residential Strategy
(b) Amend Clause 21.05-1 to include
and other activity centres,
including the proposed Local
Activity Hub at 244 Edwards Road,
Maiden Gully as a Key
Development Site.
12.
Former VicRoads Depot, Lansell

Street, Bendigo East:
(a) Identify the site as a Key
Development Site on the Bendigo
Framework Plan in the Greater
Bendigo Residential Strategy
(b) Amend Clause 21.05-1 to include
the former VicRoads Depot,
Lansell Street, Bendigo East as a
Key Development Site.
AGREE
13.
La Trobe University land - Osborne

Street, Flora Hill
(a) Identify the entire University site as
a Key Development Site on the
Bendigo Urban Area Residential
Growth Framework Plan in the
Strategy.
DISAGREE
While the location of the athletics
track will need to be incorporated
into the planning for the remainder
of the site it has never been
identified for residential
development and will remain as
active open space.
To include it as part of the Key
Development Site would create
uncertainty for users of the facility
and the community in general.
14.
Amend the extent of the General

Residential Zone and Low Density
Residential Zone at 29 Emu Street,
Strathfieldsaye in accordance with the
map in the City of Greater Bendigo
Attachments to Submission
Response to submission 5, as
presented at the Panel Hearing.
AGREE
PAGE 79

No.
15.
Seek an amendment under Section

20(4) of the Planning and
Environment Act 1987 to rezone the
land known as Frog Hollow,
Strathdale as Public Park and
Recreation Zone, or Public
Conservation and Resource Zone to
reflect the role of the park or through
the translation of the Residential
Zones.
AGREE
The Urban Growth Boundary be

reviewed as part of the upcoming
Housing Strategy and Integrated
Transport and Land Use Strategy
implementation with a long term
growth scenario of a population of
200,000 at 2041.
AGREE
16.
This has been referred to the

Statutory Planning Department for
inclusion in the next clean up
amendment.
The LMSRGP includes the target of

200,000 people by 2041 (however
this is likely to be in 2050). The
Regional Growth Plans are adopted
state policy and a Council policy
position.
On the current trends and consistent
with id consulting projections CoGB
would reach 200,000 by about 2050.
Regardless of dates there is merit in
having an overall plan setting out
how the City could support a
population of 200,000 people. A
detailed report on this has been
provided for Council consideration.
Note: supporting this
recommendation does not mean
that land needs to be zoned now or
that the UGB must now embrace
the area that could accommodate
200,000 only that Council can
clearly indicate where this level of
population can be accommodated.
A separate report titled Greater
Bendigo Land Use and
Development Strategy has been
prepared setting out a proposed
framework to accommodate
200,000 persons.
17.
When preparing the upcoming

Housing Strategy and Integrated
Transport and Land Use Strategy
AGREE
The review of the planning controls
PAGE 80

No.
implementation, the City of Greater

Bendigo should review the existing
zoning, overlay and policy regime to
facilitate infill development in strategic
areas consistent with the Compact
City principle within the GBRS.
is important in pursuing a Compact

Bendigo, however this is a
significant piece of work and would
need to be done progressively.
This recommendation came about as

a result of submissions from the
development industry who were of the
view that current planning scheme
controls, in particular the
neighbourhood character provisions,
worked against the strategic direction
of a Compact Bendigo.
18.
(a)
The City of Greater Bendigo consider

the properties bounded by Bendigo
Creek, Buckland and Saade Streets
and Montis Lane, known as 1
Buckland Street and 20 Montis Lane,
should be further considered in the
upcoming Housing Strategy with a
view to future rezoning to General
Residential Zone and applying the
Land Subject to Inundation Overlay as
required.
AGREE
18.
(b)
The City of Greater Bendigo consider

the property at 91 Howard Street in
the context of its Housing Strategy
with a view to future rezoning of all or
part of the land for residential use
subject to detailed consideration of
any buffer needs and environmental
constraints.
AGREE subject to agreement with

Coliban Water and the Environment
Protection Authority.
The Panel concludes that 91 Howard

Street is likely to have some
residential development potential but
there are significant planning issues to
be resolved before such a proposal
could be considered, including
whether a buffer from the Coliban
Water plant needs to affect the
property.
The owners of the land can

undertake their own assessment
and background studies to resolve
these issues.
Issues around protecting the

operation of the Waste Water
Treatment Plant are critical given
the importance of this infrastructure.
Any change to the zoning must be

agreed to by Coliban Water and the
EPA who have expressed concerns
with the development of this site.
Issues around bushfire risk would
also need to be resolved.
PAGE 81

No.
18.
(c)
AGREE
The City of Greater Bendigo review

the zoning of 33G Sawmill Road and
land fronting the Midland Highway in
the context of its Housing Strategy
with a view to future residential use.
The Panel supports the consideration
of 33G Sawmill Road for infill
development. Given notification has
not occurred this should be
considered in a future Amendment
with the implementation of Housing
Strategy.
18.
(d)

the zoning of 698 Strathfieldsaye
Road, Strathfieldsaye in the context of
its Housing Strategy with a view to
future residential use.
AGREE
This is being considered as part of
the Housing Strategy.
The Panel is reluctant to support

direct rezoning of the land through
Amendment C215 given it was not
included in the Amendment and there
has been no notice of it. However the
Panel considers that Council could
consider a site specific rezoning in
advance of the Housing Strategy.
18.
(e)

the zoning of 467 Somerset Park
Road, Strathfieldsaye in the context of
its Housing Strategy with a view to
future residential use.
AGREE
19.
The City of Greater Bendigo in its

Housing Strategy undertake structure
planning for the White Hills area.
AGREE IN PRINCIPLE
The position put to the Panel was
that this is an area that needs to be
reviewed. However there are
concerns about including a structure
plan within the Housing Strategy.
The Panel considers Council should

undertake a PSP for White Hills,
including development contributions
and further planning work with Coliban
Water.
A fully developed structure plan
takes considerable resources and
As with the Huntly and Maidens Gully time that are not currently budgeted
areas, it is recommended that the
or planned for.
Council undertake a strategic review
of its Low Density Residential areas
Alternate mechanisms to a fully
PAGE 82

No.
20.
within the UGB. While character is an

important factor, not all character
needs to be protected. Council has
made the case for infill over sprawl,
and in that context, needs a zoning
regime which supports this approach.
developed structure plan are being

investigated.

the density provisions in the
Strathfieldsaye Township Plan in
relation to land outside Schedule 26 to
the Design and Development Overlay
in the preparation of the Housing
Strategy, having regard to the
Compact City principle in the GBRS.
AGREE
The 1,500 square metres reference in

the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan for
Precinct 7 ought to carry little weight
as it has not been translated into a
statutory control and is inconsistent
with the GRZ and strategic focus of
the GBRS for a Compact City. This
reference ought to be reviewed as
part of the Housing Strategy.
In addition to the recommendations made by the Panel, comments were made on a
number of submissions that should be noted by Council.
Property/
Submitter
Precinct 6,
Maiden Gully
Summary of
Issue
The amendment
proposed to
remove the
DDO10 control
that has a
minimum
subdivision size
of 1500m2.
Submissions
were received
that both
supported and
opposed the
removal of the
DDO10.
Panel Comments
Officer Comment
The Panel understands

the concerns of submitters
with regard to the impacts
of increased density and
that the area will undergo
change over time.
However the GBRS
strategically identifies
Maiden Gully as a key
growth area and the Panel
agrees that removing the
DDO10 for this area,
which is zoned GRZ and
in close proximity to the
town centre, to allow
subdivisions of less than
1,500 square metres will
Consistent with
Councils position
that it presented
at the Panel
PAGE 83
Property/
Submitter
Huntly
(Bagshot
Investigation
Area)
Kangaroo Flat
(Lockwood
Road
Investigation
Area)
Summary of
Issue
The GBRS
indicates the
land as being
identified as
having potential
longer term
growth.
The submitter
sought to have
the land included
within the UGB.
The GBRS does
not support any
change to the
zoning of the
land or its
inclusion within
the UGB.
The submitters
sought to have
the land included
within the UGB
and identified as
having potential
longer term
growth.
Former
Eaglehawk Golf
Club Site, 255
Golf Links
Road, Maiden
Gully
The GBRS
indicates the
land as being
identified as
having potential
longer term
growth.
The submitter
sought to have
the land included
within the UGB.
Panel Comments
assist in delivering land
supply and the Compact
City model.
Given the current land
supply in Huntly, the Price
land should remain
identified as Potential
Longer Term Growth.
The Panel considers that,

in the long term, land
within the Lockwood Road
Investigation Area has a
role in Bendigos
settlement however this
needs to be considered
within the constraints of
the industrial use
neighbouring the site. The
area should be reviewed
in the context of ITLUS
implementation and the
Housing Strategy and no
change is recommended
through this Amendment.
Officer Comment
Consistent with
Councils position
that it presented
at the Panel
This land is not

needed to
accommodate
residential
development in
the 15 year
planning horizon.
Review in 2024.
Therefore it is not
considered that
there is a need to
further review in
the context of
ITLUS
implementation
and the Housing
Strategy.
This land is not
needed to
accommodate
residential
development in
the short to
medium term to
2024.
Given the proximity of the

site to the UGB, it is not
considered a logical
inclusion for the purpose
of this Amendment which
is applying a short to
medium term UGB.
Therefore the Panel does
not recommend including
the land within the UGB as This land is
part of this Amendment.
considered as
potentially
However, having regard to suitable to meet
the site characteristics and the post 2024
in line with the conclusions 15 year land
and recommendations in
supply category
Chapter 5 regarding
as identified in
PAGE 84
Property/
Submitter
Summary of
Issue
Panel Comments
Officer Comment
planning for a long term

UGB (beyond 2024), the
Panel encourages Council
to consider this site in
future strategic work and
perhaps send a stronger
message about it
development potential in
subsequent planning.
the Bendigo
Urban Area
Residential
Growth
Framework Plan
Greater Bendigo
Land Use and
Development
Strategy.
In the meantime the

designation of Potential
Long Term Growth is
appropriate and provides
enough direction for future
service planning to
commence. No change is
recommended.
As an alternative
it is
recommended
that the
Residential
Growth
Framework Plan
be amended to
identify the land
as being part of a
Future Growth
Area Maiden
Gully North West
Structure Plan
area, subject to a
structure planning
exercise which
will be
undertaken as
part of the lead
up to the next
Residential
Strategy review
scheduled to be
completed and
adopted by 2024
and for it to be
actively
considered as
part of the 2024
review of the
strategy.
This approach
doesnt preclude
the owners of the
land undertaking
their own
assessment and
PAGE 85
Property/
Submitter
Maiden Gully
(Wicks Road
Investigation
Area)
Summary of
Issue
The GBRS does

not support any
change to the
zoning of the
land or its
inclusion within
the UGB due to
significant
environmental
impacts
The submitters
sought to have
the land included
within the UGB
and identified as
having potential
longer term
growth.
Panel Comments
The Panel has considered

the submissions and
evidence from Tall Trees
carefully, and at face
value considers that the
planning arguments for
including the site within
the UGB as put by Mr
Kusznirczuk are
persuasive. It is tempting
to contemplate an
extension of the UGB
perhaps south along
Olympic Parade to
straighten up the
boundary. Having viewed
the evidence in ecology
and fire, the Panel also
accepts that the property
could support some
residential development,
albeit with careful design
to protect both vegetation
and manage bushfire risk.
However, the Panel on
balance does not consider
that this could must
translate to should in this
instance. The site remains
heavily constrained and
there is not in the Panels
view a demonstrated
imperative to extend the
UGB into this environment
at this time. Uptake of land
within the UGB should
continue to be the primary
focus.
This is in contrast to
Hermitage Road area in
Maiden Gully outside the
PAGE 86
Officer Comment
background
studies and
drafting a
structure plan and
list of
infrastructure they
propose to fund.
Consistent with
Councils position
that it presented
at the Panel.
Property/
Submitter
Huntly (124
Pasley Street,
Huntly)
Summary of
Issue
The GBRS does

not support any
change to the
zoning of the
land.
The submitter
sought to have
the land included
with a General
Residential
Zone.
8 Settlers
Place, Maiden
Gully
Panel Comments
UGB where the Panel is
supporting its inclusion
due to its largely
unconstrained nature.
Development of the Wicks
Road site would entail
significant impact on a
large remnant parcel of
vegetation outside the
UGB and require a highly
finessed bushfire
response. The Panel is
not satisfied that, in a net
community benefit sense,
realising the development
potential of the site
outweighs the potential
impact on the natural
environment.
The Panel does not
recommend changes to
the zoning for 124 Pasley
Street, Huntly in this
Amendment. However,
having regard to its
findings in Chapter 7, it
recommends the zoning
regime in this area be
reviewed, whether through
the upcoming Housing
Strategy or further
strategic work.
The GBRS does

not support any
change to the
overlay controls
that apply to the
land.
With regard to 8 Settlers

Place, the Panel
understands why this area
was not included within
the Maiden Gully PSP
area as it is substantially
developed with a
The submitter
particular bush suburban
sought to have
low density character.
the DDO10
Given the development of
(1500m2 lot size) the area, it is unlikely that
removed.
substantial additional yield
would be realised. In this
context the DDO10 should
continue to apply to this
area.
PAGE 87
Officer Comment
Consistent with
Councils position
that it presented
at the Panel.
Consistent with
Councils position
that it presented
at the Panel.
Property/
Submitter
Summary of
Issue
Panel Comments
Officer Comment
137-155
Edwards Road,
Maiden Gully
The GBRS does

not support any
change to the
zoning of the
land.
The Panel has inspected

this area and, having
reviewed the Planning
Scheme maps, notes that
the properties in question
are affected by a series of
environmental overlays
including the VPO, ESO
and BMO. The properties
are heavily vegetated and
are surrounded to the
south and west by FZ.
Consistent with
Councils position
that it presented
at the Panel.
The submitter
sought to have
the land included
with a General
Residential
Zone.
Given the environmental

constraints on the site, no
changes to the zoning are
recommended.
1108
Wellington
Street,
Strathfieldsaye
57 Walmer
Street,
Strathfieldsaye
The amendment
proposed to
rezone the site to
part General
Residential Zone
and part Low
Density
Residential Zone
consistent with
the
Strathfieldsaye
Township Zone.
The submitter
sought to have
the entire site
zoned General
Residential.
The amendment
proposed to
rezone the site to
a General
Residential
consistent with
the
Strathfieldsaye
Township Plan.
The submitter
sought to retain
The proposed LDRZ along

the front of the site will
support the outcome
proposed under DPO26,
as well as the VPO. The
Panel supports the zoning
of part GRZ and LDRZ as
proposed under the
Amendment.
Consistent with
Councils position
that it presented
at the Panel.
The rezoning does not

require development of
the land and vegetation
issues can be addressed
as necessary if
development were to
occur.
Consistent with
Councils position
that it presented
at the Panel.
No change is
recommended to the
Amendment.
PAGE 88
Property/
Submitter
58 Mannes
Lane,
Strathfieldsaye
Summary of
Issue
the Rural Living
Zone
The amendment
did not propose
a change to
zoning of the
land.
The submitter
sought to have
the land included
within the
General
Residential
Zone.
14 Gray Street,
Huntly
The amendment
did not propose
a change to
zoning of the
land.
The submitter
sought to have
the land included
within the Rural
Living Zone or
Low Density
Residential
Zone.
Marong
The submitter
was critical of the
lack of structure
planning for
Marong and
provision of open
space.
Panel Comments
Officer Comment
The Panel considers while

the Intensive Animal
Industry remains and is
active, an adequate buffer
must be preserved and
the zoning of the land
should reflect this. Given
Councils response, it is
understood that
discussions will continue.
In addition, having regard
to proper notification,
rezoning should not occur
in this Amendment. The
Panel does not support
rezoning in this
Amendment.
Consistent with
Councils position
that it presented
at the Panel.
Having regard to the

strategic intent of the
GBRS, the Panel
considers this site is
considerably isolated from
the UGB and there is no
strategic justification to
rezone the property at 14
Gray Street, Huntly under
this Amendment. Without
determining the merit or
otherwise, this matter
should instead be
considered in the context
of the Rural Communities
Strategy.
Consistent with
Councils position
that it presented
at the Panel.
The Panel considers that,

given the substantial
growth experienced to
date and planned for
Marong in the GBRS,
structure planning,
community planning and
provision of open space
infrastructure and
community services in the
town is urgent.
Consistent with
Councils position
that it presented
at the Panel.
PAGE 89
Preliminary work
on the PSP has
commenced.
Property/
Submitter
Summary of
Issue
Panel Comments
Officer Comment
The Panel is not in a

position to recommend the
location of the new
recreation reserve but
encourages Council to
resolve this issue as part
of the 2016 PSP.
Ascot
The amendment
did not propose
a change to
zoning of the
land.
The submitter
sought to have
the area rezoned
to a Residential
Character Zone
Government
Agencies
Various
These
submissions
sought to have
various changes
made to the
wording in the
MSS.
The Panel finds that the

area does not have a
distinct character worth
preserving, the defining
element of character is
that it has no discrete
cohesive character. There
is no strategic justification
within this Amendment to
apply new controls which
limit residential
development within the
UGB.
Consistent with
Councils position
that it presented
at the Panel.
The Panel has reviewed

the suggested minor
wording changes. The
Panel does not consider
any of these wording
changes are substantive
or determinative of the
Amendment and is
satisfied that Council can
review them and make
changes as appropriate.
Consistent with
Councils position
that it presented
at the Panel.
Housing Strategy
The next stage in the implementation of the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy is to
finalise the Housing Strategy. Whereas the GBRS considered residential development
at a strategic level, it is the Housing Strategy that will consider in more detail planning
scheme changes and the use of the new suite of residential zones.
The C215 Panel also raised a number of issues and sites that also need to be factored
into the Housing Strategy.
It is anticipated that the draft Strategy will be presented to Council in April/May this year
and then released for community comment.
PAGE 90
Conclusion
The Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy (2014) has been through an exhaustive
development process. This included engagement with the community, the development
industry and other stakeholders.
Amendment C215 is proposing to implement the strategy into the Greater Bendigo
Planning Scheme. The amendment went through an extended exhibition period and
attracted more than 70 submissions of which only 12 objected to the amendment.
The Independent Panel appointed to consider the amendment supported the strategy, in
particular the proposed strengthening of the UGB and a Compact Bendigo. The Panel
did raise some concerns with regard to land supply and as a result of this further
investigations have been undertaken. It is now the view of Officers that there is more
than enough land to satisfy the 15 year requirement in the State Planning Policy
Framework and as such there is no need to include additional land with the UGB.
Options
Council has the option of:
Adopting the Amendment in accordance with the above Officer Recommendations
and sending to the Minister for Planning for Approval
Adopting the Amendment in accordance with the Panels recommendations and
sending to the Minister for Planning for Approval.
Adopting the Amendment in part.
Abandoning the Amendment under the Planning and Environment Act 1987. There is
no right of review of a council's decision not to support the Amendment.
Budget Allocation in the Current Financial Year: $90,000
Previous Council Support: There has been past financial support for the development of
the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy but none for the subsequent Planning Scheme
amendment.
External Funding Sources: Funding was been received from Regional Development
Victoria to develop the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy. No external funding has
been received associated with the planning scheme amendment.
Any known or anticipated variance to budget: None known
Projected costs for future financial years: There will be costs associated with the next
review of the strategy estimated to commence in 2022.
Any ongoing recurrent expenditure required: None anticipated.
Attachments
Panel report
PAGE 91
RECOMMENDATION
That the Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to:
1. Confirm its commitment to a Compact Bendigo and that it has satisfied the
requirements under State Planning Policy to accommodate the projected population
growth over a 15 year period.
2. Adopt Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C215 with changes outlined in
Table 1 of this report.
3. Forward the adopted Amendment to the Minister for Planning for Approval, together
with the prescribed information pursuant to Section 31(1) of the Planning and
Environment Act 1987.
PAGE 92
Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports
3.
PRESENTATION AND VIBRANCY
3.1
GREATER BENDIGO MUNICIPAL EARLY YEARS PLAN (2015-2018)
Author
Steven Abbott, Manager Community Partnerships

David Williamson, Coordinator Young Communities
Responsible
Director
Pat Jess, Acting Director Community Wellbeing
Summary/Purpose
This report presents a summary of community feedback received during the period of
Public Exhibition concerning the Greater Bendigo Municipal Early Years Plan Creating
the Best Future for our Children (2015 to 2018) and seeks Council endorsement to adopt
the Greater Bendigo Municipal Early Years Plan and Action Plan including the proposed
amendments.
Policy Context
Theme - Presentation and Vibrancy
Strategic Objective: Greater Bendigo is a child friendly city where people report improved
health and wellbeing and they can feel safe.
3.6.2:
Work to ensure that services are appropriate to meet the needs of children
and young people including early years services and activities,
implementation and monitoring of the Youth Strategy.
3.6.5:
Support agreed actions that build and improve the physical and emotional
wellbeing of children.
Strategy Reference:
The Greater Bendigo Public Health and Wellbeing Plan (2013 2017) identified
objectives regarding the provision of services and programs to support all people to live
in our community including to:
a) Prepare the Municipal Early Years Plan for the City of Greater Bendigo; and
b) Research the highest priority for children in the City of Greater Bendigo.
PAGE 93
At its meeting on October 14, 2015 Council considered a report into the Greater Bendigo
Municipal Early Years Plan (2015 to 2018) Creating the Best Future for our Children
(MEYP). Following consideration of the MEYP, Action Plan and Background Reports,
Council resolved to:
a) Release the Draft Greater Bendigo MEYP and Action Plan (2015 2018) for a six
week period of Public Exhibition and invite public submissions.
b) Receive a further report summarising community feedback and seeking
endorsement of a final Greater Bendigo MEYP and Action Plan.
c) Hold a Key Stakeholder Public Forum on November 6, 2015, to discuss the Draft
MEYP and Action Plan (2015 - 2018) during the period of Public Exhibition.
The MEYP is a four year plan focussed on responding to the needs of children aged from
birth to eight years and their families and carers. The City of Greater Bendigo (the City)
recognises that the early years of every childs life are crucial for their healthy growth,
wellbeing and development through life. Accordingly, the MEYP aims to continue to
improve the health and wellbeing of children in this age range by establishing the MEYP
as the strategic framework through which the City identifies priority needs, plans for
future infrastructure and service requirements, facilitates multi-agency partnerships,
advocates to other levels of government; and guides the allocation of resources.
There were a number of previous decisions, programs and partnerships which have
guided the development of the MEYP including:
a) The recognition of Greater Bendigo as a United Nations International Childrens
Emergency Fund (UNICEF) - Child Friendly City in 2007,
b) The Citys participation in the First Quarter Governance Partnership Group, its
Early Years Coordination Sub-Group and the Communities for Children
Partnership to facilitate collaborative multi-agency partnership responses to the
priority needs of children and young people; and
c) The Citys Review of its role in Early Childhood Services.
Commencing in 2014, the City has undertaken a process to develop the MEYP in
consultation with the community including children and families, early years agencies,
private business and City services. The MEYP is a four year plan for the period 2015 to
2018 focussed on children aged from birth to eight years and their families and carers. It
provides a comprehensive strategic framework to guide the role of the City in the
planning and delivery of early years services in partnership with a broad range of early
years agencies and local families and children.
The primary elements of this strategic framework are the early years Vision and the six
priority themes which have been developed following extensive community consultation,
analysis of Federal, State and City plans and policies, the Citys internal Review of its
Role in Early Childhood Services; and the level of available resources.
PAGE 94
Vision and Themes

The MEYP (Attachment 1) provides a vision and six priority themes as a focus for the
Citys role to plan, lead and advocate on behalf of children, families and the local early
years sector over the next four years.
Vision:
All children aged from birth to eight years and their families are part of an active,
healthy and safe child friendly community that promotes and provides real
opportunities for learning and development.
Priority Themes:
1.
Safety of Children: to develop a safe community for children and their families.
2.
Environment and Facilities for Children: to plan for and develop quality and
accessible child friendly spaces and supportive infrastructure.
3.
Active and Healthy Children: to improve the health and wellbeing of children.
4.
Education and Care: to ensure children have access to the best possible education
and care.
5.
Whole of Community Partnerships Benefitting Children: to strengthen early years

partnerships to improve outcomes for children.
6.
A Child Friendly City and Community: to ensure the creation of child friendly
environments and enhance childrens participation in the decision making
processes that impact on their lives.
The vision and priority themes have emerged directly from the analysis of the key
stakeholder input, survey responses and childrens drawings that occurred as part of the
community engagement and consultation process to develop the MEYP. The direction
and relevance of each theme was then confirmed via the other key elements in the
planning process to prepare the MEYP, these being: the Review of Existing Early Years
Plans and Policies; and the data and trends found in the Greater Bendigo Demographic
Profile for Early Years.
The Municipal Early Years Planning Process
The MEYP has been prepared following a significant planning process and the
development of a comprehensive evidence base comprising four key elements, these
being:
a)
Community Consultation and Engagement involving children, families and key

stakeholder early years agencies in the community.
PAGE 95
b)
Demographic profiling for early years including collecting and analysing census
data, research and services trends. This was used to establish an evidence base
concerning the social, economic and population issues that impact on children,
families and early years services in Greater Bendigo both now and in the long
term.
c)
A review of plans and policies to identify and analyse major Federal, State, City
and community reports, strategies, legislation and research findings in relation to
the birth to 8 years of age bracket.
d)
The Citys Review of its Role in Early Childhood Services.
The summary analysis and findings associated with each of the key elements of the
MEYPs evidence base can be found in respective chapters of the MEYP.
The full details regarding each major element of the planning process can be found in the
three Background Reports, these being:
Community Engagement and Consultation Report (Attachment 3).
Greater Bendigo Demographic Profile for Early Years (Attachment 4); and
Review of Early Years Plans and Policies (Attachment 5).
The Municipal Early Years Plan - Action Plan
The MEYP Action Plan (Action Plan) (Attachment 2) sets out specific actions to be
undertaken, to respond to the priority themes identified by key stakeholders during the
MEYPs community engagement and consultation process.
The Action Plan acknowledges the important contributions of existing early years
agencies in Greater Bendigo and the dedicated contributions of the broader community
in their efforts to support children to have the opportunities to learn and grow in a caring
and safe environment.
Thus, rather than taking a City centric view, the Action Plan recognises that as well as
the City, many other agencies and services are willing and well placed to collaborate with
the City to respond to the priority needs of local children and families identified in the
MEYP. Accordingly, the Action Plan not only identifies actions to be undertaken by the
City over the next four years, it also includes and supports actions that can be taken by
local agencies, families and children to respond the MEYPs six priority themes.
As well as preparing the Action Plan in consultation with responsible agencies and
groups, the City has discussed the implementation of the MEYP and Action Plan with the
First Quarter Governance Group and its Early Years Coordination Group. As a result of
these discussions the City and key stakeholder agencies included in the Action Plan will
sign a Joint Partnership Commitment to recognise the whole of community partnership
approach being undertaken to respond to the vision, themes and priorities identified in
the MEYP and Action Plan.
PAGE 96
Previous Council Decision(s) Date(s):

24 September 2015 presentation to Councillor Forum on Draft MEYP and Action Plan
and background reports including Demographic Profile, Community Engagement and
Consultation Report and Review of Existing Policy and Programs Report research report
background reports.
14 October 2015 Council resolved to release the Draft MEYP and Action Plan for a six
week period of Public Exhibition including holding a Key Stakeholder Public Forum.
Report
The six week period of Public Exhibition for the MEYP, Action Plan and Background
Reports concluded on November 27, 2015.
During this time public submissions and feedback were received via three main sources,
these being:
Written submissions from six representatives of local agencies,
Facilitated group discussions involving fifty participants at the Key Stakeholder
Public Forum held on 6 November 2015; and
On-line surveys submitted by five respondents.
All submissions and feedback received were focused on the MEYP and Action Plan. No
submissions were received concerning the three Background reports and it will be
recommended these be adopted as are.
The detailed summary of submissions received via these sources including submitter
details, summary of submission, the Citys response and recommended amendments to
the MEYP and Action Plan can be found in parts 1, 2 and 3 of Attachment 6.
Summary of Public Responses in Attachment 6:
1. Formal submissions Summary.
In general, the six submissions focused on clarifying, correcting and improving actions in
the Action Plan and amendments have been recommended in Attachment 6 in
response to points made by each submitter.
Further to recommended amendments to the Action Plan, Submission Five raised the
need to include more references to access and inclusion for diverse groups in the
community i.e. culturally and linguistically diverse groups and children with disabilities;
and that the language of the MEYP could be more inclusive of diversity. This feedback
was found to be important and has led to amendments to the MEYP which include
incorporating additional references to access, inclusion and including children with
different abilities and from diverse backgrounds.
PAGE 97
Part 2 Key Stakeholder Information Group Feedback

Approximately 50 attendees from a broad range of key stakeholder organisations and
groups attended the Forum and participated in facilitated round table discussions
concerning the MEYP Themes and priority actions. In summary, much of the feedback
supported and/or reiterated the Themes and existing actions and on most occasions no
amendments have been required. However, there were a small number of suggestions
that have led to recommended amendments and these are articulated in Attachment 6.
Part 3 Online Survey feedback
In general, feedback provided via the on-line surveys supported or reiterated the Themes
in the MEYP and existing actions found in the Action Plan. One respondents feedback
was directed toward the challenges facing small townships especially those rural
communities experiencing high levels of disadvantage with vulnerable and at risk
children. In response to this feedback a new action is recommended at 2.1.8 which
responds to the challenges faced by disadvantaged small townships.
Part 4 - Summary of Internal Organisation Feedback and Required Amendments
Feedback was also received from various units across the organisation and amendments
were recommended by the MEYP Project Control Group. In particular, this feedback
identified completed, duplicated and incomplete actions in the Action Plan that needed to
be removed; and new actions that covered the existing work of the City.
Priority/Importance:
Developing the MEYP is of high importance as it will enable the City to deliver upon
actions from the Council Plan 2013-2017 (2015-2016 Update), specifically:
3.6.2:
Work to ensure that services are appropriate to meet the needs of children
and young people including early years services and activities,
implementation and monitoring of the Youth Strategy; and
3.6.5:
Support agreed actions that build and improve the physical and emotional
wellbeing of children.
In addition, the Greater Bendigo Public Health and Wellbeing Plan (2013 2017)
identified objectives regarding the provision of services and programs to support all
people to live in our community including to:
Prepare the Municipal Early Years Plan for the City of Greater Bendigo; and
Research the highest priority for children in the City of Greater Bendigo.
Timelines:
The MEYP is a four year plan for the period 2015 to 2018.
PAGE 98
Risk Analysis:
The MEYP is a major strategic framework and action plan which has garnered the
participation and support of key stakeholder groups in the community including families
and children, early years agencies and community groups. It will play a crucial role in
representing Councils commitment to children and early years services including how
the City can support vulnerable and at risk children and children from diverse
backgrounds. Key risks include:
Not working in whole of community partnership approaches to help achieve the
MEYP and its vision and priority themes.
Service gaps and unavailability of services due to insufficient planning for the
future infrastructure and service needs of a growing population.
Not maximising the resources available from State and Federal government
departments to ensure local children and communities continue to have access to
appropriate services and infrastructure.
Not engaging children and families in helping to create solutions to local issues
and running events and activities that involve their participation.
Failing to capitalise on existing strengths and resources available from other
services and community members/groups.
There are a range of strategies that can be implemented to mitigate risks, including:
Work in partnership with the First Quarter Governance Group and its Early Years
Coordination Group to provide an additional partnership governance mechanism
and oversight for the implementation and review of the MEYP and Action Plan.
Hold annual public forums to present on key issues for the early years sector and
report on progress in achieving the MEYP. Also, provide an updated Action Plan
and Progress Report via the Citys Municipal Early Years Plan webpage.
Liaise with key State and Federal government departments to identify potential
funding programs and submit grant applications to help respond to the future
infrastructure and service needs of children and families.
Hold more neighbourhood based activities that involve local children, families and
community groups to promote the Citys role in planning, leading and advocating
on behalf of local children.
The process to attract, analyse and respond to submissions and feedback during the
period of Public Exhibition concluded on November 27, 2015 and comprised both internal
and external agency liaison and consultations.
PAGE 99
Internal Consultation:
a) The MEYP Project Control Group considered an overall analysis of the
submissions and feedback received and oversaw amendments to the MEYP and
Action Plan and recommended changes.
b) Each member of the Organisation Leadership Team was provided with access to
the MEYP and Action Plan and background reports.
c) Each responsible Manager was consulted to confirm their agreement to implement
the action/s in the Action Plan relevant to their service unit.
During the period of Public Exhibition, external submissions and feedback were received
via:
Facilitated group discussions involving fifty participants in the Key Stakeholder
Public Forum held on November 6, 2015,
Written submissions from six representatives of local agencies; and
On-line surveys completed by five respondents.
The overall summary of submissions received including submitter details, summary of
submission, the Citys response; and recommended amendments to the MEYP and
Action Plan can be found in Attachment 6.
The City allocated $20,000 per annum in 2013/14 and 2014/15 to resource the
development the MEYP. These funds were expended on engaging an external project
consultant, preparing reports and community information and community engagement
activities.
The ongoing implementation and review of the MEYP and Action Plan will be
coordinated within existing resources by the Community Partnerships Unit. An amount
of $20,000 was allocated in 2015/16 to promote, launch and implement the Greater
Bendigo Municipal Early Years Plan (2015 2018) and Action Plan.
Conclusion
Developing Municipal Early Years Plans has been a key role for Victorian local
governments since 2004. In particular, Municipal Early Years Plans focus on the
provision of early years services and future priorities for children aged from birth to eight
years and their families. The process to update the Greater Bendigo Municipal Early
Years Plan (2015 to 2018) has included analysing demographic trends and infrastructure
and service needs, connecting with existing City strategies and services and other plans
and polices from the Federal, State and community levels; and consulting with key
stakeholders including community groups, early years agencies and children themselves.
PAGE 100
The MEYP provides a vision and six priority themes as a focus for the Citys role to plan,
lead and advocate on behalf of children, families and the local early years sector over the
next four years.
The Action Plan identifies specific actions to be undertaken which will respond to the
priority themes identified by key stakeholders during the community engagement and
consultation activities undertaken as part of the process to develop the MEYP.
Following a period of Public Exhibition the submissions and feedback received has been
considered and analysed resulting in a range of proposed amendments to improve the
accuracy and clarity of the MEYP and Action Plan.
Attachments
1. Greater Bendigo Municipal Early Years Plan (2015 - 2018) - Creating the Best
Future for our Children.
2. The MEYP Action Plan.
3. Community Engagement and Consultation Report.
4. Greater Bendigo Demographic Profile for Early Years.
5. Review of Early Years' Plans and Policies.
6. Public Exhibition Feedback Summary.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council:
1. Adopt the Greater Bendigo Municipal Early Years Plan - Creating the Best Future
for our Children (2015 2018) and Action Plan as amended following submissions
and feedback received during the period of public exhibition.
2. Adopt the Background Reports comprising the: Community Consultation and
Engagement Report, Demographic Profile for Early Years and Review of Early
Years' Plans and Policies.
3. Work in a whole of community partnership to implement and review the progress
of the Greater Bendigo Municipal Early Years Plan - Creating the Best Future for
our Children (2015 2018) and Action Plan. Develop a Joint Partnership
Agreement for signing by key stakeholders involved in the Action Plan.
4. Launch the Greater Bendigo Municipal Early Years Plan - Creating the Best
Future for our Children (2015 2018) and Joint Partnership Agreement in
collaboration with key stakeholder agencies.
PAGE 101
3.2
PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE OUTDOOR DINING SYSTEM
Author/Responsible
Director
Summary/Purpose
Several hospitality businesses have contacted the City to enquire if revised
arrangements for the establishment of outdoor dining areas could be considered to make
the process more affordable and allow the businesses to better contribute to the vibrancy
of the City.
This report recommends introducing temporary permits for a short period of expected
high visitor numbers and changes to the infrastructure payment process for the future.
Policy Context
Theme 1 - Leadership & Good Governance
1.6 Programs, projects and services are guided by best practice principles and
delivered to respond to community needs.
Theme 3 - Presentation & Vibrancy
3.1 Greater Bendigo has attractive and accessible parks, public places and
streetscapes that are widely used and enable people to be healthy and active.
Bendigo CBD Plan 2005
The Bendigo CBD Plan 2005 is the guiding strategy for all projects in the Bendigo City
Centre. The key aim of the Plan is to attract more people to the city centre for longer.
Economic Development Strategy 2014-2020
Encourage and support the development and promotion of lifestyle-enhancing
restaurants, cafes and bars across central Bendigo and proactively work with this sector
to encourage networking, marketing and product development.
As a growing City that has seen substantial and continued growth in its population and
major events, there has been an increase in street activity and vibrancy, a positive boost
to the City's economy and new opportunities for hospitality and other retail businesses.
PAGE 102
The Outdoor Dining and Street Trading Code of Practice (the Code) clearly articulates
the application, design and decision making process, as well as ongoing management
and maintenance expectations that aim to create vibrant, accessible and active street
frontages.
Report
Over recent years the City has seen a significant increase in the amount of outdoor
dining permits in the Bendigo CBD alone. It is important that the City responds
appropriately to emerging trends and issues. Concern has been expressed that requiring
businesses to pay the total cost of the required infrastructure works upfront is not
affordable and is making the desired outcome of street vibrancy less achievable.
The objectives of the proposed changes to outdoor dining are to:
1. Build the vibrancy of the City.
2. Make it easier and more affordable for hospitality businesses to have outdoor dining
on footpaths, in the long term.
3. Enable businesses to capture the opportunity of upcoming events and festivals and
provide a better experience for people in the short term.
Infrastructure Process and Payment
Current Arrangements:
Businesses currently pay the total cost of required infrastructure, upfront. This includes:
Sockets for barriers and umbrellas.
Paving.
Any incidentals if required - signage, relocation of services.
Supply of the barriers, to the standards in the Code.
Project management and liaison with contractors (who are engaged by the City).
Although the cost to create an on-footpath outdoor dining area is site specific, the
average cost is approximately $8,000 - $10,000, although some sites can be as high as
$18,000.
Proposed Arrangements:
It is proposed to introduce a staging of the payment of infrastructure costs to make it
more affordable for new and smaller businesses:
The business will pay the first instalment of 25% of the cost once the outdoor dining
application has been assessed as appropriate and design and a cost estimate has
been prepared.
The business will pay the second instalment of 25% before paving works commence.
The 50% balance will be paid in quarterly instalments (separate from the outdoor
dining permit fee) over a 3 year period. In effect, it is a short term, interest free loan.
The business will continue to provide the barriers, in a colour and style approved by
the Code.
The City will engage and supervise contractors undertaking the paving works.
PAGE 103
The City will allocate an annual amount for its 50% upfront contribution and when it is
spent, other applicants will have to wait until the following year. This is the same model
as the Heritage Loan Fund.
The following table shows the approximate repayments over the 3 year period.
Approximate
Total Cost
50% Loan
$6,200
$3,100
$1,033
Medium - 18sqm
$10,800
$5,400
$1,800
Large - 27sqm
$16,000
$8,000
$2,666
Type of Business
Small - 10sqm
Annual Repayment
for 3 Years
The deferred payment option will only be available to businesses that have a record of
prompt payment of all Council fees and charges. A clear policy, application form and
assessment process for the loan has been developed.
If the final cost is slightly more or less than the estimate done at design stage, annual
payments will be adjusted to accommodate the difference. Also, the outstanding debt will
be linked to the outdoor dining permit so if a business is sold, the new owner need to
agree to take on the debt.
Short-term Use of Temporary Permits
As some businesses want to establish an outdoor dining area immediately, to take
advantage of increased visitors generated by upcoming events and festivals, it is
proposed to introduce a temporary permit process for applications in the Bendigo CBD.
Temporary arrangements are necessary as the City does not want footpaths under
construction in a time of high pedestrian traffic. Businesses in other areas can still apply
for the loan, but there should be no need for temporary arrangements as permanent
arrangements can be implemented.
The business will be required to lodge a formal application that meets the general
requirements of the Code of Practice, accessibility and suitability. The site and proposed
design will then be assessed. If approved, sockets, barriers and umbrellas can be
installed. No paving works will commence until mid-July 2016.
Businesses that are given a temporary permit will follow the same infrastructure payment
process as detailed above. An ongoing outdoor dining permit will be issued once the
paving works are completed.
For this group, the 25% deposit that will be paid once the design is approved and will be
non-refundable to provide assurance that businesses will proceed to complete the
permanent works later in the year.
PAGE 104
The payment scheme and temporary permit process have been developed internally by
a working party comprising of the Director Planning & Development, Manager
Environmental Health & Local Laws, Acting Manager Engineering & Public Space and
Place Manager.
A sample of 3 businesses; small, medium and large; well established and new were
consulted on this proposal.
They were very appreciative of the options being considered and so promptly. It was at
their suggestion that the proposal include:
The 25% up-front, 25% immediately before paving construction (rather than 50% upfront) and 50% over 3 years payment structure.
Quarterly payment of the amount owing.
For 2015/2016 there will only be a small amount of funding required as the majority of
the works will not commence until the 2016/2017 year. It is proposed to reallocate
unspent funds from the Heritage Loan Scheme for any works required this financial year.
There will be a maximum of $50,000 funding available for the 2016/2017 year. The
$80,000 Heritage Loan Fund will be divided into $30,000 for Heritage and $50,000 for
outdoor dining. This can be reviewed if the proportion of requests does not match this.
This would allow about 10 businesses at the average cost to construct outdoor dining.
Conclusion
The vision of "Greater Bendigo - working together to be Australia's most liveable regional
city" will be achieved by small steps as well as large. This proposed change to the way
we establish new outdoor dining areas on footpaths is one of the smaller steps and will
contribute to the economy and vibrancy of our City. It is also a pro-active response to a
clearly stated need by local hospitality businesses.
RECOMMENDATION
That Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to approve:
1. The introduction of a staged payment structure for the required infrastructure works
associated with outdoor dining.
2. The reallocation of funds from the Heritage Loan Scheme for any works required in
the 2015/2016 financial year.
3. The use of temporary outdoor dining permits where necessary.
4. The reallocation of $50,000 from the Heritage Loan Scheme for 2016/2017 to
establish the Outdoor Dining Loan Fund.
PAGE 105
Productivity - Reports
4.
PRODUCTIVITY
Nil.
PAGE 106
Sustainability - Reports
5.
SUSTAINABILITY
5.1
PROPOSED KERBSIDE ORGANICS SERVICE FOR URBAN

RESIDENTS OF BENDIGO AND MARONG
Authors
Bridgette McDougall, Organics Project Officer

Darren Fuzzard, Director Presentation and Assets
Responsible
Director
Darren Fuzzard, Director Presentation and Assets
Summary/Purpose
This report explores options to deliver on Councils commitment in the Waste &
Resource Management Strategy 2014 to stop household organics from going to landfill.
It recommends that Council introduces a fortnightly kerbside organics service for urban
residents in Bendigo and Marong.
Policy Context
City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013-2017 (2015-2016 Update):
Theme: 1
Leadership and Good Governance
Strategic Objective 1
Council demonstrates leadership in its decisions to meet

future needs and challenges.
Strategic Objective 4
Continuous improvement methods are used to ensure the

standard of service delivery is excellent.
Challenges and
Opportunities
Council has a strategic leadership role in setting priorities

and making decisions that will enhance the wellbeing of our
communities and enable effective planning for the future.
Challenges and
Opportunities
People increasingly want to take an active part in

consultation about each phase of the development of new
Council initiatives, strategies, masterplans and service
reviews.
Theme: 5
Sustainability
Challenges and
Opportunities
Reducing waste to landfill has become a very important

priority because of the increasing costs and environmental
obligations associated with waste disposal.
Strategy 5.5
The level of waste to landfill is reduced and residual waste is

managed responsibly, to deliver the adopted waste
PAGE 107
management targets.
Action 5.5.1
Implement the Waste Management Strategy including

creating a solution to managing kerbside organics.
Strategy Reference (include weblink as applicable):

City of Greater Bendigo Waste & Resource Management Strategy
The development of a solution to stop household organics (food and green) from going to
landfill is a key action in Councils Waste and Resource Management Strategy 20142019.
In 2014 the Greater Bendigo City Council adopted its Waste and Resource Management
Strategy (the strategy).
A major initiative of the strategy is the removal of household generated organic material
(both food and green) from the waste stream. In doing so, the strategy recognised that
the Greater Bendigo community was ranked 73 out of 79 Victorian Local Government
Areas for its performance in recycling/reuse of kerbside waste from residents. This
reflected a diversion (from landfill) rate of 26% compared with a Statewide average of
44%.
The strategy identified that approximately 1/3 of the average residential waste bin is
made up of food waste and between 17 and 36 percent (subject to seasonal variation) is
green (garden) waste. Together these were estimated to total between 12,000 and
17,000 tonnes per year of organic material going to landfill.
The strategy identified that, in 2014 dollars, a kerbside solution could be introduced to
remove and recycle organic material in our residential waste bins at an additional cost of
around $70 per household.
Since Councils adoption of the strategy, the State Government has adopted the
Statewide Waste and Resource Recovery Infrastructure Plan 2015-44 (the plan). As its
first goal, the plan states landfills will only be for receiving and treating waste streams
from which all materials that can be viably recovered have been extracted.
The plan continues that within five years material streams.will be diverted from
landfills if it is economically viable and if it can improve community, environment and
public health impacts. The plan further indicates that planning of new landfill airspace
will be based on the volume of residual waste streams remaining after all materials that
can be recovered viably have been extracted.
According to the plan, the major cause of greenhouse gas emissions from the waste
and resource recovery sector arise from the breakdown of putrescible waste (ie.
biodegradable material such as food, green waste and paper) in landfills. When these
materials break down they generate by-products, one of which is methane. Methane gas
is at least 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide and is estimated to account for
around 86% of the total greenhouse gases from the waste sector.
PAGE 108
At Eaglehawk landfill, despite methane gas being extracted and converted to power, an
estimated 24,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent gas was emitted in 2014/15. This
represents more than half of the Citys total reported emissions.
Commencing in December 2014 and concluding in March 2015, Councillors participated
in three workshops facilitated by City of Greater Bendigo staff to explore and analyse
options for a residential kerbside organic collection service.
As part of the workshops, a series of research papers (the papers) were prepared by
staff that identified 27 other Councils in South Australia and New South Wales where a
kerbside organic service (including both food and green waste) had been introduced. In
almost all instances, the organic service was being provided on a fortnightly basis and
the residual waste on a weekly basis. The predominant reasons for doing this being:
Concerns about odour by changing the residual waste from a weekly to a fortnightly
collection; particularly in relation to nappies; and
Making one service change at a time to allow the community the opportunity to first
become comfortable with the new service.
The papers further identified that around 40 percent of the cost of providing a kerbside
service relates to the bins being picked up by the truck. Hence, from an affordability
perspective, it noted that the less frequent the service is, the cheaper it would be for
residents. Specifically, the papers predicted an additional annual cost of around
$35/household if a fortnightly residual waste/fortnightly organic bin service is provided
and around $63/household/year extra if one of those services is undertaken on a weekly
basis and the other fortnightly. These costs are based on an amortised cost of kitchen
caddies and new wheelie bins, bin liners, kerbside collection, transport of material to the
processing plant and processing of material. Due to the diversion and reduction of
waste, it is predicted to save $23 in landfill levy costs if a weekly residual service
remains, or $51 if a fortnightly service is adopted based on a reduction of the landfill levy
and reduced collection costs.
The paper also referenced a trial undertaken in South Australia by 10 Councils which
found that while a fortnightly residual waste service was problematic in some instances
(due to odour), a higher diversion of organic material into the organic bin was achieved.
In consideration of the above, the majority of Councillors indicated a preference to
pursue fortnightly kerbside collection services for residual waste and organic material. In
doing so, Councillors endorsed the development of a large scale trial to test the
appropriateness of such an approach before a decision would be made on the final
service to be implemented.
Councillors also considered the merits of providing kitchen caddies, organic bin
liners/bags, an exemption process, a dedicated project officer and an education package
to support the initiative. All of these initiatives were requested to be included in the trial.
Prior to commencing the trial, it was considered important to verify that a genuine
processor (recycler) of food and green organics existed and that it could cost-effectively
service Greater Bendigo. Consequently, Councillors endorsed an expression of interest
PAGE 109
and tender process for the bulk transport and processing of organic material that led to
Council awarding Contract CT000161 to Biomix in October 2015.
The contract was awarded on the basis of the transport and processing required for the
proposed trial (only). Continuation of the contract thereafter is conditional upon Councils
decision to go to full implementation of the residential kerbside organic service. If the
service proceeds, this contract will be in place for five years.
To establish an appropriate trial area that could readily be implemented an analysis of
the demographic and land/building mix on current waste service routes was undertaken.
A combination of the Thursday morning pickups in the Strathdale/Kennington and White
Hills/East Bendigo/North Bendigo areas were found to best mimic the average mix of the
whole city and resulted in a trial comprising 2,671 households. To assure the best
possible understanding of the community response to such a service, participation in the
trial was made mandatory.
In the lead up to the trial, participating households were provided with a 240L organics
wheelie bin, a kitchen caddy and a roll of 150 compostable caddy liners. Education
material outlining how to use these and an explanation for the trial was also included.
Contact details of the support officer dedicated to assisting participants were provided
and a major media launch was undertaken to promote this.
The trial commenced on 10 September 2015 and remains in place. As at early February
2016, there has been 12 organic collections with over 350 tonnes of organic material
recovered. On a pro-rata basis, this would equate to a predicted recovery of more than
12,000 tonnes from almost 42,000 households.
Although the contamination rate of the organic material collected has varied over the
12 weeks, this rate has consistently remained within acceptable levels for the processor.
The first collection had a contamination rate of 1.36% and contamination peaked at
4.65%. The most common contaminants have included plastic bags, bottles, food
packaging, nappies and clothing.
Commencing on 27 November and closing on 11 December 2015, an extensive survey
was mailed to 2,671 households within the trial area. In all, 1,198 responses were
received and represented an unprecedented response rate of 45%.
Bin audits were conducted on 12 and 19 November 2015 at 50 randomly selected
properties from each of the two service areas in the trial. These audits occurred in
consecutive weeks on first the residual waste bins and then the organics bins.
The survey results and the bin audits have been made available to the public on the City
of Greater Bendigo website at:https://www.bendigo.vic.gov.au/Services/Rubbish_and_Recycling/Organics_collection#.
VsFOSbfou70
All Councillors have been issued with an electronic copy of these results and a hard copy
was placed in the Councillors Room.
PAGE 110
In summary, the survey results indicated that 1,080 (or 92% of) respondents are using
the organics bin. The remaining 96 (or 8% of) respondents indicated that they are not
using the organics bin because they have home composting/worm farm/chickens, use a
private contractor for their garden waste and/or feel that they do not have sufficient waste
to warrant the use of the service.
Other key findings of the survey were:
875 (or 78% of) respondents indicated that the fortnightly collection of the organics
bin suits their households needs. 246 (or 22%) said that it did not.
772 (or 67% of) respondents indicated that the fortnightly collection of the residual
waste bin suits their households needs. 378 (or 33%) said that it did not. Of those
not satisfied by the fortnightly service, 161 referred to concerns about odour;
particularly in relation to nappies and pet waste.
24 (or 2% of) respondents had on average an overfull organics bin.
157 (or 14% of) respondents had on average an overfull residual waste bin.
832 (or 75% of) respondents found the organics system very or extremely easy to
use. 89 (or 8% of) respondents found it slightly or not at all easy to use.
Key findings of the bin audits were:
On average, the organics bin weighed 13.1kg and comprised 81.2% garden
organics, 14.1% food organics and 4.7% residual waste (contaminants)
On average, the residual waste bin weighed 12kg and comprised 79.7% residual
waste, 13.1% food organics and 7.2% garden organics.
Overall, on average, 83% of organic material was being diverted from landfill through
the organics bin.
On average, food waste is being disposed of almost evenly between the organics
and residual waste bins.
The initial 30 question survey of residents was conducted to obtain critical feedback
about the suitability of the fortnightly kerbside organic and residual waste services. The
survey purposely excluded reference to the cost of service at that time. To obtain an
insight from participants about how they judge cost versus level of service (having
experienced almost a full summer), a follow-up survey was conducted from 4 to 12
February 2016. At the time of writing this report, responses to the survey continue to be
received and a media release encouraging further responses by 18 February 2016 was
issued on 12 February 2016.
As at 22 February 2016, 717 responses have been received and the results are:
365 (or 51% of) respondents favour a fortnightly organic and fortnightly residual
waste bin service at an additional cost of $35 per annum.
301 (or 42% of) respondents favour a fortnightly organic and weekly residual waste
bin service at an additional cost of $63 per annum.
PAGE 111
51 (or 7% of) respondents favour a weekly organic and fortnightly residual waste bin
service at an additional cost of $63 per annum.
31 households in the trial area returned the survey and indicated that they do not
support the introduction of any kerbside organic service.
A further bin audit was conducted on 4 and 11 February 2016. Key findings of this audit
were:
Average 10.3kg of organics per household.
25% food organics in organics bin.
Average 11kg material in residual waste bin.
27% food organics in residual waste bin.
A further workshop was held with Councillors on 22 February 2016 to discuss the
feedback from the two questionnaires and the data collected on the trial. At this
workshop, an additional variation to the proposed services was raised being an optional
fortnight collection of the residual waste rather than weekly collection.
Discussion
The trial of a fortnightly organics bin and fortnightly residual waste bin service to almost
2,700 households has been invaluable to testing and determining how a kerbside
organics collection service could best be introduced to Greater Bendigo. In particular:
The need for an exemption process
As previously noted, the trial service was introduced to participants on a mandatory
basis. While feedback obtained from the survey indicates that some households were
upset by this, it is considered that doing so has given the greatest opportunity for Council
to understand the full range of attitudes toward an organics collection service.
During earlier workshops, Councillors expressed a strong view that an exemption
process is required to allow households (within the final service area) to demonstrate that
they do not need the kerbside organics service to sustainably manage their food and
garden organics. This approach is reinforced by Councils commitment in the Waste &
Resource Management Strategy to encourage household level solutions such as worm
farms and composting.
Of the 2,671 households involved in the trial, 16 requested and were granted an
exemption for this reason. In doing so, they created the basis on which a proposed
exemption process could be offered. See Attachment 1.
As has been experienced in the trial, it is critical to make clear to those seeking an
exemption that their household level organics system must genuinely manage all
organics and that it is an ongoing commitment.
PAGE 112
The challenge for Council then becomes to what extent this effort is rewarded financially
through an altered waste services fee.
Based on financial modelling, it is predicted that the gross annual cost of introducing the
kerbside organic service on a fortnightly basis is $86 per household (in 2016 figures).
To ensure that any exemption granted is genuinely achieving diversion of organics from
the kerbside waste stream requires an approval and monitoring process. The work
required to maintain the exemption process would be accommodated in the education
officer role that is recommended for the first two years of the service.
On balance, in recognition of Councils objective in the Waste & Resource Recovery
Strategy to support householdlevel solutions, it is considered that an exemption process
with a fee reduction recognising the avoided direct cost of service nominated above is
the most appropriate approach.
Council also wished to explore the option or need to provide an exemption for multi-unit
developments. I.E. To permit residents in such circumstances to share bins rather than
each have their own. This need or desire was tested in the trial survey and of the 157
respondents living in units or flats, 80 percent indicated that they did not wish to share a
bin. In the comments provided however, it was evident that some participants found
storage of the additional 240L bin a challenge.
On balance, the most appropriate response to multi-unit development situations is
considered to be to provide individual bins with an option to reduce these to 140L in size.
Provision of kitchen caddies and liners to support the service
As indicated to Councillors in earlier working papers, studies conducted internationally
and in Australia suggest that the greatest recovery of organic waste occurs when a
kitchen caddy and compostable bags are provided to residents.
On this basis, two caddy types and liners were trialled. Overall the survey results
indicated that 873 (or 78% of) respondents found the kitchen caddy and liners easy to
use.
Of the 245 (or 22% of) respondents who found the system not easy to use, common
comments regarding the caddy included that it was too big or too small or was unsightly
on the kitchen bench.
The caddy used in the Strathdale/Kennington area was found to be better liked than that
in the White Hills/East Bendigo/North Bendigo area. The Strathdale/Kennington caddy
was also half the cost of the other. It is proposed that the Strathdale/Kennington caddy
would be rolled out in the full scale service.
A larger number of comments relate to the bags provided. Many of these comments
suggest to the authors that more upfront education in how to use the bags effectively and
then ongoing familiarity with them will assist over time. One structural change proposed
is to increase the size of the bags so that they can be tied off effectively and a print will
be added to indicate where and how to open them.
PAGE 113
970 (or 91% of) respondents indicated that they occasionally or never experienced
offensive odour with the use of the caddies in the house. Again, ongoing familiarity with
using the system and larger bags that can be tied off is expected to improve this further.
The survey found that 921 (or 89% of) respondents used four or less compostable bags
per week. Therefore, a roll of 150 compostable bags is likely to meet the needs of most
residents per year. Again to assist in the successful rollout of the service, it is
considered beneficial to provide each household with a roll of compostable bags and to
make further rolls available on an as-needed basis throughout the year. Further, during
the initial years of the new service at least, it is proposed that an annual allocation of
bags to households occurs.
The Role of Education and Compliance Activities
Large scale behaviour change processes (such as stopping organic material going from
our homes into landfill) is an immense task that takes considerable time and effort to
achieve. The kerbside recycling service implemented by Council decades ago provides
a highly relevant and strong example of this. Despite years of recycling promotion
through many avenues, the Bendigo community continues to discard between 9 and 12
percent of traditional recyclables in our household waste bins.
During early Councillor workshops, the need for and value of an education plan was
discussed in detail and the attached communication and education plan which utilises a
variety of media and communication mechanisms was developed. Refer Attachment 2.
As part of the trial, many of the activities nominated in the plan were implemented and
tested. 770 (or 65% of) survey respondents indicated that they were aware the trial was
taking place before their bin arrived. 660 (or 74% of) respondents indicated that they
learnt this from the introductory letter sent to their home and 314 (or 35% of)
respondents saw it advertised in the newspaper.
797 (or 68% of) respondents found the educational material provided with the bin very or
extremely informative. 99 (or 8.5% of) respondents found it either slightly or not at all
informative. In a separate question 1,056 (or 91% of) respondents indicated that they did
not find any part of the educational material confusing.
While overall the communication and education material offered appears to have been
well received and effective, comments provided will enable this to be further improved as
part of the broader rollout. Results of the bin audits also suggest that ongoing
investment in education about the purpose of each bin and the importance of using these
correctly will be needed.
Survey responses also suggest that the following improvements to information provided
could be made:
A magnetised collection calendar.
A sticker listing what can go in the organics bin be placed on top of the kitchen
caddy.
Advice regarding how to obtain a new roll of caddy liners.
PAGE 114
Better guidance on where animal droppings and cat litter go.
Clarify which cardboard can go in the organics bin and which should go in the
recycling bin.
Clarify which bin old clothing and material should be placed in.
Greater assurance that items such as bones and fruit seeds are acceptable to put in
the organics bin.
An update on the communication plan and education material in consideration of the

feedback and experience during the trial will be provided to Council as part of rolling out
the broader service.
While positive and long lasting behaviour change is recognised by leading authors such
as Daniel Goleman to be most effectively influenced by adopting a positive and
constructive approach, it is also acknowledged that in some instances stronger
measures are needed.
On 1 October 2014, Council adopted its updated approach to compliance and
enforcement. See Attachment 3.
This policy supports the three step approach of educate, inform and then enforce if
necessary.
Consistency with the adopted approach in regard to the organics initiative is considered
appropriate.
Frequency of service and cost
Based on feedback in the first survey of participants about the service standard offered in
the trial, three options appeared to warrant further participant feedback:
1. A fortnightly organic and fortnightly residual waste service at an annual additional
cost per household (in 2016 dollars) of $35.
2. A weekly residual waste service and fortnightly organic service at an annual
additional cost per household (in 2016 dollars) of $63.
3. A weekly organic service and fortnightly residual waste service at an annual
additional cost per household (in 2016 dollars) of $63.
As at 22 February, 2016 feedback from the second survey conducted in February
indicated that, when offered the opportunity to consider both level of service and
associated price together, 42% of respondents would prefer the residual waste service to
remain weekly compared with 33% in the initial survey (where only level of service was
considered).
PAGE 115
Each option offers different benefits and creates different challenges for people in
different circumstances in our community. The challenge for Council is determining
which option best meets the majority of community needs while giving fair consideration
to the ability of all households to pay. At the same time the evidence shows that
leadership is needed if we are to improve our collective environmental performance and
to reduce the long term cost of our household waste.
A further and critical consideration must be the need to ensure that the option chosen will
engender a strong and enduring positive commitment from the vast majority of the
community toward our ultimate objectives. To do this, the proposal must be widely seen
as a practical, fair and logical step. Sustainability Victorias short term horizon for
change (nominated in the Statewide Waste & Resource Recovery Infrastructure Plan) of
five years and full realisation of its objectives at 30 years is instructional.
In this regard, while 67% of trial respondents initially indicated that fortnightly residual
waste collections have been meeting their household needs, support for this option
dropped to 51% in the second survey when participants were provided information on the
cost of each service. At full rollout, this could translate to around 20,000 households
being dissatisfied with the service and still be made to pay $35 more than they currently
do.
Again, change management most effectively occurs when a positive attitude toward the
change is created and then builds momentum.
It is considered that, as has been found in many other Local Government areas,
changing the residual waste collection frequency from a weekly to a fortnightly service is
a significant challenge in itself and the second survey has indicated that 50% of residents
are prepared to pay more to retain a weekly service. Hence, introducing a new
fortnightly organic service at the same time creates the potential for considerable
resistance to be developed against both initiatives.
While acknowledging that retaining the current weekly residual waste service (and
adding a fortnightly organics bin) would mean an annual increase of $63 to households,
doing so would ensure that all households continue to have a primary service that meets
their needs while they become positively engaged in removing organic waste from our
landfills.
In addition, by retaining a weekly residual waste bin, the risk of contamination in the
organics bin with residual waste is substantially reduced. In turn this will reduce the risk
of paying higher processing fees due to excess contamination.
That said, it is recognised that the first two options do not create the encouragement to
divert organics from landfill the way that the third option (with a weekly organic service
and fortnightly residual waste service) would. Again however, the third option suffers
from a similar risk of the broad resistance noted for the first option. Added to this, is an
even higher cost than option one which in turn is likely to further elevate the level of
dissatisfaction. The significant lack of support for this option demonstrated by the second
survey of trial participants clearly suggests that this option is not currently appropriate to
pursue in Greater Bendigo.
PAGE 116
Across urban areas of Greater Bendigo, 2,539 businesses currently utilise the weekly
household waste service. These businesses sit outside the CBD service (where
dedicated trucks make it possible to provide an individually catered service at a higher
fee) and therefore any change to the existing weekly service would impact on these
businesses.
On balance, it is therefore considered that retention of the existing weekly kerbside
residual waste service and the addition of a fortnightly organics service, offers the best
overall next step in our collective progress toward minimising the resource that currently
goes to landfill as waste.
Further to this, the suggestion at the 22 February 2016 Councillor workshop to consider
introducing an option to have a fortnightly residual waste service (in lieu of the current
and proposed weekly service) has been assessed and is not recommended.
The maximum saving predicted of moving all 42,000 urban households from a weekly to
fortnightly residual waste collection service is $28 per year per household. However,
when this is done on an optional basis the predicted savings are reduced considerably
due to the systems and processes required to ensure that households only receive the
service that they are paying for. At its simplest this would involve the additional cost of
individual identification of each bins level of paid service and assessment by the waste
truck driver of whether each bin is due to be picked up. In doing so, the efficiency of each
truck is reduced (compared to the current approach where no such assessment is
required).
Further, in such a scenario the need to continue to drive every street every week is not
diminished and, given that 40 percent of the total service cost relates to this activity, the
savings able to be passed on become very small.
It is suggested that the current option to allow households the choice to downsize their
bin is a more suitable approach from an overall service efficiency perspective and hence
offers better value to all ratepayers.
In the February 2016 workshop, Councillors also expressed a strong desire to ensure
that the opportunity to build on this initial step is not hampered by long term contractual
commitments for the collection service. In doing so, Council asked that any proposed
contract for collection of organics allow for a review of the adopted kerbside collection
frequencies within two years of the service being introduced. Accordingly, should Council
adopt the recommendation, the collection service advertised will seek prices to enable an
assessment of costs associated with both a two year and (traditional) 7 year contract
period.
Service Area
During workshop discussions, Councillors expressed a desire to roll out the organics
service to as great a number of households as possible within urban areas. Council
indicated that this should include urban areas in Bendigo and Marong initially, with a
further stage to roll out the service to Heathcote and other small towns. This would
equate to around 40,600 households as part of the initial roll out in 2016/17 and a further
1,500 households in 17/18. A map detailing the proposed limits of the organics service
for the initial rollout is included as Attachment 4.
PAGE 117
Timelines
The time required to implement a new service is dependent upon the service option that
Council determines. However, it is suggested that the key time for the service to be
operational is at the start of the 2016 Spring season. While some options will result in
longer lead times than others, it is predicted that all options can be ready to commence
at the start of Spring.
Risk Analysis
The major risk associated with the introduction of any new service and/or change to an
existing service is its acceptance by the broader community. The trial of fortnightly
kerbside collection services in almost 2,700 households during the hotter months of the
year has provided an immense amount of information to better understand this risk. The
conclusions and recommendations in this report have been strongly influenced by this
information together with research on the experiences of other Councils who have
sought such changes.
Other Implications
As Council is aware, private contractor Greenaway currently provides a fortnightly
kerbside green organics collection service to approximately 2,500 households in Greater
Bendigo.
Introduction of the proposed compulsory (with exemptions) kerbside organics service can
be anticipated to impact on this existing business in two ways. Should Council elect to
introduce a fortnightly/fortnightly combination of collection services, then (as has been
the case in the trial area) this can be accommodated by the Citys existing collection
resources. Households wishing to remain with Greenaway could do so but would be
required to demonstrate through the exemption process that all organic material is being
managed.
Alternatively, should Council retain the existing weekly residual waste collection service
and introduce a fortnightly organics service, the organics collection would be
competitively tendered. This would then create the opportunity for Greenaway and
others to win a contract to service around 40,000 households. Should Greenaway not be
successful in this process, households would again retain the ability to seek an
exemption and remain with Greenaway.
Community consultation on the organics initiative began with the development of the
Waste and Resource Management Strategy that was adopted in 2014. As the most
significant change initiative in the strategy, it received considerable media attention and
promotion. Extensive consultation occurred in the development of the strategy. This was
overseen by a reference committee chaired by a Councillor and made up predominantly
of community members.
PAGE 118
Following Councils decision to conduct an organics trial, the position of Organics Project
Officer was created.
Four listening posts were held prior to the commencement of the trial at Lake Weeroona,
White Hills shopping precinct, IGA Strath Village and Coles McIvor Highway.
A launch of the trial occurred through all local media outlets and the Citys own
communication mechanisms in August 2015.
Contact details of the Organics Project Officer were provided to all participating
households for enquiries. To date, 191 calls have been received. The Citys customer
service team has also logged 45 requests on behalf of residents from within and outside
of the trial area.
Ongoing media releases and the Citys website are being used to keep the general
public informed of findings during the trial.
The Organics Project Officer gave a presentation to Strathdale Probus Club in August
2015 and to the Rotary Club of Bendigo Sandhurst in December 2015.
An extensive survey of 2,671 participants in the trial areas was mailed out in November
2015. The survey was also available in an online version. A response rate of 45% was
achieved and has significantly contributed to the recommendations of this report.
A kerbside waste audit was undertaken by Wastemin over two weeks in November to
assess the contents of the general waste, recycling and organics bins in the trial areas.
A follow up audit was conducted in February 2016.
A second survey of participants was undertaken in February 2016.
In line with State Government policy, Greater Bendigo City Council attempts to ensure
that the cost of waste management services are fully funded by the waste-related fees
and charges adopted each year in the budget.
The previously described costs associated with the three options for introducing a
kerbside organic service to the residual waste service represent the net additional annual
charges that would be applied to household waste fees if adopted. The following full
year fees for individual services would apply (as adjusted on a pro-rata basis for timing to
introduce organics service) subject to the service option adopted by Council:
PAGE 119
Service
Frequency
Urban Organics
140L or 240L
Urban Residual
Waste 140L
Urban Residual
Waste 140L
Urban Residual
Waste 240L
Urban Residual
Waste 240L
Rural Residual
Waste 140L
Rural Residual
Waste 240L
Recycling
All Service Areas
Fortnightly
Full Year Gross

Cost (2015/16)
n/a
Full Year Gross

Cost (2016/17)
86
Fortnightly
n/a
91
Weekly
138
119
Fortnightly
n/a
194
Weekly
238
222
Weekly
138
142
Weekly
238
245
64.50
66.50
Fortnightly
Notes:
Urban refers to the areas nominated to receive a mandatory kerbside organics service in this report.
Rural refers to all other areas in Greater Bendigo including smaller townships not nominated in the
Urban areas.
The figures in 2016/17 have been increased by 3 percent to reflect normal price increases due to
wage, plant operating and contractual costs.
Budget Allocation in the Current Financial Year:

The trial is funded from the 2015/16 operating budget at an estimated cost of $65,000. A
capital works budget provision has also been made to purchase the required
infrastructure for full implementation.
External Funding Sources:
A $500,000 grant from Sustainability Victoria has been received for the implementation
of a kerbside organics collection service.
Conclusion
Following adoption of Councils Waste and Resource Management Strategy in 2014,
extensive work has occurred to determine what an appropriate kerbside organic (food
and garden waste) collection service for urban households would be.
Finding a balance between what level of service the community expects and what it is
prepared to pay is challenging. So too, considerable leadership is required to raise our
collective performance on diversion from landfill and to position us well for the strategic
direction of the State Government with respect to managing organic material.
PAGE 120
On balance, the best option to respond to these challenges is considered to be the

introduction of a mandatory fortnightly organic collection service in nominated urban
areas in addition to the existing weekly residual waste collection service.
That said, there is a clear desire of Councillors to consider further steps to remove
organics from the kerbside waste collection through expansion of the organics collection
service to Heathcote and other small towns, along with a further review of the frequency
of kerbside services within two years of the full service being rolled out.
Attachments
1. Kerbside Organics Exemption Policy
2. Compliance Policy
3. Proposed Service Area
RECOMMENDATION
That the Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to:
1. Introduce in 2016/17 a compulsory fortnightly kerbside organic collection service to
all households in urban Bendigo and Marong as generally described in this report
and at a net additional annual cost (in 2016 figures) of $63 to these households.
2. Include an exemption process for those properties where it can be demonstrated that
all organic material is being managed within the property and waive the annual
organic collection fee of $86 (based on full year charge for 2016/17) for such
properties.
3. Support the ongoing funding of activities nominated in the attached communication
and education plan (updated from time to time) including funding for a further two
years (from commencement of the full roll out) the position of Organics Project
Officer.
4. Where necessary, support undertaking compliance activities in accordance with
Councils adopted compliance policy to eliminate organics from the kerbside residual
waste stream.
5. Acknowledge the significant role that the residents in the trial areas have played in
shaping this major initiative for Greater Bendigos waste services.
PAGE 121
KERBSIDE ORGANICS EXEMPTION POLICY

Approval Date:
Review Date:
Author
Bridgette McDougall, Organics Project Officer
Responsible Director:
Darren Fuzzard, Presentation & Assets
1.
PURPOSE
This policy provides a rationale and framework for an equitable, transparent and consistent
approach to exemptions from the Kerbside Organics Collection Service undertaken by the City of
Greater Bendigo ('City'), so the community can be assured that standards are met.
2.
SCOPE
This policy applies to those residents within the City of Greater Bendigo organics collection zone.
3.
INTRODUCTION
Council Vision
Greater Bendigo Working together to be Australias most liveable regional city.
Council Values
Council wants the community to have reason to be proud of the city and will do this through:
Transparency Information about Council decisions is readily available and easily

understood;
City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2014-2017:Theme 1: Leadership and Good Governance
Strategic Objectives:
1.
4.
Council demonstrates leadership in its decisions and uses good governance principles to
guide decision-making.
Continuous improvement methods are used to ensure the standard of service delivery is
excellent.
Theme 5: Sustainability
PAGE 122
Strategic Objective:
5.
The level of waste to landfill is reduced and residual waste is managed responsibly, to
deliver the adopted waste management targets.
4.
POLICY
Key Principles
This policy and procedure recognises that whilst the Kerbside Organics Collection Service will be
rolled out as a mandatory service to all residential properties who receive a kerbside collection in
the nominated areas, an exemption process is required to cater for residents who can suitably
manage all organic material on-site.
Kerbside Organics Collection Exemption
An exemption from the kerbside organics collection service may be granted in the following
circumstance:
Residents, from the time of the collection service being implemented and continuing
thereafter, demonstrating that all organic material is effectively managed on the property.
Procedure
The following outlines the process in which an exemption must be made and considered:1.
An application must be made using the appropriate form and attaching supporting
documentation. Note: Applications must be made by the resident or by a person acting on
behalf of the resident, where the resident is unable to make an application for medical
reasons.
2.
The application must be submitted to the City of Greater Bendigo - Waste Services Unit for
consideration.
3.
A City of Greater Bendigo representative will assess the application and make a time to visit
the property to assess onsite the property process for dealing with food organics and garden
organics waste.
4.
Determination of whether an exemption will be granted. This will be based on the applicant
demonstrating that they have current and on-going alternative arrangements for the
treatment of food organics and garden organics waste.
5.
Notification to property owner in writing.
6.
Notification to the Rating & Valuation Services Unit.
Note:- Routine audits of receptacles of exempted properties will be conducted periodically.
PAGE 123
COMPLIANCE POLICY
Approval Date: 1 October 2014
Review Date:
1 October 2017
Author
Caroline Grylls, Coordinator Public Health &

Environment
Responsible Director:
Prue Mansfield, Planning & Development
1. Purpose
This policy provides a rationale and framework for an equitable, transparent and consistent
approach to compliance activities undertaken by the City of Greater Bendigo (City), so the
community can be assured that standards are met.
2. Scope
This policy applies to all employees undertaking compliance activities on behalf of the City of
Greater Bendigo.
3. Introduction
Council Vision
Greater Bendigo Working together to be Australias most liveable regional city.
Council Values
Council wants the community to have reason to be proud of the city and will do this through:
Transparency Information about Council decisions is readily available and easily
understood;
City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013-2017
Theme 1: Leadership and Good Governance - Strategic Objective
PAGE 124
1. Council demonstrates leadership in its decisions and uses good governance

principles to guide decision-making.
Regulation and associated compliance activities play a critical role in maintaining minimum
standards of civic behaviour particularly at the points where the behaviour and actions of
individuals intersects with, and impacts with others and the environment.
To be able to achieve minimum standards of civic behaviour, ensure public health and safety and
provide for the protection of the environment, compliance activities are a legislated and
necessary function of Local Government. Frequently Local Governments are required by
legislation to enforce acts and regulations established by State Government. The Citys own
Local Laws form a minor proportion of the total requirement of assurance and enforcement
activities.
In the absence of policy, compliance activities may be seen to be inconsistent and open to
influence. To satisfy the City of Greater Bendigos regulatory compliance requirements in an
equitable, transparent and consistent way this policy has been developed to assist all employees
involved in compliance activities; and to advise community members of the approach that will be
taken.
The current compliance and enforcement policy was adopted by Council in March 2012. Regular
review of the policy is essential to ensure that it reflects contemporary views and supports the
equitable, transparent and consistent approach to compliance activities that is its purpose.
4.
Policy
Key Principles
All compliance activities undertaken by the City of Greater Bendigo will:
be outcome based rather than punitive; i.e. fix the problem rather than issue a fine;
where appropriate, provide opportunity for timely and appropriate corrective action to be
taken;
The City of Greater Bendigo will act in the following order - inform, educate and provide warnings
before undertaking enforcement.
Compliance Priorities
Compliance activities can be classified as either proactive or reactive.
Proactive Compliance
Proactive compliance activities are usually a consequence of programmed inspections,
scheduled audits or experience.
PAGE 125
Reactive Compliance
Reactive compliance activities are usually a consequence of a complaint raised by a resident,
employee observations, or a Councillor on behalf of a resident.
While the origins of compliance priorities may vary, it is intended that the risk assessment
process will be applied consistently, without regard of the source.
Response
All compliance enforcement activities (i.e. prosecution or a fine) initiated by the City of Greater
Bendigo must be appropriately considered and be based on the key principles.
Only where it can be demonstrated that insufficient or untimely corrective action has been taken
by an offender will the City of Greater Bendigo initiate compliance enforcement activities.
Compliance enforcement activities will generally not be initiated unless:
all other means of achieving compliance have been exhausted;
there is sufficient evidence available to achieve successful prosecution;
legislation, regulation or risk requires enforcement activity be initiated
The City of Greater Bendigo will follow up or monitor the outcome.
Exemptions
A number of exemptions have been provided that allow for the City of Greater Bendigo to initiate
the most serious of compliance enforcement activities immediately. This includes, but is not
limited to:
immediate or likely life threatening situations;
permanent or irreversible damage to the natural or build environment;
immediate risk to public health, safety or wellbeing;
persons where a pattern/repeated instances of behaviour and failure to adequately fix the
problem, has been established;
parking infringements (which has its own policy for appeal and review);
debt collection (which has its own policy for appeal and review).
PAGE 126
PAGE 127
5.2
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL OF LOT 1 RAGLAN PLACE WEST,

AXEDALE
Author
Naomi Fountain, Strategic Property Analyst
Responsible
Director
Summary/Purpose
Lot 1 Raglan Place West, Axedale has been identified as potentially surplus.
This report documents the feedback provided by community members during public
engagement and makes recommendations as to the future of the property.
Policy Context
Council Plan 2013-2017 (2014-2015 Update)
Theme 5: Sustainability
5.1 Resources and assets are used wisely to reduce the environmental footprint.
5.1.5 Implement the Surplus Land Disposal Plan.
Community Engagement Policy (December 2011)
10 Year Financial Plan
Building Asset Management Plan (Draft)
Statutory and Discretionary Reserve Policy (November 2012)
Local Government Act 1989 (VIC)
Local Context
The City of Greater Bendigos Building and Property Services Unit manages a portfolio of
about 750 buildings and 100 structures. The land and buildings are valued in excess of
$302M.
PAGE 128
As part of the Citys Building Asset Management Plan, properties that may not meet the
current or future needs of the City are being investigated as potentially surplus. Not all
land identified as surplus needs to be sold. The options for disposal include alternative
use, rental, sale, or sale and lease-back1. Ongoing consultation and communication
will inform which method of disposal is recommended, on a case by case basis, informed
by community feedback.
Previous Council Decision Date:
4 November 2015: That Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to commence public
engagement to seek the view of the community in relation to the
potential disposal of 1 Raglan Place West, Axedale.
Report
Lot 1 Raglan Place West, Axedale was identified as potentially suitable for disposal in
the short term because it does not meet the Citys current or future needs. It is not
subject to the Council Plan, any Strategies, Township Structure Plans, Place Based Plan
or Reports.
Further particulars of the subject property:
Size:
10.48Ha
Zone:
Rural Living Zone
Use:
Not used as a public space. It is currently being used for grazing by

a private individual who is holding over on a grazing licence.
Council resolved to seek the communitys views both on the property and its potential
future use and possible disposal.
The Asset Management Principles Part 1 1995, Victorian Department of Treasury and
Finance
PAGE 129
The following public engagement has been undertaken in relation to this property:
November 2015 - 25 owners and occupiers of the adjoining and surrounding
properties along Raglan Place West, High Street, Shadforth Street and AxedaleGoornong Road were written to individually and notified of Councils wish to seek
their views on the future use of the property.
December 2015 - A listening post was undertaken. Cr Leach and Naomi Fountain
(Strategic Property Analyst) met with residents to seek and record their views. Other
conversations were also held with residents and their views recorded.
PAGE 130
February 2015 A letter was sent to each respondent listing the views that were
documented and providing an opportunity to amend any information that was missed
or misinterpreted. No responses were received in relation to this letter.
In total, face to face and/or telephone conversations were conducted with 11 local
residents. The views presented by the community are documented in the table below:
Lot 1 Raglan Place West, Axedale - Community Views Regarding Possible Future
Use
Community Feedback
Officer Response
The zoning on the property has been The zoning on this property has always been
changed.
consistent with the surrounding properties.
There has been no change of zoning. The
property is zoned Rural Living Zone.
The property was a mineral reserve.
The army used to quarry stone which
was transported by the railway before it
closed. The quarry ceased operations at
the end of WW2 and the army withdrew
from the site. The army may not have
cleaned up the site.
The property was purchased by the City of

Bendigo in May 1925 (91 years ago) from a
private owner. A Mineral Reserve is a term
that could be used in relation to Crown Land
and since this property has been in private
ownership for at least 92 years, it is not
Crown Land and could not have been
reserved for any purpose.
The Department of Defence has been
contacted and have no records of ever having
any dealings with this property.
The book titled Accent on Axedale2 page 25
states Riley, Brazier and Nelson opened a
quarry on ONeills property in about 1905
(this is the quarry on the subject property).
In 1925 H. Trench of Melbourne bought out
the Riley, Brazier and Nelson. Then also in
1925 Bendigo City Council took over the
quarry and put in a plant at Axedale Railway
Station (i.e. there was never a processing
plant on the subject property). The quarry
closed with the coming of the Depression of
1930.
It is suggested that at the time of the Great
Depression nothing of value would have been
left behind.
Environmental consultants advise that TNT
was a common explosive used in the late
1800s and early 1900s and that the chance of
any still being present in the soil is very low
Accent on Axedale published by the Centenary and Back to Axedale Committee in

1970 and reprinted in 2011 written by Ian G. W. Smith
PAGE 131
Use
Community Feedback
Officer Response
given that the explosion would have likely
destroyed the chemical or the chemical would
have been removed with the material blasted.
Aerial photography from Land Victorias Aerial
Photography Register has also been
searched and there is no change to the shape
of the disused quarry. The land has the same
contours now as it did in in 1945 and in 1961.
There was also no evidence of any structural
improvements upon the land in any of the
historic imagery.
The property, together with other Feedback noted.

privately owned properties to the north
of the town, provides a strategic fire
break for the town.
The property has been under grazing Feedback noted.
licence (not public use) for at least 50
years.
The Council has no good reason to hold Feedback noted.
onto the land.
How will Council guarantee the There is no requirement for the Council to
connection of power and other services make any guarantees. However, it is noted
to the property if it is sold?
that power could be connected by any future
users of the site.
All the stone worth taking has been Feedback noted.
taken and there is nothing left to quarry.
Can the property be sold to a mining
company like Fosterville Gold Mine Pty
Ltd, and could the land become an
active mine site?
It is possible for any land to be mined, subject

to the appropriate approvals. This property
was quarried for bluestone between 1905 and
1930 and not mined for minerals or gold.
PAGE 132
Use
Community Feedback
Officer Response
Could there be linkages between Lot 1

Raglan Place West and the land
purchased for the future Public Open
Space across from the school?
The Axedale Township Structure Plan does

not identify this as a future need or aspiration
of the town.
The land purchased for the future Public
Open Space (across from the school) is 3.9
hectares, in comparison Barrack Reserve in
Heathcote is 4.8 hectares in size.
There is an ample supply of Open Space
within Axedale, for example, the land used as
for tennis courts and as a golf course (42
hectares) and the land along the river
corridor.
If the property is sold can the proceeds Council will decide where funds are allocated.
be used to improve the Public Open
Space across from the school?
Part of the boundary fence was paid for Internal records (previous correspondence)
by the adjoining owner.
indicate that the City offered to pay half for the
boundary fence. However, there is no record
available to show whether or not the adjoining
owner claimed or was paid for half cost
fencing. (Financial records are only kept for 7
years).
This property would not be useable for Feedback noted.
the township, the township already has
public open space in use and set aside
for future use.
The road access is unmade.
Feedback noted.
The aerial below shows where Lot 1 Raglan Place West sits in relation to the main
township of Axedale. The subject property is less than 150 metres from the future
recreation reserve at 1 Raglan Street, the north western intersection of Raglan Street
and Mitchell Street, Axedale. The Council purchased 1 Raglan Street in August 2008 in
direct response to the local communitys Axedale Township Structure Plan that was
completed in 2008.
PAGE 133
Lot 1 Raglan Place West and 1 Raglan Street, Axedale
This property is zoned appropriately and could be sold immediately as a rural living site,
without power connected. The following process would be required:
Proceed to formal Public Notice, consultation period and feedback opportunities in
relation to the sale of the land.
If no submissions are received:
o Exit the licensee from the property;
o Develop a legal road connection to the property from Raglan Place West.
Cost to construct formal access to the property is approximately $10,000.
Balance of funds from any sale will be subject to Council decision, however, is likely to
go to the Land and Building Reserve.
Conclusion
Public engagement revealed a range of opinions. Of the residents who responded, some
suggested that it could be used as Public Open Space, but conceded that the land has
not been used for this purpose as the property has a locked gate to exclude all but the
current grazing licensee. A number of respondents suggested that the Council has no
reason to keep the property.
This property is less than 150 metres from 1 Raglan Street, Axedale that has been
purchased specifically to provide for the future Open Space needs of the township.
Options
1. The Council could retain the property; or
2. The Council could sell the property.
PAGE 134
RECOMMENDATION
1. That Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to sell Lot 1 Raglan Place West, Axedale
subject to Section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989;
(a)
That Council authorise public notice of its intention to sell the above property in
accordance with Section 189 of the Act, and advise engaged residents;
(b)
That Council nominate three Ward Councillors to hear any submissions in

relation to the sale of the above property;
2. If no submissions are received in relation to the proposed sale of Lot 1 Raglan Place
West, Axedale that Council resolve to:
(a)
Connect the property to Raglan Place West via the unmade road;
(b)
The above property be sold and that the Council authorise the Chief Executive
Officer to sign and seal all relevant sale documents; and
(c)
Any funds from the sale to be deposited into the Land and Building Reserve.
PAGE 135
Leadership and Good Governance - Reports
6.
LEADERSHIP AND GOOD GOVERNANCE
6.1
COUNCIL PLAN 2015-2016: SECOND QUARTER REPORT,

DECEMBER 2015
Author
Dr Lyn Talbot Corporate and Community Planner
Responsible
Director
Prue Mansfield, Planning and Development
Summary/Purpose
The purpose of this report is to provide a second quarter report on the 2015-2016 year of
the City of Greater Bendigo 2013-2017 Council Plan.
Policy Context
The Council Plan 2013-2017 was adopted by Council on 19 June 2013.
The basic structure of the 2013-2017 Council Plan (2015-2016 update) has remained the
same. The review process and activities to develop the 2015-2016 Plan have resulted in
refinements to the higher level statements, but no change in the core concepts.
The Council Plan identifies the key issues to be pursued by Council over the period
2013-2017 to address the communitys needs and aspirations and its own organisational
activities. The measurable commitments set out in the actions in the Council Plan are
based on the 2015-2016 year.
The Council Plan is based around five broad themes, each with a number of Strategic
Objectives and Strategies. Each Strategy has Actions that are relevant for the current
year. The five themes are:
1: Leadership and Good Governance
2. Planning for Growth
3: Presentation and Vibrancy
4. Productivity
5: Sustainability
In accordance with Section 125 of the Local Government Act 1989 regular reporting
about service delivery and performance is an obligation to Council and community
members.
PAGE 136
Conclusion
This second quarter report for the 2015-2016 financial year provides details of many new
projects and activities that are significantly progressed and others that have recently
commenced. A small of other initiatives outlined in the Council Plan have also yet to be
commenced, and a small number will not proceed because of budgetary constraints or
for other identified reasons.
Attachments
1.
Interplan report for the period 1 October 2015 to 31 December 2015.
RECOMMENDATION
That Greater Bendigo City Council acknowledges progress against the actions set out in
the 2015-2016 City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan.
PAGE 137
PAGE 138
PAGE 139
PAGE 140
PAGE 141
PAGE 142
PAGE 143
PAGE 144
PAGE 145
PAGE 146
PAGE 147
PAGE 148
PAGE 149
PAGE 150
PAGE 151
PAGE 152
PAGE 153
PAGE 154
PAGE 155
PAGE 156
PAGE 157
PAGE 158
PAGE 159
PAGE 160
PAGE 161
PAGE 162
PAGE 163
PAGE 164
PAGE 165
PAGE 166
PAGE 167
PAGE 168
PAGE 169
PAGE 170
PAGE 171
PAGE 172
PAGE 173
PAGE 174
PAGE 175
PAGE 176
PAGE 177
PAGE 178
PAGE 179
PAGE 180
PAGE 181
PAGE 182
6.2
RECORD OF ASSEMBLIES
Author
Peter Davies, Manager Executive Services
Responsible
Officer
Darren Fuzzard, A/Chief Executive Officer
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
Council demonstrates leadership in its decisions to meet future needs and challenges.
The Local Government Act provides a definition of an assembly of Councillors where
conflicts of interest must be disclosed.
A meeting will be an assembly of Councillors if it considers matters that are likely to be
the subject of a Council decision, or, the exercise of a Council delegation and the
meeting is:
1.
2.
A planned or scheduled meeting that includes at least half the Councillors (5) and a
member of Council staff; or
an advisory committee of the Council where one or more Councillors are present.
The requirement for reporting provides increased transparency and the opportunity for
Councillors to check the record, particularly the declarations of conflict of interest.
PAGE 183
Report
Meeting
Name/Type
Meeting Date
Matters discussed
Meeting Information
Residential Strategy Workshop
27 January 2016
1. Residential Strategy
Attendees/Apologies
Councillors
Cr Rod Fyffe
Cr Peter Cox
Cr Rod Campbell
Cr Helen Leach
Cr Barry Lyons
Cr Mark Weragoda
Cr James Williams
Apologies:
Cr Elise Chapman
Cr Lisa Ruffell
Staff/
Ms Prue Mansfield
Community
Mr Trevor Budge
Representatives
Mr Andrew Cockerall
Mrs Alison Campbell
Conflict of Interest disclosures
Matter Councillor/officer making disclosure
No.
Nil
PAGE 184
Councillor/officer left
meeting
Meeting
Name/Type
Meeting Date
Matters discussed
Meeting Information
Councillors' Forum
27 January 2016
1. Footpath standards in various locations
2. Tree management
3. Epsom Primary School
4. Security of playgrounds
5. Car parking on natures strips
6. Climate change
7. Policy on tree removal under powerlines and in-between
planting
8. Designated road reserve for the Allies Road to Huntly link
9. Australia Day events
10. Heathcote playground
11. Roundabout planting
12. Drug and alcohol forum
13. Tannery Lane bridge funding
14. Health Service Information Centre
15. Williamson Street reconstruction
16. Skate park
17. Mackenzie Street
18. Parks and fitness groups
19. Blackspot funding
20. Bus shelter in the Mall
21. Organics Waste Workshop
22. Greenaway
23. High Court Appeal
24. Minutes of previous meeting
Attendees/Apologies
Councillors
Cr Rod Fyffe
Cr Peter Cox
Cr Rod Campbell
Cr Helen Leach
Cr Barry Lyons
Cr Lisa Ruffell
Cr Mark Weragoda
Cr James Williams
Apology:
Cr Elise Chapman
Staff/
Mr Craig Niemann
Community
Ms Rachelle Quattrocchi
Representatives
Ms Kerryn Ellis
Ms Prue Mansfield
Ms Pauline Gordon
Mr Peter Davies
Mrs Alison Campbell
Apology:
Mr Darren Fuzzard
PAGE 185

No.
Nil
Meeting
Name/Type
Meeting Date
Matters discussed
meeting
Meeting Information
Governance Meeting
27 January 2016
1. Breach of confidentiality
2. Recruitment
3. Superannuation
4. Participation in Local Government sessions
5. Succession Planning
6. Hopley recycling
Attendees/Apologies
Councillors
Cr Rod Fyffe
Cr Peter Cox
Cr Rod Campbell
Cr Helen Leach
Cr Barry Lyons
Cr Lisa Ruffell
Cr Mark Weragoda
Cr James Williams
Apology:
Cr Elise Chapman
Staff/
Mr Craig Niemann
Community
Ms Kerryn Ellis
Representatives
Mr Peter Davies
Mrs Alison Campbell
No.
Nil
PAGE 186
meeting
Meeting
Name/Type
Meeting Date
Matters discussed
Meeting Information
Council Plan and Budget Workshop
2 February 2016
1. Council Plan
2. Budget overview
3. Key financial factors
4. Operating budget review by Directorate
Attendees/Apologies
Councillors
Cr Rod Fyffe
Cr Peter Cox
Cr Rod Campbell
Cr Elise Chapman
Cr Helen Leach
Cr Barry Lyons
Cr Lisa Ruffell
Cr James Williams
Apology:
Cr Mark Weragoda
Staff/
Mr Craig Niemann
Community
Mr Darren Fuzzard
Representatives
Ms Kerryn Ellis
Ms Prue Mansfield
Ms Pauline Gordon
Mr Travis Harling
Mr Richard Morrison
Mr Scott Evans
Mr Peter Davies
Mrs Alison Campbell
No.
Nil
PAGE 187
meeting
Meeting
Name/Type
Meeting Date
Matters discussed
Meeting Information
Councillors' Forum
3 February 2016
1. Planning matters and draft Ordinary Agenda review
2. Canterbury Park Social Pavilion
3. Potential disposal of property
4. Citizen's Panel
5. Budget
6. Marilyn Exhibition
7. Drug and alcohol forum
8. Sign writing permits
9. Future Employment Opportunities
10. Groundwater forum
11. Street dining
12. Health Services Information Centre
13. Road safety
Attendees/Apologies
Councillors
Cr Rod Fyffe
Cr Peter Cox
Cr Helen Leach
Cr Barry Lyons
Cr Mark Weragoda
Apologies:
Cr Rod Campbell
Cr Elise Chapman
Cr Lisa Ruffell
Cr James Williams
Staff/
Mr Craig Niemann
Community
Mr Darren Fuzzard
Representatives
Ms Kerryn Ellis
Ms Prue Mansfield
Ms Pauline Gordon
Mr Richard Morrison
Mr Scott Evans
Mr Andy Walker
Mr Peter Davies
No.
Nil
PAGE 188
meeting
Meeting
Name/Type
Meeting Date
Matters discussed
Meeting Information
Capital Works / Budget Workshop
10 February 2016
1. Budget update
2. Renewal program
3. Capital Works program
4. Borrowing
Attendees/Apologies
Councillors
Cr Rod Fyffe
Cr Peter Cox
Cr Rod Campbell
Cr Helen Leach
Cr Barry Lyons
Cr Lisa Ruffell
Cr Mark Weragoda
Cr James Williams
Apology:
Cr Elise Chapman
Staff/
Mr Craig Niemann
Community
Mr Darren Fuzzard
Representatives
Ms Kerryn Ellis
Ms Prue Mansfield
Mr Pat Jess
Mr Travis Harling
Mr Richard Morrison
Mr Andy Walker
Mr Peter Davies
Mrs Alison Campbell
No.
Nil
meeting
RECOMMENDATION
That Council endorse the record of assemblies of Councillors as outlined in this report.
PAGE 189
6.3
CONTRACTS AWARDED UNDER DELEGATION
Author
Lee Taig, Contract Support Administrator, Contract & Project

Coordination Unit
Responsible Kerryn Ellis, Director Organisation Support

Director
Summary/Purpose
The purpose of this report is to provide information on contracts recently awarded under
delegation.
Policy Context
Delivery of programs, projects and services that respond to community needs.
Report
Contract No
Project
Successful Contractor
Value
(GST Excl)
Delegated
Officer
Date Signed
Capital Contracts
CT000236
Supply and delivery one

(1) side loading
compactor
Bendigo Truck Centre
$336,401.01
Darren Fuzzard
CT000215
Supply of Native
Vegetation Credits
Coliban Region Water

Authority
$385,000.00
Stan Liacos
13/01/2016
Craig Niemann
13/01/2016
23/12/2015
Service Contracts
CT000161
Receival and
Processing of Kerbside
Organic Waste Material
Schedule of
Rates
Biomix Pty Ltd
Current annual Council Budget for the goods/services contracted via this schedule of rates is
$615,000.00
CT000221
Maintenance &
Servicing of Essential
Safety Measures Fire &
Access Services
Chubb
Fire
Security Pty Ltd
&
Schedule of
Rates
Prue Mansfield
21/01/2016
$240,000.00
PAGE 190
CT000222
Maintenance &
Servicing of Essential
Safety Measures
Electrical Services
Chubb
Fire
Security Pty Ltd
&
Schedule of
Rates
Prue Mansfield
21/01/2016
$240,000.00
RECOMMENDATION
That the contracts awarded under delegation, as outlined in this report, be acknowledged
by Council.
PAGE 191
6.4
ELECTION PERIOD POLICY
Author
Peter Davies, Manager, Executive Services
Responsible
Officer
Darren Fuzzard, A/Chief Executive Officer
Summary/Purpose
The purpose of this report is to ask Council to adopt the attached draft Election Period
Policy.
Policy Context
Council Plan Reference: Council demonstrates good governance and leadership.
Councils must comply with special arrangements during the election period in the leadup to a general election. Although not referred to in the Local Government Act 1989
(Act), this period is commonly known as the caretaker period and is observed by all
three tiers of government, although in relation to local government the caretaker
conventions were codified in 2008.
The provisions in the Act are intended to ensure that councils do not interfere with the
integrity or probity of the election process and also ensure that the Council does not take
action that will bind an incoming council.
Section 93B(1) of the Act requires the Council to prepare, adopt and maintain an election
period policy in relation to procedures to be applied by Council during the election period
for a general election.
Subsection (2) states that this must be done by 31 March 2016.
Report
The attached policy has been prepared in accordance with section 93B(1), (2) and (3) of
the Act which requires a council to prepare, adopt and maintain an election period policy
in relation to procedures to be applied by a council during the election period for a
general election by 31 March 2016 and, following the general election on 22 October
2016, continue to maintain the election period policy by reviewing and, if required,
amending the policy not later than 12 months before the commencement of each
subsequent general election period.
PAGE 192
The election period in relation to a general election means the period that starts on the
last day on which nominations for that election can be received and ends at 6p.m. on
election day.
The Election Period Policy applies to the Council, a special committee established by the
Council, and the Chief Executive Officer.
The Act, as reflected in the attached policy, regulates council activity in two ways: first, it
prohibits the Council from making certain types of decisions; and second, it requires that
materials produced by the Council must not contain matter that will affect voting at the
election.
The draft policy, therefore, includes the following(a) procedures intended to prevent the Council from making inappropriate decisions
or using resources inappropriately during the election period before a general
election;
(b) limits on public consultation and the scheduling of Council events; and
(c) procedures to ensure that access to information held by Council is made equally
available and accessible to candidates during the election
as required by subsection (3).
A copy of the Election Period Policy must be available for inspection by the public at the
Council office and any district office after it is adopted and also be published on the
Councils website: subsection (4).
There are no resource implications in Council adopting the draft Election Period Policy.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council adopts the attached draft Election Period Policy in accordance with section
93B(1) of the Local Government Act 1989.
PAGE 193
ELECTION PERIOD POLICY
Approval Date:
February 2016
Review Date:
Not later than 12 months

before the commencement of
each subsequent general
election period.
Author:
Executive Services
Responsible Officer:
Chief Executive
Relevant
Legislation/Authority
Local Government Act 1989
Background information about this document

This policy has been prepared in accordance with section 93B(1),(2) and (3) of the Local
Government Act 1989 which requires a council to prepare, adopt and maintain an election
period policy in relation to procedures to be applied by a council during the election period for
a general election by March 31st 2016 and, following the general election on October 22nd 2016,
continue to maintain the election period policy by reviewing and, if required, amending the
policy not later than 12 months before the commencement of each subsequent general election
period.
POLICY
Definitions
The following key words are used in this policyAct
Local Government Act 1989
Council
Greater Bendigo City Council
election period
in relation to a general election means the period that starts on the last day
on which nominations for that election can be received and ends at 6p.m.
on election day
major
policy means any decisiondecision
(a) relating to the employment or remuneration of the Chief Executive
Officer under section 94 of the Act, other than a decision to appoint
an acting Chief Executive Officer;
(b) to terminate the appointment of the Chief Executive Officer under
section 94 of the Act;
(c) to enter into a contract the total value of which exceeds whichever
is the greater of(i)
$100,000 or such higher amount as may be fixed by Order
PAGE 194
in Council under section 186(1) of the Act; or

(ii)
1% of the Councils revenue from rates and charges levied
under section 158 in the preceding financial year;
(d) to exercise any power under section 193 of the Act if the sum
assessed under section 193(5A) of the Act in respect of the
proposal exceeds whichever is greater of $100,000 or 1% of the
Councils revenue from rates and charges levied under section 158
in the preceding financial year.
inappropriate
decisions
means decisions made by the Council during an election period including

any of the following(a) decisions that would affect voting in an election; and
(b) decisions that could reasonably be made after the election
PURPOSE OF THIS POLICY

The purpose of this policy is to specify procedures intended to prevent the Council from making
inappropriate decisions or using resources inappropriately during the election period before a
general election; the limits on public consultation and the scheduling of Council events; and
procedures to ensure that access to information held by the Council is made equally available to
candidates during the election as required by section 93B(3) of the Act.
SCOPE
This Election Period Policy applies to the Council, a special committee established by the
Council, and the Chief Executive Officer.
INTRODUCTION
Councils must comply with special arrangements during the election period in the lead-up to a
general election. Although not referred to in the Act, this period is commonly known as the
caretaker period and is observed by all three tiers of government, although in relation to local
government the conventions were codified in 2008.
The provisions in the Act are intended to ensure that councils do not interfere with the integrity or
probity of the election process and also ensure that the authority of an incoming council is not
fettered by decisions made in respect of which it may find itself unreasonably bound and unable
to change. The latter can especially be an issue in relation to significant contractual matters.
The Act, therefore, regulates council activity in two ways: first, it prohibits councils from making
certain types of decisions; and second, it requires that materials produced by councils must not
contain matter that will affect voting at the election.
The election (or caretaker) period commences 32 days before an election. The business of the
Council continues throughout this period. This policy seeks to ensure that the Council does not
take action that will bind a future council.
COUNCIL ACTIVITIES
The Council, a special committee of the Council, or a person acting under delegation given by
the Council, must not make a major policy decision during the election period for a general
election.
A major policy decision made during the election period in contravention of this statutory
prohibition is invalid.
PAGE 195
If the Council considers that there are extraordinary circumstances which require the making of a
major policy decision during the election period, the Council may apply in writing to the Minister
for an exemption from the application of this prohibition to the major policy decision specified in
the application.
During the election period, reports for the consideration of Council will be referred to the Chief
Executive Officer for approval before inclusion on the meeting agenda.
COMMUNICATIONS
During the election period before a general election, the City of Greater Bendigo must not print,
publish or distribute any advertisement, handbill pamphlet or notice, including electronic media,
unless it has been certified, in writing, by the Chief Executive Officer.
The certification from the Chief Executive Officer cannot be delegated to another person.
The Chief Executive Officer must not intentionally or recklessly certify an electoral advertisement,
handbill pamphlet or notice during the election period unless such information is confined to the
electoral process itself.
During the election period, a councillor or City employee must not intentionally or recklessly print,
publish or distribute or cause, permit or authorise to be printed, published or distributed an
electoral advertisement, handbill pamphlet or notice on behalf of, or in the name of, the Council
or on behalf of, or in the name of, a councillor using Council resources if the electoral
advertisement, handbill, pamphlet or notice has not been certified by the Chief Executive Officer.
The City must not at any time print, publish or distribute an advertisement, handbill, pamphlet or
notice containing electoral matter unless the name and address of the person who authorised it
appears at its end.
For the above purposes, electoral matter is defined as matter which is intended or likely to
affect voting in an election by containing an express or implicit reference to, or comment on The election
A candidate in the election
An issue submitted to or otherwise before voters in connection with the election
Material is considered electoral matter if, for example, it
Publicises the strengths or weaknesses of a candidate

Advocates the policies of the Council or a candidate
Responds to claims made by a candidate; and
Publicises the achievement of the Council
The type of material subject to the certification process advertisement, handbill pamphlet or
notice- is interpreted broadly for the purposes of this policy as documents produced for
communicating with people in the community, including:
City newsletters, including e-newsletters

City website
Advertisements and notices
Media releases
Leaflets and brochures
Mail-outs to multiple addresses
Social media postings
PAGE 196
The City website may retain material placed on the website before the commencement of the
election period.
At the commencement of the election period, the Council should review the material published or
distributed on bulletin boards, the internet and email systems to ensure that it could not be seen
as promoting candidate-related content or singularise the achievement or views of an individual
councillor standing for re-election.
This policy affirms the application of the Councillor Code of Conduct and the Councillor Media
Policy in relation to the use of media, including social media, during the election period.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND SCHEDULING OF COUNCIL EVENTS
Unless the subject of public consultation or a Council event relates to a matter constituting a
major policy decision, public consultation and Council events, including ordinary meetings of the
Council, will be scheduled during the election period.
ACCESS TO INFORMATION
All candidates should have equal access to support and information during the election period.
Sitting councillors, therefore, who stand for re-election cannot use their current position to gain
access to information or resources that would not be available to a non-sitting candidate. To do
so would constitute a misuse of position. The procedure for handling complaints about a
councillor will apply here in the first instance.
REVIEW
This policy must be reviewed and, if required, amended not later than 12 months before the
commencement of each general election period after the 2016 general election.
RELATED POLICIES OR PROCEDURES
Councillor Media Policy
Councillor Code of Conduct
PAGE 197
6.5
FINANCE REPORT AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2015 AND MID-YEAR

BUDGET REVIEW 2015-2016
Author
Travis Harling, Manager Finance
Responsible
Director
Kerryn Ellis, Director Organisation Support
Summary/Purpose
To provide Council with:
1. An analysis of the financial position of the City of Greater Bendigo (CoGB) for the
financial year to 31 December 2015.
2. A review of the forecast financial position as at 30 June 2016.
Policy Context
City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013-2017 (2015/16 Update):
Theme: 1
Leadership and good governance
Strategic Objective: 1
Council demonstrates leadership in its decisions to meet

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

decision-making
In accordance with Section 138 of the Local Government Act 1989:
At least every 3 months, the Chief Executive Officer must ensure that a statement
comparing the budgeted revenue and expenditure for the financial year with the
actual revenue and expenditure to date is presented to the Council at a Council
meeting which is open to the public.
A review of the 31 December 2015 result and 30 June 2016 forecast was undertaken by
CoGBs Finance Committee on 17 February 2016.
Report
This report provides an update on the financial performance in comparison to the
adopted budget for the 2015/16 financial year. The report also provides a financial
forecast to 30 June 2016, together with an analysis and recommendations.
PAGE 198
1. Actual Year to Date Financial Performance (01/07/2015 - 31/12/2015)

CoGB's operating result for the first half of the financial year is $6,968,665 unfavourable
to budget as at 31 December 2015.
Operating Result - YTD Actual vs YTD Budget
The Operating Result is a measure for accounting for an organisation's profit or loss for a
given period. An Operating Result recognises all revenue and operating expenditure; it
includes non-cash expenditure such as depreciation and non-cash revenue of donated
assets.
YTD Budget
31/12/2015
$57,226,253
YTD Actual
31/12/2015
$50,257,588
Variance
$6,968,665 Unfavourable
The Income Statement for the period 01/07/2015 31/12/2015 is presented below:
Operating Income Statement - City of Greater Bendigo

As at 31 December 2015
Actual 30
June
Annual
Budget
YTD
Budget
YTD
Actual
2015
2016
2016
2016
$'000
$'000
$'000
$'000
YTD Variance
$'000
REVENUE
Rates and Charges
93,611
99,421
99,069
99,642
573
User Charges, Fees and Fines
27,439
26,851
13,392
14,620
1,228
9%
9,550
7,336
3,943
2,631
(1,311)
-33%
15,958
11,391
0%
439
1,349
84
21
(63)
-75%
Contributions - Cash
Contributions - Non Monetary Assets
Reimbursements
Government Grants - Operating
1%
41,790
25,255
15,951
8,909
(7,042)
-44%
Government Grants - Capital and Major
3,530
14,171
3,975
3,383
(592)
-15%
Interest on Investments
1,883
1,534
612
572
(41)
-7%
11,874
12,151
277
2%
91
(113)
0%
194,294
187,195
148,900
141,929
(6,972)
-5%
Employee Benefits
55,108
56,938
28,667
28,579
88
0%
Contract Payments, Materials and Services
80,369
61,022
30,960
31,124
(165)
-1%
Other Revenue (Inc. Internals)

Share of Other Comprehensive Income of
Associates Accounted for by the Equity Method
Total Revenue
EXPENSES
Plant and Equipment Operating Expenses

Depreciation / Amortisation
Borrowing Costs
Net Loss on Disposal of Property, Plant,
5,742
4,287
3,224
4,400
(1,176)
-36%
28,504
29,743
14,872
14,915
(43)
0%
1,639
1,735
897
882
15
2%
11,928
3,000
1,500
20
1,480
99%
Infrastructure and Assets Held for Sale

Other Expenses (incl Internals)
312
11,523
11,711
(188)
-2%
Bad Debts
194
130
32
39
(7)
-22%
183,796
156,855
91,674
91,670
0%
10,498
30,340
57,226
50,258
(6,968)
-12%
Net asset revaluation increments
35,601
0%
Comprehensive Result
46,099
30,340
57,226
50,258
(6,968)
-12%
Total Expenses
Operating Result
Other Comprehensive Income
PAGE 199
Major variances that contribute to the unfavourable result include:

Area
Fav / (Unfav)
Main Contributing Factors
Government
Grants
Operating
Unfavourable
Timing in receiving grants

commission funding of $7.4M.
Budgeted for in 2016-17 but
received in advance in the 2015-16
financial year.
(7,400,000)
Contributions
Cash
Unfavourable
The timing for receiving capital

contributions of $722,190 for the
Street Lighting Upgrade Project and
$1.5M for the Bendigo Stadium
(both received in 2015-16). This
unfavourable variance is partially
offset by receiving unbudgeted
blackspot funding.
(1,773,000)
Favourable
Higher childcare utilisation rates and

higher utilisation of the Ulumbarra
Theatre than included in the budget.
1,228,000
User
Charges,
Fees and
Fines
Cash Result - YTD Actual vs YTD Budget

CoGB's cash result for the first half of the financial year is $751,456 unfavourable to
budget as at 31 December 2015.
The Cash Result takes the Operating Result and removes non cash transactions. It also
includes Capital Works expenditure, loan repayments, new loan drawdowns and
Reserve transfer movements.
YTD Budget
31/12/2015
YTD Actual
31/12/2015
Variance
$58,460,349
$57,708,893
$751,456 unfavourable
Major Variances that reduce the operating deficit of $6,968,665 to the above cash result
include:
Area
Fav / (Unfav)
Details
Cost of Asset
Write offs
Unfavourable
Timing in processing asset write

offs compared to budget,
historically undertaken later in the
financial year.
(1,499,402)
Capital Works
Favourable
Timing of works completed is less

than the year to date budget.
877,082
Reserve
Transfers
Favourable
Net Reserve transfers are

favourable, linked directly to timing
of receiving Grants Commission
funding, recognised above in
Government Grant Operating
explanation.
PAGE 200
6,747,189
2. Forecast Performance (01/07/2015 31/12/2015)

The mid-year forecast for 31 December 2015, is reported in the same format as the year
to date actual comparison to budget, operating and rate results.
Operating Result - Forecast v Annual Budget
Annual Budget
30/06/2016
Forecast
30/06/2016
Surplus
Surplus
$30,340,291
$36,186,614
Variance
$5,821,323 Favourable
Major variances that contribute to the forecast favourable operating result include:
Area
Fav / (Unfav)
Details
Government
Grants
Operating
Unfavourable
Timing in receiving Grants

Commission funding of $7.4M.
Budgeted for in 2016-17 but
received in advance in the 2015-16
financial year.
Major Projects
Revenue
Favourable
Received unbudgeted grant and

interest $2.7M for the Ulumbarra
Theatre, partially offset by major
capital expenditure
1,656,215
Capital Grant
State
Government
Favourable
Expecting to receive $5M

unbudgeted funding for the Greater
Bendigo Indoor Aquatic Leisure
and Wellbeing Centre.
5,611,335
Capital Grant
Commonwealth
Government
Favourable
Additional $1.36M roads to

recovery funding.
1,857,455
Contributions
Capital Works
Favourable
Unbudgeted funding for the

blackspot program.
3,179,817
(7,400,000)
Cash Result - Forecast v Annual Budget

Annual Budget
30/06/2016
Forecast Result
30/06/2016
Surplus
Surplus
$118,572
$2,226,237
PAGE 201
Variance
$2,082,665 Favourable
Major variances that contribute to the favourable result include:

Area
Fav / (Unfav)
Details
Capital
Works
Unfavourable
Includes 2014-15 Carried Forward

$6M. Blackspot $3.5M and Roads to
Recovery $1.3M which is offset by
$8.2M of works being carried forward
to 2016-17 for completion.
Reserve
Transfer
Favourable
Grants Commission funding received in

2014-15 has been transferred back
from reserves. Transfer of $4.6M to
reserve for the unbudgeted grant
received for the Greater Bendigo
Indoor Aquatic Leisure and Wellbeing
Centre.
(4,560,528)
1,157,507
3. Progressive Cash Surplus/Deficit Summary

The cash result must be managed on an ongoing basis rather than annually, as the
impact from previous year's results, will affect the following year's budget. With this in
mind the table below shows:
Annual Budget
Surplus/(Deficit)
Forecast Result
Surplus/(Deficit)
Accumulated Surplus Carried Forward

30/06/15
$3,756,115
$3,756,115
Carried Forward Capital Work Projects

from 2014-15
($3,955,843)
Grants received in 2014-15 not spent at

30 June 2015, that relate directly to
projects in 2014-15
($1,695,003)
$118,572
$2,226,237
Capital Projects identified at 31/12/15 as

requiring Carry Forward into 2016-17
($3,856,271)
Grants Received in 2015-16 relating to

2016-17
($260,000)
Forecast Accumulated Surplus/(Deficit)

Carried Forward 30/06/16
($1,776,159)
$1,866,081
2016 Cash Result
The Forecast Cash Result reports a $1,866,081 surplus by year end.
PAGE 202
4. Mid-Year Budget Requests

The following requests for additional funds have been received and are presented for
Council consideration:
Project
Community Access and
Inclusion Program
Details
Current program of initiatives is being
implemented through the State
Government Rural Access Program. No
additional funds required in 2015-16.
Ironbark Gully Trail
Progressing planning of the Ironbark

Gully Trail. Total cost is $20,000 with a
$9,000 contribution from RENEW.
(11,000)
Bendigo Spirit
Additional funds for Bendigo Spirit so that

they may meet their annual operating
costs more adequately and ensure the
financial viability of the club.
(25,000)
Bendigo Athletics centre

Track
Assessment being undertaken with final

report expected in May 2016. No
additional funds required in 2015-16.
Relocation of Bendigo
Early Learning Centre
Costs for removal and relocation of the

Bendigo Early Learning Centre $25,000
transfer from Reserve.
Bendigo Creek Levee

investigation
Funds committed by Council to progress

flood management investigation in cost
sharing arrangement with DELWP.
Proactive tree
maintenance
Additional funds to effectively manage the

urban tree population.
(280,000)
Citizens Jury
Provision for an independent jury process

for the 2017-2021 Council Plan.
(30,000)
Swimming Pool renewal

works
Additional funds due to unforeseen works

associated with toddlers pool at the
Bendigo Aquatic Centre.
(150,000)
Marong Business Park

legal costs
Additional funds to cover legal costs

associated with the Marong Business
Park.
Building and Property

maintenance
Additional funds to maintain facilities and

increase in Services contracts and
Essential Safety Measures.
(180,000)
Water for grading

unsealed roads
Additional funds for water due to drought

conditions and lack of water availability.
(200,000)
Northern Victorian
Emergency
Management Cluster
project
Funding to support Project Managers role

as support from the Senior Reference
Group (five participating councils
providing funding).
PAGE 203
(50,000)
(90,000)
(10,063)
The Finance Committee at its meeting on 17 February, 2016 reviewed the Financial
Forecast and mid-year budget requests. The Finance Committee recommends that
Council:
Allocate $11,000 to progress planning of the Ironbark Gully Trail

Allocate $25,000 for the Bendigo Spirit
Approve the transfer of funds ($25,000) from the Land and Buildings Reserve, and
expenditure of same, for the relocation of the Bendigo Early Learning Centre
Allocate $50,000 as the Citys contribution to the Bendigo Creek Levee flood
management investigation
Allocate $280,000 for proactive tree maintenance
Allocate $30,000 for the establishment of a citizens jury
Allocate $150,000 for swimming pool renewal works
Allocate $90,000 for legal costs associated with the Marong Business Park
Allocate $180,000 for building and property maintenance
Allocate $200,000 for water for the grading of unsealed roads
Allocate $10,063 for the Northern Victorian Emergency Management Cluster Project
Manager
The recommendation of the Finance Committee, results in the following adjusted

Forecast Cash Surplus of $810,018:
Forecast Accum. Deficit 30/06/16

prior to Mid-Year Review
Annual Budget
Surplus/(Deficit)
($1,776,159)
Inclusion of Mid-Year Requests

- Ironbark Gully Trail planning
- Bendigo Spirit
- BELC Relocation Reserve transfer
- Bendigo Creek Levee investigation
- Proactive Tree Maintenance
- Citizens Jury
- Outdoor Dining
- Swimming pool renewal work
- Marong Business Park legal costs
- Building & Property maintenance
- Water for grading unsealed roads
- Northern Victorian emergency
management cluster project
Forecast Accum. Surplus 30/06/16
Forecast Result
Surplus/(Deficit)
$1,866,081
(11,000)
(25,000)
(25,000)
(50,000)
(280,000)
(30,000)
(5,000)
(150,000)
(90,000)
(180,000)
(200,000)
(10,063)
$822,743
$810,018
Conclusion
The Finance Committee has reviewed the Statement comparing Budgeted and Actual
Revenues and Expenses to 31 December 2015, and the Financial forecast for 2015/16.
Having undertaken the review, the Finance Committee recommends that Council
approve changes to the budget to fund the mid-year budget requests as listed.
PAGE 204
RECOMMENDATION
That the Greater Bendigo City Council:
1. Receive the Statement comparing Budgeted and Actual Revenues and Expenses to
31 December 2015, in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government
Act.
2. Endorse the recommendation of the Finance Committee at its meeting on 17
February, 2016 to allocate $90,000 for legal costs associated with the Marong
Business.
3. Endorse the recommendation of the Finance Committee at its meeting on 17
February, 2016 to:
a. Allocate $11,000 to progress planning of the Ironbark Gully Trail
b. Allocate $25,000 for the Bendigo Spirit
c. Approve the transfer of funds ($25,000) from the Land and Buildings Reserve,
and expenditure of same, for the relocation of the Bendigo Early Learning Centre
d. Allocate $50,000 as the Citys contribution to the Bendigo Creek Levee flood
management investigation
e. Allocate $280,000 for proactive tree maintenance
f. Allocate $30,000 for the establishment of a citizens jury
g. Allocate $150,000 for swimming pool renewal works
h. Allocate $180,000 for building and property maintenance
i. Allocate $200,000 for water for the grading of unsealed roads
j. Allocate $10,063 for the Northern Victorian Emergency Management Cluster
Project Manager.
PAGE 205
6.6
PROPOSED CITIZENS JURY AS THE FIRST STEP TO THE COUNCIL

PLAN FOR THE NEW COUNCIL
Author and
Responsible
Director
Summary/Purpose
This report recommends undertaking an independent Citizens' Jury process during 2016
to provide independent community input into:
The development of the next Council Plan.
Understanding better what the community as a whole wants to see as the key focus
and priorities for the City in the period 2017-2021
and have evidence for Council, the community and Essential Services Commission that
we understand community priorities.
Policy Context
Council Plan 2013-2017 (2015-2016 Update)
Council set two priorities for the 2013-2017 chapter in Greater Bendigo's history, one of
which is:
Completing detailed planning in important areas including transport, residential and
economic development, in preparation for the continued increase in population.
Theme 1 - Leadership & Good Governance
1.1
Good governance principles are used to guide strategic decision-making:

1.1.4 Plan for the 2016 Council elections and the induction and training of
Councillors following the election.
1.4
Community engagement strategies and methods are adapted and updated to

improve how the community can receive information in an accessible form and
provide feedback to Council.
Background
The new Council Plan must be submitted by 30 June 2017. If the Council Plan
development doesn't start until after the election, allowing enough time for the work of
committed engagement and listening by June 2017 will be as challenging for the
incoming Council as it was for the current Council.
In developing the community engagement guidelines, the Council sets out to use new,
contemporary methods of community engagement. A "Citizens' Jury" is one such model.
PAGE 206
Using this technique during 2016 will provide clear and considered advice to the
incoming Council as it deliberates on setting priorities for its term of office.
In addition, if the new Council want to propose a rate increase above the cap, it will need
to demonstrate it has sought the community's view and considered it. This Citizens' Jury
process would meet that requirement.
Report
Citizens' juries are a reasonably new model of engagement in Australia.
The goal is for more people to have more confidence in more decisions of Council into
the future, because "people who look like me and are not part of the establishment" have
made these recommendations.
This goal is achieved by the way the panel is established and the process conducted.
The process is run independently. newDemocracy is a foundation that has considerable
experience in this field, who would be engaged to run the process. City staff provide
logistic, event and administrative support to the process.
newDemocracy finalise the details independently, but the key features include:
Invitations are sent to a large, randomly selected group of people, explaining the task,
commitment and process to them. People are invited to express interest in being
involved.
From those that express interest, random selection of about 26 people is made
(based on population size) and aligned with the demographic profile, (because of the
nature of our municipality, 15% of places would be reserved for people who live
outside the Bendigo urban area).
Jury members are provided with the background information (briefing book) required.
Submissions are sought from other interested people. These are provided as part of
the briefing book.
Jury members come together for 6 days over about 10 weeks to deliberate. These
days are run by an independent facilitator.
The Jury can seek specialist advice or information from whoever they agree to.
Most juries agree an issue needs "super-majority" - 80%, for any recommendation to
be supported.
The Jury provides a final report to the Council.
The whole process takes about 6 to allow for the selection process and for the
community members involved to receive, absorb and deliberate on the question.
As Councillors will recall from their discussion in developing the community engagement
policy and guidelines, two of the most important steps are:
1. What is the question for which Council is seeking an answer?
2. What does the Council commit to do with that answer?
The advice from newDemocracy is that for a Citzens' Jury to be effective, the question
needs to be something that the Council and community is grappling with, a hard question
and reasonably specific. In discussion with them, the proposed question could be:
PAGE 207
"Can we accommodate the growth of our City without increasing the rates
beyond the rate cap?"
Or
"Is Council spending your money on the right things?"
If Council proceeds with this proposal, the question would be finalised in discussion with
newDemocracy.
Some would question whether it is effective to conduct this process now as the current
Council cannot commit to implementing the outcomes.
Given:
In most elections, some Councillors are returned so there is continuity;
It will provide very useful information and input to the new Council;
Given the timing of the election and Christmas, if the Jury was not started until after
the election, it would have to run from about February to July. This is too late for the
recommendations to be used by the new Council in adopting the new 4 year Council
Plan;
it is recommended the process be conducted from March to August 2016.
In this circumstance, the following commitments of the current Council are
recommended:
That the full report is made available for their information;
That the full report is made publically available when received;
The Jury is invited to present its findings to the current Council;
That the full report is made available to the incoming Council.
It will be recommended that the incoming Council:
Invites the Jury to present their recommendations as part of their induction.
Provides a formal response to the Jury and the general community on its acceptance
(or otherwise) of each of the recommendations.
Input from Others to the Jury Process
Once the question has been settled and the process started, input is invited from the
broader community through inviting submissions, online comments, media and Greater
Bendigo News.
In addition, anyone can attend the sessions when the jury is deliberating, as observers.
Any questions or comments from the observers are recorded for the jury to consider.
In-house resources required are estimated to be:
3.0EFT for 4 weeks, peaking at the beginning of the process, but spread over the
duration of the project;
Provision of venues
Graphic design of invitations.
PAGE 208
It is estimated that approximately $89,000 would be required for:
Independent facilitator(s)
Per day rate for participants
Research fee to newDemocracy
Other support.
As there is no budget allocation for this project, it would be an over-expenditure of

$30,000 in this financial year (included in the mid-year budget review) and approximately
$58,000 in the 2016/2017 financial year (which is included in draft budget).
Conclusion
An independently facilitated Citizens' Jury process is an innovative approach to involving
our community in the future direction of the City. It will make a significant contribution to
the vision of "Greater Bendigo - working together to be Australia's most liveable regional
city" by building confidence that Councillors are listening to the views of a broad range of
our residents.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Greater Bendigo City Council resolve:
1. To undertake an independent Citizens' Jury process, to commence as soon as
practical;
2. That the full report is made available to the current Council for their information;
3. That the full report is made publically available when received;
4. That the Jury will be invited to present its findings to the current Council;
5. That the full report is made available to the incoming Council.
PAGE 209
7.
URGENT BUSINESS
Nil.
PAGE 210
8.
8.1
NOTICES OF MOTION
NOTICE OF MOTION: HOPLEY RECYCLING
CR ELISE CHAPMAN
That Council will allow Hopley Recycling to occupy the former White Hills Landfill site
until it makes a decision on the future long term use of the site, on the following
conditions.
1.
That Hopley Recycling reduce its stock piles as per the relocation plan provided
by Hopley Recycling, this is not to go to landfill.
2.
If Council decide the future use is not compatible with Hopley Recycling's current
use then Hopley Recycling must be off the site by 31 August 2016.
3.
That Councillors and staff meet with representatives of EPA and DEPI to discuss
the future use and potential sub-lease of the former White Hills landfill site.
Officer comment (Darren Fuzzard, A/Chief Executive Officer)

Council is advised that the testing required for the Hydrological Assessment and Landfill
Gas Risk Assessment is expected to conclude earlier than originally planned due to
favourable conditions for monitoring. This will allow the consultant to collate and review
the entire data set and prepare the written report in early April. The reports will then be
reviewed by our lawyer under 'Legal Privilege' before (and after) being forwarded for
assessment by our EPA approved Environmental Auditor (expected 4 week process).
The final reports will then be submitted to the EPA by 31 May 2016.
A confidential briefing from our
Councillors on the results and
being submitted to the EPA. It
will advise if satisfied to sign off
undertake further works.
Lawyer can be arranged for mid to late April to advise

recommendations contained within the reports prior to
is expected that after consideration of reports, the EPA
on the proposed rehabilitation plan or require the City to
PAGE 211
PAGE 212
9.
COUNCILLORS' REPORTS
10.
MAYOR'S REPORT
11.
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT
12.
CONFIDENTIAL (SECTION 89) REPORTS
Nil.
PAGE 213

Council Agenda

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Council Agenda

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

AGENDA

Ordinary Meeting of Council

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

Transparency - Information about Council decisions is readily available and easily

Planning for Growth

Presentation and Vibrancy

Leadership and Good Governance

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS

DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

PETITIONS AND JOINT LETTERS

PLANNING FOR GROWTH

42 Milroy Street, Bendigo - Construct Second Dwelling on

66 Kirkwood Road, Eaglehawk - Construction of Second

575 Sedgwick Road, Sedgwick - Use and Development of

1 Arlington Court, Maiden Gully - Subdivide Land into 2

Intensive Animal Industries Advisory Committee

Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy and Adoption of

PRESENTATION AND VIBRANCY

Greater Bendigo Municipal Early Years Plan (2015-2018)

Proposed Changes in the Outdoor Dining System

Proposed Kerbside Organics Service for Urban Residents

Potential Disposal of Lot 1 Raglan Place West, Axedale

LEADERSHIP AND GOOD GOVERNANCE

Council Plan 2015-2016: Second Quarter Report,

Contracts Awarded Under Delegation

Election Period Policy

Finance Report as at 31 December 2015 and Mid-Year

Proposed Citizens Jury as the First Step to the Council

NOTICE OF MOTION: Hopley Recycling

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT

CONFIDENTIAL (SECTION 89) REPORTS

Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS

Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016

DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

direct financial interest

Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016

Petition: Empire Road and Lancashire Road, Long Gully

COUNTRY FIRE AUTHORITY MANDATORY CONDITION (SUBDIVISION)

Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016

PETITIONS AND JOINT LETTERS

Planning for Growth - Reports

Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016

PLANNING FOR GROWTH

42 MILROY STREET, BENDIGO - CONSTRUCT SECOND DWELLING

Lachlan Forsyth, Statutory Planner

Prue Mansfield, Director Planning & Development

Construct second dwelling on a lot, subdivide land into 2 lots,

Penno Drafting & Design

42 Milroy Street, BENDIGO

General Residential Zone

Heritage Overlay 841

19 November 2015 attended by Councillors Cox and

Whether the proposal accords with Planning Scheme

Planning for Growth - Reports

Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016

Planning Scheme policy and the General Residential Zone

Planning for Growth - Reports

Ordinary Meeting - 02 March 2016

* Broadcast live on Phoenix FM 106.7 *