AGENDA Ordinary Meeting of Council 6.00pm Wednesday 12 October 2016 *** Broadcast live on Phoenix FM 106.7 ** Question time at the formal Council Meeting will be limited to written questions received before 12 noon on the day of the meeting. The questions will be read by a Council representative and answered by the Mayor. There will not be an opportunity for questions to be asked from the floor. Reception Room, Bendigo Town Hall, Hargreaves Street, Bendigo INSTALLATION OF COUNCILLORS: Monday 7 November 2016 Bendigo Town Hall (6.00pm) SPECIAL MEETING: Tuesday 15 November 2016 Bendigo Town Hall (7.30pm) NEXT ORDINARY MEETING: Wednesday 16 November 2016 Bendigo Town Hall (6.00pm) Copies ofthe Cly of Greater Bendigo Counci's Agendas & Minutes «an be abiained one ax Www. bendigo.vic.gov.au PAGE 1This Council Meeting is conducted in accordance with Local Law No. 8. It is an offence for any person to engage in improper or disorderly conduct at the meeting. Council Vi 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 Planning for Growth Presentation and Vibrancy Productivity Sustainability Leadership and Good Governance gees PAGE 2ORDINARY MEETING WEDNESDAY 12 OCTOBER 2016 ORDER OF BUSINESS: ITEM PRECIS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY PRAYER PRESENT APOLOGIES ‘SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS PUBLIC QUESTION TIME RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS CR LEACH’S REPORT DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 1. ANNUAL REPORT 2015/2016 44 City 0 Greater Bendigo Annual Report 2015/2016 2. MAYOR'S REPORT FOR 2015/2016 3. RECOGNITION OF RETIRING COUNCILLORS: 34 Recognition o Retiring Councillors 4. PETITIONS AND JOINT LETTERS 44 Petition: Request t Reopen Closed Section o Campaspe Street, Elmore PLANNING FOR GROWTH 54 Adopt Planning Scheme Amendment C212 - Corrections Amendment 52 16 Marshall Crescent, Heathcote - Subdivide Land into 3 Lots and Creation of Common Property 53 11 Hall Street, Eagl Outbuildings 1awk - Demolition of Dwelling and PAGE 15 15 18 18 19 19 33 PAGES54 55 56 61 62 63 64 65 72 73 74 ot 92 93 94 95 96 9.10 10. 19 Forbes Court, North Bendigo - Variation to Restricti Covenant (Single Dwelling Restriction), Construction of ‘Two Dwellings and Two Lot Subdivision 41 Alexander Road, Junortoun (Lot 3 of PS 649236 A) - Approval of a Development Plan; Removal of Covenant; and Subdivision of Land into 8 Lots Strathfieldsaye Town Centre Urban Design Framework - ‘Community Consultation Proposal for a Memorial to Daryl Mcclure PRESENTATION AND VIBRANCY Outdoor Seasonal Pools End of Season Report Annual Summary of Operations - Bendigo and Heathcote ‘Tourism Visitor Information Centres 2015/2016 Annual Summary of Operations - Capital Venues and Events 2015/2016 Annual Summary of Operations - Bendigo Art Gallery 2015/2016 State Government Funding Changes for Disal Inclusion PRODUCTIVITY Bendigo Small Business Festival 2016 Annual Summary of Operations: Bendigo Airport 2015/16 Annual Report - Bendigo Livestock Exchange 2015/16 Annual Report - Works Unit 2015/16 ‘SUSTAINABILITY LEADERSHIP AND GOOD GOVERNANCE Audit Com fee Chairperson's Annual Report 2015/16 2015/16 Annual Report - Goldfields Library Corporation 2018/16 Annual Report - Bendigo Stadium Ltd Women Showing the Way Forum 2016 Record of Assemblies Contracts Awarded Under Delegation cit ens Jury - Final Report URGENT BUSINESS 51 60 73 79 82 82 88 96 102 107 112 112 115 420 4125 434 132 432 135 145 150 154 161 162 188 PAGE 41. 12. 13, 14, 15. NOTICES OF MOTION COUNCILLORS' REPORTS MAYOR'S REPORT CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORT CONFIDENTIAL (SECTION 89) REPORTS CRAIG NIEMANN CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 188 188 188 188 188 PAGESOrdinary Meeting - 12 October 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 lodge written questions of broad interest to Council and the community. Matters relating to routine Council works should be taken up with Counci’s Customer Service Officers through its Customer Request System. Question time will be limited to written questions received before 12 noon on the day of the meeting. The questions will be read by a Council representative and answered by the Mayor. 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, 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 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 written questions. ~ PAGE 6Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Acceptance of Questions Council's Meeting Procedure Local Law does not allow for other questions or comments during the remainder of the meeting. 1. 2. An individual may only lodge one question per meeting. 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. In the event that time does not permit all written questions registered to be answered, questions will be answered in writing or referred to the next meeting if appropriate. ‘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. Each individual whose written question has been accepted or declined will be advised by early afternoon on the day of the scheduled meeting, In the event of a written question being declined the question will be circulated to the Council for information. RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS That Standing Orders be resumed. ‘CR LEACH'S REPORTOrdinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 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 ing), ((a) direct financial interest (b) indirect interest by close association (a) indirect interest because of confi (e) indirect interest because of receipt of an applicable gift (f) indirect interest as a consequence of becoming an interested party (g) indirect interest as a result of impact on residential amenity (h) conflicting personal interest A Councillor who has declared a conflict of interest, must leave the meeting and remain outside the room while the matter is being considered, or any vote is taken. Councillors are also encouraged to declare circumstances where there may be a perceived conflict of interest. PAGESOrdinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Wednesday 21 September 2016. The following items were considered at the Ordinary Council meeting held on Wednesday 21 September 2016 at 6.00pm. * 195 Queen Street, Bendigo - Partial Demolition and First Floor Extension to Existing Dwelling * 62-104 Charleston Road, East Bendigo - Development of Telecommunications Facility (30 Metre Pole and Equipment Shelter in Fenced Compound) 2016-2017 Community Grants Program Round 1 Financial Statements and Performance Statement for the Financial Year 2015/2016 Appointment of Independent Member of the Audit Committee Record of Assemblies Contracts Awarded Under Delegation The unconfirmed minutes have also been posted on the City of Greater Bendigo website pending confirmation at this meeting. RECOMMENDATION That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on Wednesday 21 September 2016, as circulated, be taken as read and confirmed. PAGEAnnual Report 2015/2016 ____Otcinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 4. ANNUAL REPORT 2015/2016 14 CITY OF GREATER BENDIGO ANNUAL REPORT 2015/2016 Document Information Author Lyn Talbot, Corporate and Community Planner Responsible Bernie O'Sullivan, Director Strategy & Growth Director Summary/Purpose The purpose of this report is to provide the opportunity for Council to consider the City of Greater Bendigo 2015-2016 Annual Report Policy Context This City of Greater Bendigo Annual Report covers the period from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016. Preparation of an Annual Report is a requirement of the Victorian Local Government Act 1989 but it also provides an opportunity to communicate internally and externally, with staff, community, government and industry stakeholders regarding the roles, functions and achievements of the City of Greater Bendigo in the preceding year. Sections 131 and 133 of the Local Government Act state that a Council must prepare an annual report for each financial year that includes: ‘* Report of Operations of the Council * Audited Performance Statement * Audited Financial Statement These three documents have been combined in the City of Greater Bendigo Annual Report for 2015-2016. Background Information In the 2014/2015 year Local Government Victoria (LGV) implemented a series of changes that set out the specific content requirements for the Annual Report that enable comparison on a large number of standard content items between all councils in Victoria and ensure each council meets or exceeds Victorian Government (VAGO) audit requirements. The changes included reporting on the Local Government Performance Reporting Framework (LGPRF) indicators for the first time. This year the results for the new measures for the first two years can be compared ‘The Report of Operations of the Council contains the following: * Astatement of progress in relation to major ‘© Adeseription of Council's operations; PAGE 10‘Annual Report 2015/2016 Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Results against prescribed LGPRF service performance indicators; Results of the LGPRF Governance and Management Checklist; A review of performance against the Council Plan actions; Services funded in the budget and members /sectors of the community who receive these services; Major capital expenditure, changes and achievements; Results against the City of Greater Bendigo Strategic Indicators; and Other material relevant to Council activities and community interest. ‘The Audited Performance Statement contains: ipal di * Results against LGPRF prescribed service performance outcome indicators and measures; Results against LGPRF prescribed financial performance indicators and measures; An explanation of any material variations between results (where available, because these are transitional reports in a new format); * Results against LGPRF prescribed sustainable capacity indicators and measures. Audited Financial Statements * This statement meets LGV format requirements. Report The Annual Report highlights the major achievements of the 2015-2016 year, but also has a focus on telling the story of the City's operations throughout the year. It reports to Greater Bendigo residents and the wider community what has been done in order to meet Strategic Objectives, strategies and actions that were set down in the Council Plan for the year. The Annual Report also documents evidence of performance against the State Government Community Satisfaction Scorecard and the Liveability Indicators (Strategic Indicators) that have been set out in the Council Plan for the same period. It celebrates the achievements and successes and explains why some things have not been achieved Consultation/Communication Internal Consultation: Cross-organisational collaboration has supported the development of the Annual Report. Regular data collection, as part of Council Plan quarterly reporting and the LGPRF reporting requirements have provided the core content. The detail for the various written sections has largely been sourced from existing documents already made available to the public, such as press releases and quarterly Council Plan reports to Council. The Communications Unit has sourced the relevant photos from its repository. PAGE 11Annual Report 2015/2016 i Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Senior staff members have had the opportunity to review the content relevant to their area and to make recommendations for any necessary changes. The LGV Best Practice Guides have been used as the basis for the format and content of the entire document. Members of the Audit Committee had the opportunity to review the draft Financial Statements, the draft Standard Statements and the draft Performance Statement for the 2015-2016 financial year for submission to the Auditor General. The Performance Statement has been certified by the Principal Accounting Officer, Chief Executive Office and 2 Councillors (at Audit Committee) before this council meeting. Following recommendation by the Audit Committee, these statements have been incorporated into this draft of the Annual Report for consideration by Council at the Regular Meeting on September 21, 2016. External Communication: Following consideration by Council and preparation of the final formatted document, residents will be informed by public notice of the Annual Report's preparation and availability for inspection. The Annual Report will be presented to the public at the Council Meeting on October 12. Copies of the Annual Report will be available via the City’s web page and a hard copy or electronic copy will be available to interested organisations and members of the public on request. Priority/Importance: To meet legislative requirements the Annual Report, including audited financial statements and reports against LGPRF indicators and outcomes, must be completed and ‘supplied to the Minister for Local Government within three months after the end of the financial year reported on, that is, by September 30. Resource Implications Printing and layout of the Annual Report and relevant advertising are provided for in the 2015-2016 Council budget. Conclusion The City of Greater Bendigo 2015-2016 Annual Report has been prepared and is submitted according to the requirements of the Local Government Act 1989. Attachments Annual Report 2015-2016 PAGE 12,‘Annual Report 2015/2016 Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 RECOMMENDATION That the Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to receive the City of Greater Bendigo 2015-2016 Annual Report. PAGE 13,Mayor's Report for 2015/2016 Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 2. MAYOR'S REPORT FOR 2015/2016 To be presented at the meeting. PAGE 14Recognition of Retiing Councillors Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 3. RECOGNITION OF RETIRING COUNCILLORS 3.1 RECOGNITION OF RETIRING COUNCILLORS Document Information Author Peter Davies, Manager Executive Services Responsible Craig Niemann, Chief Executive Officer Officer Summary/Purpose The purpose of this report is to acknowledge the service to the community of retiring Councillor, Rod Campbell. Policy Context Council demonstrates leadership in its decision to meet future needs and challenges. Report Cr Rod Campbell has been a Councillor with the City of Greater Bendigo since 2008. He served as Mayor in 2009/2010. In 2012, he was one of three Councillors elected to represent the revised Eppalock Ward until 2016. About Cr Campbell Cr Rod Campbell is a retired civil engineer, with post-graduate qualifications in Municipal Engineering/Administration. He has held senior engineering and planning roles with the former South Barwon, Myrtleford and Marong municipalities Cr Campbell is a Life Member of The Institution of Engineers, Australia, is recognised as a Fellow of the Institute of Municipal Engineering Australia and was also awarded Graduate Membership of the Australian Institute of Company Directors. Cr Campbell has worked with both urban and rural communities across Victoria in development and planning, design and road construction, buildings and sporting infrastructure. He has also conducted his own consulting business He was raised on the land and, along with his wife Alison has spent the past 30 years living and raising his family in Bendigo. Cr Campbell is a past President of the Apex Club of Myrtleford. Included in his interests are history, heritage, the arts, collectables, all things mechanical and above all meeting people from all walks of life. Having been confined to a wheelchair since 2010; his wife, Alison supports him as a carer in all his Council duties. PAGE 15Recognition of Retiring Councillors Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Committees Cr Campbell served as a Council representative on the following committees: Newmarket Gold Fosterville Mine Environmental Review Committee (Chair) Municipal Emergency Management Planning Committee (Chair) Municipal Fire Management Planning Committee (Chair) Bendigo Volunteer Resource Centre Board Audit Committee Finance Committee Reconciliation Action Plan Community Reference Group Disability Inclusion Reference Group (Chair) ‘Crocodile Gold Fosterville Mine Community Grants Committee Interests Cr Campbell's personal and professional interests include: sustainable development public transport strategic planning prudent financial management ‘employment initiatives tourism and industry community facilities social inclusion; providing for an ageing community and better provision for people with a disability renewable energy waste management Cr Ruffell, who will be also retiring at the forthcoming Council Election, has declined the offer of recognition. PAGE 16Recognition of Retiring Councilors 7 Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 RECOMMENDATION That Council recognise and acknowledge the commitment and achievements of retiring Councillor, Rod Campbell for his past two terms as a Councillor since 2008 and his Mayoral term in 2009/2010. PAGE 17Petitions and Joint Letters Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 4, PETITIONS AND JOINT LETTERS 41 PETITION: REQUEST TO REOPEN CLOSED SECTION OF CAMPASPE STREET, ELMORE [Petitions and joint letters with ten (10) or more signatures are included in the agenda or tabled at the meeting, unless there is a separate legal process for considering the petition or joint letter, as there is for planning submissions or submissions following public notices (Section 223 LGA)]. A petition has been received from concerned residents Elmore, as outlined below: "We, the undersigned residents and ratepayers of the City of Greater Bendigo, formally request Council to reopen the section of Campaspe Street from Clarke Street fo the intersection of Campaspe Street and Jeffrey Street, Elmore.” Signatures - 167 RECOMMENDATION That the petition be received and a response be prepared within two (2) meetings. PAGE 18Planning for Growth - Reports i Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 5. PLANNING FOR GROWTH 54 ADOPT PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C212 - CORRECTIONS AMENDMENT Document Information Author Frank Casimir, Statutory Planner Responsible Bernie O'S Director an, Director Strategy & Growth Summary/Purpose Amendment details: This Amendment corrects technical and mapping errors in the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme to further improve its effective operation. It also rezones Council-owned land at 15-17 Balmoral Drive, Golden Square from Public Park and Recreation Zone to General Residential Zone in accordance with a previous Council resolution. Proponent: City of Greater Bendigo No. of submissions: 5 (4 supporting and 1 objecting) Key issues: * Removal of unnecessary planning permit triggers resulting from zoning or overlay mapping errors. * On-going improvements to the operation of the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme. Disposing of surplus council assets. ‘* Rezoning of isolated commercial land. Recommendation: That Council adopts Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C212 with changes and forward the adopted Amendment to the Minister for Planning for approval. Policy Context City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013 - 2017 (2016-2017 Update) Planning for Growth * Planning ensures residents have access to diverse, affordable and sustainable housing choices. Presentation & Vibrancy * Greater Bendigo is a community that values its heritage, arts facilities and major events and supports arts and cultural experiences. PAGE 19Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Sustainability © The built and natural qualities that make Greater Bendigo an attractive and appealing place are valued and conserved. Background Information The key steps in the Amendment process are summarised below: Panel Hearing held Council decides to Adopt or We are at this point Send to Minister for Approval and Gazettal The Amendment forms part of the on-going identification of errors in the Planning Scheme by City planning officers and the general public. The amendment is part of the Planning Unit's regular system improvements programme. The amendment has been prepared to correct 76 identified anomalies and errors in the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme. The anomalies and errors are minor in nature and the corrections will mostly reflect the current land use and/or ownership Out of the 76 proposed corrections, 29 have previously been considered by Council as part of Amendment C210. Amendment C210 went to the Minister for Planning as a request under the “Prescribed Ministerial Amendment’ process where the Minister undertakes “fast track” amendments to fix errors. Unfortunately, the Minister refused to correct all of the errors submitted PAGE 20Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 The amendment also includes 15-17 Balmoral Drive, Golden Square, identified by Council as a surplus asset to be disposed of and already supported by Council for authorisation for rezoning. This amendment is a step forward toward the rezoning of this property before it can be sold. Following Council resolution to request the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit this amendment, three additional errors were identified and authorised by the Minister for Planning for correction. The land affected is 2 Bushmaster Court North Bendigo and 7 and 9 Lukin Crescent Kangaroo Flat. Previous Council Decisions 04 November 2015 Council resolved to request the Minister for Planning to authorise Council to prepare and exhibit Amendment C212 to the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme. 06 May 2015, Council resolved to sell 15-17 Balmoral Drive, Golden Square (part) subject to section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 and request the Minister for Planning for authorisation to prepare and exhibit an amendment to rezone it. 18 June 2014 Council resolved to request the Minister for Planning to prepare, adopt and approve Prescribed amendment (Corrections and Anomalies) C210. Report Land affected by the Amendment and what the Amendment does The amendment affects 76 properties throughout the municipality and they are listed in the table below. For practical reasons, they cannot all be shown on a map in the context of this report. The amendment affects both privately-owned land and public land. The amendment proposes to correct zone, overlay and text errors in the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme. The errors are mainly mapping errors where historically land has been transferred from public to private ownership or vice-versa without the appropriate rezoning. The text error is in the Local Planning Policy Framework — Clause 22.26 (White Hills Residential Character Policy), the objectives and design response for the White Hills Precinct 3 (WH3) where the second and third design responses need re-ordering. Summary of Abbreviations cz Commercial Zone FZ Farming Zone GRZ General Residential Zone IZ Industrial Zone LORZ Low Density Residential Zone PAGE 21Planning for Growth - Reports 7 Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 MUZ PCRZ PPRZ PUZ RDZ RLZ SUZ TZ BMO. DDO DPO EAO ESO HO LsIO NCO PO SLO vPO Mixed Use Zone Public Conservation & Resource Zone Public Park & Recreation Zone Public Use Zone Road Zone Rural Living Zone Special Use Zone Township Zone Bushfire Management Overlay Design & Development Overlay Development Plan Overlay Environmental Audit Overlay Environmental Significance Overlay Heritage Overlay Land Subject to Inundation Overlay Neighbourhood Character Overlay Parking Overlay Significant Landscape Overlay Vegetation Protection Overlay Property Address | Current Zones /| Proposed Zones /| Reasons Overlays Overlays CA B16R Dairy Flat | FZ/PCRZ, BMO, | Rezone CA B16R | Private land in two zones Road, Argyle ESO3 from PCRZ to FZ. | (mapping error). PCRZ not No change to | appropriate for private land. overlays. | 8 Sugarloaf Road, |RLZ, ESO1,| Include the | The house is listed in the Axedale VPo2 existing house in| Schedule to the Heritage the "Planning | Overlay (HO741) but was Scheme Map | not mapped. Correction of (34HO). a mapping error/omission 77-85 Pall Mall,|PUZ6 (Local | Rezone to PUZ7 | Public land not used by Bendigo (former | Government), | (Other public | local government _ (being Police Station), | DDO5, HO227, | use). No change| used by the Bendigo Bendigo Pot tothe overlays | Magistrate Court) 30 Myers Street|GRZ, — DDOS,| Rezone to MUZ | Isolated residential parcel, Bendigo NCO1, PO1 rezoning will facilitate orderly zoning pattern. PAGE 22Pianning for Growth - Reports Orcinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Property Address | Current Zones /| Proposed Zones /| Reasons Overlays Overlays: 133-145 Lily Street |SUZ2 (Private | Delete HO11 | HO11 covers the site at Bendigo (St John | Hospital), HO11 138-140 Lily Street and of God Hospital | in part encroaches into part of the Site). adjoining Lily Street road reserve. This road reserve has now been acquired to form part of the hospital site | and therefore the HO is no longer required on this Portion of land. 208 Forest Street, | PPRZ/GRZ Rezone toGRZ | Private land incorrectly in Bendigo two zones with existing residential use. PPRZ not appropriate. 32 Myers Street, |MUZ, —_NCO1, | Delete NCO1 NCO1 not appropriate to the Bendigo P01, DDOS: zoning of the land (MUZ). 4184 and 4/84 MUZ, __NCO1,| Delete NCO1 NCO1 not appropriate to the Mollison Street, | PO1, DDOS, zoning of the land (MUZ). Bendigo : 18 Rose Street, | GRZ Rezone toPPRZ_ | Public land used as a park. California Gully COGB is committee of management and plans that the land will remain as a | park. 3 Staley Street, | GRZ, Part | Apply HO329 to | Correction of a mapping California Gully HO329 the whole site error as the HO has only been applied to half of the property. 18 Hodgson Street, | GRZ/PCRZ Rezone the whole | Public land (DELWP). GRZ Eaglehawk site to PCRZ. not appropriate 30 Whipstick Road, | FZIGRZ/PCRZ/ | Rezone the whole | Public land (DELWP). Eaglehawk_ RCZ site to PCRZ 19 Walls Street, | GRZ/ PPRZ Rezone the whole | Private land in two zones Eaglehawk site to GRZ with existing residential use. | PPRZ not appropriate. 25 Walls Street, | GRZ/ PPRZ Rezone the whole | Private land in two zones Eaglehawk site to GRZ. with existing residential use. PPRZ not appropriate. 36 Burnside Street, | PPRZ/GRZ Rezone the whole | Private land in two zones Eaglehawk site to GRZ. with existing residential use. PPRZ not appropriate. 20 Lester Street, | GRZ, HO371 Delete HO371 | The dwelling _ individually Eaglehawk listed as HO371 has now been removed from the site PAGE 23Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Properly Address | Current Zones /| Proposed Zones / | Reasons Overlays ‘Overlays: ‘Apply HO22 and this HO is no longer relevant. O22 which applies to the whole precinct should be applied to this site instead. 91-99 Midland | C2Z/PPRZ/ Rezone the whole | Private land in three zones Highway, Epsom | FZ, ESO1, LSIO | site to C22. with existing commercial No change to the | development. PPRZ and FZ overlays. not appropriate. 52 Simmie Street, | PUZ4 Rezone to TZ Private land with existing Elmore residential use. 54 Simmie Street, | PUZ4 Rezone toTZ —_| Private land with existing Elmore residential use. 56 Simmie Street, | PUZ4 Rezone toTZ | Private land with existing Elmore residential use 58 Simmie Street, | PUZ4 Rezone to TZ Private land existing Elmore ‘ residential use. 60 Simmie Street, | PUZ4 RezonetoTZ | Private land with existing Elmore residential use. 65-69 Railway | RDZ1 "| RezonetoTZ | Private land with existing Place, Elmore residential and commercial (developed with use (Mapping error). dwelling and post office) 2 Dean Close, East | LDRZ/PUZ1, Rezone the whole | Land in two zones with Bendigo DPO4, DDO17, | site to LDRZ existing residential use. EAO2 No change to the | PUZ1 (Service & Utility) not overiay appropriate for residential oH land. z 22-24 Hammer | GRZ RezonetoC1Z | Private land used for | ‘Street, Flora Hill commercial purposes (coffee shop) 26-30 Hammer | GRZ Rezone toC1Z _| Private land being used for ‘Street, Flora Hill commercial purposes (Pharmacy) for 1+ years. 29 Wirth Street, | GRZ/PUZ2 Rezone the whole |La__ Trobe University Flora Hill site to | PUZ2 | Campus (Mapping error). (Education) 70-74 Woodward | PCRZ/LDRZ, Rezone the whole | Public land (DELWP). Road, Golden Gully | DPO4, BMO site to PCRZ. Bendigo Regional Park erroneously partly zoned LORZ. Delete DPO4 DPO4 not applicable on PPRZ zoned land. PAGE 24Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Property Address | Current Zones | Proposed Zones /] Reasons Overlays Overlays 32-34 MacCullagh | LORZ/PPRZ, | Rezone the whole | Private land in two zones Street, Golden | VPO1, ESO1__| site to LORZ with existing residential use. Gully No change to | PPRZ not appropriate. overlays 97 Maple Street, | GRZ Rezone to PCRZ | Public land (DELWP). GRZ Golden Square not appropriate. 119 Hattam Street, | GRZ/IN1Z Rezone the whole | Public land (DELWP) Golden Square site to PCRZ surrounded by a residential area. PCRZ required for consistency with adjoining public land. T7A Mackenzie | GRZ/PPRZ Rezone the whole | Public land (DELWP). GRZ Street West, site to PPRZ. not appropriate. Golden Square 21-27 Inglewood | GRZ/PUZ2, Rezone the whole | Public land used for ‘Street, Golden site to PUZ2 | education. GRZ not Square (Education) appropriate. 67 Inglewood | LDRZ/GRZ/ Rezone the whole | Public land (Coliban Water). Street, Golden | PUZ1 site to PUZ1/GRZ and LORZ not Square (Service & Utlity) | appropriate 16-17 Balmoral | PPRZ Rezone to GRZ | Council has resolved that Drive Golden the land is surplus and Square should be disposed of after rezoning to GRZ. 55-59 Englishs |LDRZ,DPO4 | PUZ6 (Local | Council_managed land. Road, Goornong Government) LDRZ not appropriate. Delete DPO4 DPO4 not appropriate. | Apply EAO EAO required because the site is potentially contaminated. CA 2004 Warde | LDRZ Rezone to PPRZ | Council land. LRDZ not Street, Goornong | DPO4 appropriate. Delete DPO4 DPO4 not applicable on public land. 1 Barrack Street, | LDRZ, DPO4, | Rezone toPCRZ | Public-owned land Heathcote ESo3, SLO1, (DELWP). EMe Delete DPO4 DPO4 not applicable on Public land. 82-84 Rennie | C2Z/LDRZ, Rezone the whole | Mapping error. Street, Huntly DPO4, ESO1 | site to LDRZ. (Part), LSIO | No change to the (Part) overlays PAGE 25,Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Property Address Current Zones / | Overlays Proposed Zones / Overlays Reasons 40-56 Marong | PPRZ/GRZ/ Rezone the whole | Public land (COGB) Road, Ironbark | PUZ7, _ HO26, | site to PPRZ. PUZ7 and GRZ not HO27,HO492 | No change to | appropriate. overlays. 218 Don Street, | PPRZIGRZ Rezone to GRZ__| Private land in two zones Ironbark with existing residential use. PPRZ not appropriate. 155 Kangaroo | PCRZ/LDRZ Rezone the whole | Parkland (regional _ park) Gully Road, site to PCRZ. erroneously zoned LDRZ. Kangaroo Flat 39-47 Muir Street, |LDRZ, DPO4, | Rezone to PCRZ | Public land (DELWP). Kangaroo Flat SLOW LDRZ not appropriate. Delete DPO4 DPO4 not applicable to public zone land. 39 Golden Gully | PCRZ Rezone toLDRZ | Private land with existing Road, Kangaroo residential use. Proposed Flat zone and overlays are Apply DPt ys SPB DPOS and | consistent with adjoining residential sites. 2 Short Street | PUZ4 Rezone to GRZ | Private land with existing Kengaroo Flat Ho704 residential use. Delete HO704 HO704 applies to the adjoining Railway Station Complex only and has erroneously been applied to this private residence. 12 Carpenter | PPRZ/ GRZ Rezone to GRZ Private land in two zones Street, Kangaroo with existing residential use. Fiat PPRZ not appropriate. 14 Carpenter | PPRZ /GRZ Rezone the whole | Private land in two zones Street, Kangaroo site to GRZ. with existing residential use. Flat PPRZ not appropriate. 266 High Street, | GRZ /PPRZ Rezone the whole | Private land in two zones Kangaroo Flat site to GRZ. with existing _ private residences. PPRZ not appropriate. CA 7D Morrison} PCRZ, DPO4, | Delete ‘DPO4 DPo4 not applicable to Street, Kangaroo | BMO (Density public land Flat Management Areas) 4-25 Poulston | GRZ Rezone toPCRZ | Public land owned by Street, Long Gully DELWP. GRZ not appropriate. PAGE 26Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Property Address | Current Zones /| Proposed Zones / Reasons Overlays Overlays 59-69 Anderson | GRZ Rezone to PCRZ | Public land owned by Parks Street, Long Gully Victoria. GRZ not appropriate. [721 Calder | FZ, HO531 Rezone to PPRZ | Public land being used as a Alternative HO531 cricket oval. FZ not Highway, appropriate. Lockwood South 47 Gold Associates | IN3Z/SUZ4 Rezone the whole | Public land being used as a Road, Maiden site. to SUZ4'| recreation facility. IN3Z not Gully (Private Sport and | appropriate. Recreation Facilities, Marong Raceway Go-Kart Track). 2A Hannans Road, |PPRZ/LDRZ | Rezone the whole | Parkland erroneously zoned Mandurang South | DPO4 site to PCRZ LDRz. Delete DPO4 | DPO4 not applicable on public land. CA 124 Latham | LDRZ Rezone to PCRZ_| Public-owned land St North Bendigo ro! Delete DPO4 DPO4 not applicable to public zone land, 106 Prouses Road, | LDRZ, _DPO4, | Rezone to PCRZ. | Public-owned land North Bendigo SLOT, VPO2 (DELWP) and the proposed ne is consistent with ing public land Delete DPO4. | DPO4 not applicable on public zone land. 208A Holdsworth | GRZ/PPRZ Rezone the whole | Public land (DELWP). GRZ Road, North site to PPRZ. not appropriate. Bendigo 48 Caledonia | C1z Rezone toGRZ | Private land with Street, North established residential use. Bendigo 50 Caledonia | C1Z Rezone toGRZ | Private land with Street, North established residential use. Bendigo 2 Degille Street, |GRZ —_/LDRZ, | Rezone the whole | Land in two zones with most North Bendigo DPO4, VPO2 | site to GRZ of the site in GRZ. LDRZ not required. Delete DPO4 DPO4 not applicable to VPO2 to remain. | GRZ 33 Carpenter | GRZ, HOS87 | Delete HO587 __| Incorrect HO applied. HO30 Street, Quarry Hill (the Precinct HO) to be ‘Apply HOO applied. PAGE 27Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Reasons Property Address | Current Zones /| Proposed Zones / Overlays Overlays 35 Carpenter | GRZ, HO587 | Delete HO587 —_| Incorrect HO applied. HO30 Street, Quarry Hill (the Precinct HO) to be Apply HO30 applied. 37 Carpenter | GRZ, HO587 | Delete HO587 _| Incorrect HO applied. HO30 Street, Quarry Hill (the Precinct HO) to be Apply HO30 applied. 39 Carpenter | GRZ, HO587 | Delete HO587 _| Incorrect HO applied. HO30 Street, Quarry Hill (the Precinct HO) to be Apply HO30 applied. a Carpenter | GRZ,HO587 | Delete HO587 _| Incorrect HO applied. HO30 Street, Quarry Hill (the Precinct HO) to be Apply HO30 applied. Part of 47 and 49|GRZ,HO600 | Delete HO600 —_| Incorrect HO applied. HO30 Miller Street, (the Precinct HO) to be | Quarry Hill Apply HO30 applied. | 31 Franklin Street, | GRZ/PCRZ Rezone the whole | Public land. GRZ not Sailors Gully site to PCRZ. appropriate 35-37 Chelsea | GRZ Rezone toPPRZ | Public land. GRZ not Boulevard, appropriate. Strathdale | 469 Spring Gully | PPRZ/C1Z, Rezone the whole | Private land in two zones Road, Spring Gully | ESO1 and LSIO | site to C1Z with existing commercial (both in part) No change to | use. PPRZ not appropriate. overlays. 35 Union Street, | PPRZ Rezone toGRZ | Private land with existing West Bendigo residential use. PPRZ not appropriate, 51 Bayliss Road, | FZ, HO852 Delete the HO on | The heritage significance is Woodvale partofthe site. | limited to part of the site only therefore the extent of the HO should be reduced, 6 Wattle Drive|GRZ, _BMO,| RezonetoPPRZ | At the request of City Spring Gully Eso1 Property Department as Council is the owner. 29 McClelland | GRZ, BMO RezonetoPPRZ | At the request of City Drive, Eaglehawk Property Department as Council is the owner. 2 Bushmaster | IN1Z/PUZ7 Rezone toINiZ | Private land. PUZ7 not Court North appropriate. | Bendigo 7 and 9 Lukin | PPRZ Rezone toGRZ | Private land. PPRZ not Crescent Kangaroo Flat appropriate. Consultation/Communication Exhibition Procedures PAGE 28Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 The Amendment was originally exhibited for one month from 28 April 2016 to 30 May 2016 but this was subsequently extended to 31 August 2016 to allow further notice to some adjoining land owners. Notice was provided in the following manner: + Individual notices to owners and occupiers of land affected by the Amendment. * Direct notices to land owners and occupiers whose properties abut or are near to land whose proposed rezoning may lead to a more intense use with potential off-site adverse impacts. * Notices to prescribed Ministers under Section 19(1)(c) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. * Notices to all authorities materially affected under Section 19(1)(a) of the Act. Public notice of the Amendment in the Bendigo Advertiser on Wednesday 27 April 2016. * Public notice of the Amendment in the Government Gazette on Thursday 28 April 2016. * Access on-line on the City of Greater Bendigo website at: www.bendigo. vic.gov.au and on the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning website at: www.delwp. vic.gov.au/publicinspection Submissions Five (5) submissions were received during the exhibition period. They are listed in the table below. There were no late submissions. Submitter 1: Kahlia Reid and Steven Abbott Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Objects. The properties at 22-24 and 26- | The proposed rezoning was to facilitate 30 Hammer Street, Flora Hill must not be | the use and development of the sites into rezoned from GRZ to C'1Z because: the future given their existing uses. However, further investigations have determined that these two sites were rezoned from Business 1 Zone to Residential 1 Zone in June 2000 despite their already long established commercial | uses at the time because they were | considered to be isolated. * No strategic justification for such a rezoning. For these reasons, it is agreed that they should remain zoned GRZ. * The rezoning would cause adverse | Due to their lot sizes, it is unlikely the amenity impact on the area. sites could accommodate developmentiuses capable of having significant adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbourhood. PAGE 20Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Submitter 1: Kahlia Reid and Steven Abbott Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation ‘Inappropriate application of a correction amendment. * Failure to give direct notice to them. Remove these two properties from the amendment. The land has historically been used for ‘commercial purposes, but is not zoned for this purpose. There is therefore a case to correct its zoning in a correction amendment. As both sites have existing use rights, it was not considered necessary to give notice to adjoining landowners. Agree they should be removed and the businesses can still continue under existing use rights. Recommendation Change the amendment to remove these two properties as requested by the submitters. Submitter 2: Coliban Water Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation ‘Supports Note the submission. Recommendation No change to the amendment Submitter 3: J. A Middlemis Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation ‘Supports Note the submission. Recommendation No change to the amendment. PAGE 30Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Submitter 4: Country Fire Authority Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation Supports: Note the submission. Recommendation No change to the amendment. Submitter 5: VicRoads ‘Supports/Objects Officer Response & Recommendation ‘Supports Note the submission. Recommendation No change to the amendment. ‘As shown in the above table, the amendment attracted only one opposing submission which asked that the amendment be changed to remove 22-24 and 26-30 Hammer Street, Flora Hill from it. The other 4 submissions support the amendment. The request to change the amendment does not raise any major issues. This request does not preclude the amendment proceeding to correct the identified errors on other properties. The two properties can remain zoned GRZ as requested because they have not been identified in any strategic planning documents as being key commercial sites. Moreover, Planning Scheme Amendment C224 currently being exhibited and which introduces the Commercial Land and Activity Centre Strategy (2015), does not recommend that these two sites be rezoned to C1Z. Planning officers have formally notified the two property owners that their properties would be removed from the amendment and that this will not affect their rights to continue to use their properties as they are using them now. Neither of the property ‘owners responded to this notification. The removal of these two properties from the amendment will also avoid the City using its resources to go to an Independent Planning Panel to resolve this opposing submission. It is not expected that the cost benefits of going to a Panel would outweigh the rezoning of these two properties as proposed in this amendment. Conclusion It is recommended that Council adopt amendment C212 with the change as requested by the opposing submitters and request the Minister for Planning to approve the amendment. PAGE 31Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Options Section 29(1) & (2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 states that a planning authority may adopt an Amendment or part of an Amendment with or without changes. If a planning authority adopts part of an Amendment, the Amendment is then split into two parts. Section 23(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 requires that in consideration of submissions received in relation to an Amendment, the Council must either: © Change the Amendment in the manner requested by the submitters and adopt the Amendment with this change or; + Refer the submission(s) to an Independent Panel appointed by the Minister; or + Abandon the Amendment, or part of the Amendment. For this amendment, it is recommended that Council change the amendment in the manner requested by the submitters and adopt the amendment with this change. Resource Implications Officer time will be required to prepare the Amendment documentation for adoption and liaise with the Minister for Planning. The City will also be required to pay the statutory fees for the Minister for Planning to approve the amendment. Attachments * Copy of submissions (5) + Explanatory report RECOMMENDATION That the Greater Bendigo City Council resolves to: 1. Adopt Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Amendment C212 with changes 2. Forward the adopted Amendment to the Minister for Planning for approval. PAGE 82Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 5.2 16 MARSHALL CRESCENT, HEATHCOTE 3523 - SUBDIVIDE LAND INTO 3 LOTS AND CREATION OF COMMON PROPERTY Document Information Author Lachlan Forsyth, Statutory Planner Responsible Bernie O'S Director ivan, Director Strategy & Growth Summary/Purpose Application details: Subdivide land into 3 lots and creation of common property Application No: DS/439/2016 Applicant: DF McCarthy Land: 16 Marshall Crescent, HEATHCOTE 3623 Zoning: General Residential Zone (GRZ) Overlays: Environmental Significance Overlay 3 (ESO3) No. of objections: 4 Consultation Onsite meeting with assessing planner and objectors. meeting: Key considerations: Does the proposal comply with the Planning Scheme? Will the subdivision result in an acceptable neighbourhood character outcome? Will the subdivision cause unreasonable amenity impacts on neighbours? Conclusion: The application is recommended for approval on the basis that it represents an acceptable outcome with regards to the requirements of the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Policy Context City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013 - 2017 (2016-2017 Update) Planning for Growth ‘* Planning ensures residents have access to diverse, affordable and sustainable housing choices. Presentation & Vibrancy * Greater Bendigo is a community that values its heritage, arts facilities and major events and supports arts and cultural experiences. PAGE 33Planning for Growth - Reports Orainay Meeting - 12 Octover 2016 Productivity ‘* Greater Bendigo has a vibrant and diverse economy that grows jobs and enables good living standards. Sustainability + The built and natural qualities that make Greater Bendigo an attractive and appealing place are valued and conserved, Report Subject Site and Surrounds Figure 1: Location map showing subject site. Objector's properties marked with a star. The subject site is an irregular shaped, battle-axe style lot which is located in the north- western section of the Heathcote Township. The site features an 18m wide frontage to Marshall Crescent, a depth of approximately 114m and a total area of 2,104m?. ‘The land is currently vacant and not used for any purpose. Onsite vegetation consists of overgrown grass and approximately five small-medium sized trees in the rear corner. The land's topography sees a gradual fall to the north east. Reticulated sewerage, water, telephone and electricity are available to the lot. Adjoining land uses are mostly residential in nature. The exception to this is the Ambulance Victoria station which adjoins the site to the north east on Marshall Crescent. Building typology in the area is generally characterised by single storey, detached dwellings with pitched roof forms. Proposal The application proposes to subdivide the land into three lots which are accessed by a common property driveway. The lot sizes are: PAGE 34Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 > Lot 4: 454m?, = Lot 2: 415m, - Lot 3: 470m?. - Common property: 764m2. Figure 2: Proposed plan of subdivision 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) 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) ‘Small towns (cl. 21.05-10) Reference documents (cl. 21.10) Local Planning Policies Heathcote Township Residential Character Policy (cl. 22.16) PAGE 35Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Other Provisions General Residential Zone (ol. 32.08) ResCode ~ Subdivision (c1.56) Decision guidelines (cl 65) Referral and notice provisions (cl. 66) Permit Triggers * Clause 32.08-2 General Residential Zone: Subdivision © Clause 42.01-2 Environmental Significance Overlay 3: Subdivision. Consultation/Communication Referrals The following authorities and internal departments have been consulted on the proposal: Referral ‘Comment Department of No objection, no conditions recommended. Environment, Land, Water and Planning | North Central CMA No objection, no conditions recommended. Powercor No objection subject to standard electricity provision conditions. Coliban Water No objection subject to standard water and sewerage provision conditions. Tenix No objection subject to standard subdivision certification referral conditions CoGB Traffic & Design | No objection, standard vehicle access construction conditions recommended CoGB Drainage No objection subject to drainage infrastructure provision conditions. Public Notification The application was advertised by way of erecting a notice board on the site's frontage and by sending letters to adjoining and opposite owners and occupiers. As a result of advertising, four (4) objections were received, with the grounds of objection being: * Noise issues. * Increased traffic. * Privacy concems — particularly overlooking into back yards PAGE 36Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 * Blocking of sunlight by the eventual development. * Concems with building bulk and changes to outlook from eventual development. * Removal of trees and impacts on wildlife habitat. + Loss of lifestyle due to increased density and “overcrowding” * Property devaluation. * Safety issues associated with potential fire and the single common property accessway. * Drainage concerns from storm water run-off. The objections are discussed in the body of this report. Planning Assessment Does the proposal comply with the Planning Scheme? Infill subdivision of this style is broadly supported by State policy at Clause 11 (Settlement) and 16 (Housing), the Loddon Mallee South Regional Growth Plan (Cl. 14.12) and by the small towns policy at Clause 21.05. The proposed subdivision will consolidate existing residential land which is currently underutilised and vacant. The proposal will also utilise the existing services and infrastructure which are available in the Heathcote Township (sewerage, water, electricity, etc.). Further subdivision of the land would assist in implementing the urban containment policy aims found with the MSS Compact Bendigo Policy (Cl. 21.05-10 small towns) and the Greater Bendigo Residential Strategy 2014. In addition, the creation of smaller lots will provide diversified choice for residential development in Heathcote, particularly for smaller, low maintenance homes. Residential diversification of this nature is generally encouraged under Clause 21.05-10 and the purposes of the General Residential Zone. The township context of the site is suitable for further subdivision, particularly due to the existing service infrastructure connections, the good proximity to recreational public open space within Heathcote and the short distance to the commercial and community services located within the town centre. The area is also serviced by public transport, with buses which connect to Bendigo, stopping on High Street a short distance away. All servicing authorities have supported the proposal and no concems over negative environmental impacts have been raised by DELWP, NCCMA or Coliban Water. The proposal complies with all the subdivision design objectives in clause 56 of the Planning Scheme. The lots in the subdivision will be fully serviced and will be provided with a satisfactory standard of amenity owing to their solar orientation. PAGE 37Planning for Growth - Reports eee Oreinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Safe and functional vehicle access is provided to each lot and the size and dimensions of lots can accommodate standard sized building envelopes (10m x 15m) with room for back yards and modest gardens. Will the subdivision result in an acceptable neighbourhood character outcome? The State and Local Planning Policy Framework, as well as the MSS and the purpose of the General Residential Zone encourage development & subdivision that is respectful of neighbourhood character. This is also a requirement of ResCode. The Heathcote Township Residential Character Policy is applicable to this application. This policy includes the following strategies to maintain the existing township character of Heathcote: Ensuring the siting of buildings to reflect spacing patterns. Ensuring building form and scale reflects predominant patterns. Encouraging the use of appropriate vegetation in public and private planting schemes. * Encouraging open front boundary treatments. With regard to the township vision strategies and the Precinct 2 objectives and recommended design responses of Clause 22.16, the proposal is found to be an acceptable character outcome for the following reasons: * The new lots will be created at the rear of existing dwellings which front the street network. This is due to the battle-axe shape of the subject lot. As a result, the streetscape character of the area will be mostly unchanged. New dwellings constructed on the land will only be visible in the background of the established neighbourhood, which is commonplace in urban/town settings. ‘+ The frontage of the site at Marshall Crescent will remain open and unfenced. Ample opportunities to provide landscaping along the common property driveway will be available due to the width of the site's frontage. This will add to the garden character of the area. The general shape and size of the new lots is similar to that of surrounding lots. + The new lots are of suitable size and dimension to accommodate an average sized dwelling with space for a backyard and garden areas. This will allow the existing spacing patterns between dwellings to be respected. The existing trees add little to the character of the area due to their relatively small size and the siting at the rear of the lot. * The existing lot is noticeably larger than surrounding lots and is currently vacant. Development of this land for residential purposes will be in keeping with the surrounding pattern of development. Will the sub In cause unreasonable amenity impacts on neighbours? ‘A common concern of the objecting neighbours is that the proposed subdivision will cause unreasonable impacts on their amenity. PAGE 38Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 This is mostly due to the perceived impacts from increased traffic movements, increased noise, overlooking concems, overshadowing from future development and changes in character due to an increase in housing density. With regards to amenity impacts such as overlooking, overshadowing, and building heights, these will be regulated under the Building Regulations - much the same way that ResCode (Clause 55) would apply if this application were for multiple dwellings. As the new lots are over 300m? in size and no other planning provisions would trigger the need for a planning permit to build a dwelling, the Building Regulations are the appropriate tool to ensure adverse amenity impacts on neighbours are controlled. With respect to the changing outlook for neighbours, this is seen to be a natural change for a vacant residential lot of this size. As for noise impacts, the Environmental Protection Act 1970 regulates matters such as nuisance caused by residential noise. It should be noted that the land is located within an existing township and it is zoned for residential purposes. The construction of dwellings on this land is to be expected and is an appropriate use of the land. Noise from vehicles in a township setting is also common place. This is an unavoidable element of living in a built up area. It is recognised that the most impacted objector will be the property at 18 Marshall Crescent. This is due to the common boundary they will share with the driveway and the relatively close proximity of their house to this boundary. With regard to this, it is noted that the living area of this dwelling is setback more than 3.0m from the common boundary and a 1.8m high colorbond fence divides the existing dwelling from the proposed driveway. It is also noted that vehicles on the driveway will be travelling at very low speed which will result in low engine noise. This arrangement is not uncommon for an urban or township setting and does not warrant refusal of the application. Overall the impact on the amenity of the neighbours is seen to be acceptable. Objectors' concerns not already discussed © Loss of wildlife habitat. As noted earlier there are approximately 5 small-medium trees located on the site. Most of these trees are introduced exotic species and no permit is required to remove them. The habitat value of these trees is seen to be low and their removal is outweighed by the benefit of providing more housing in an established residential area * Safety concerns re: fire and single accessway. The common property driveway will be wide enough to allow an emergency vehicle to access the new lots. Fire hydrants will be required to be installed to provide adequate fire-fighting infrastructure. The length of the common property is no different to a small court and has been appropriately design to allow vehicles to enter and exit in a forward direction. PAGE 38Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 * Drainage concerns The City's drainage engineers have not raised concems with the proposed subdivision. As part of the subdivision new drainage infrastructure will need to be designed and constructed to manage stormwater run-off. * Property devaluation There is established case law that assertions of property devaluation are not valid planning considerations or grounds of objection which should be given any weight (except for in exceptional circumstances, e.g. construction of a piggery or heavy industry next to a dwelling) Conclusion The proposed subdivision complies with the requirements of the Planning Scheme for the reasons discussed above. On this basis, the subdivision should be approved and a permit should be granted for the proposal. 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. RECOMMENDATION Pursuant to section 61 of the Planning and Environment Act (1987), Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for Three lot subdivision and creation of common property at 16 Marshall Crescent, HEATHCOTE 3523 subject to the following conditions: 1. LAYOUT PLANS The subdivision, as shown on the endorsed plans, must not be altered without the prior written consent of the responsible authority. 2. PUBLIC OPEN SPACE CONTRIBUTION Before the statement of compliance is issued the applicant or owner must pay to the responsible authority a sum equivalent to 5% of the site value of all the land in the subdivision. 3. DETAILED DRAINAGE Before the plan of subdivision is certified under the Subdivision Act 1988, plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and then will form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions. The plans must include: © Direction of stormwater run-off, A point of discharge for each lot, * Independent drainage for each lot, * Stormwater detention, © Stormwater quality. PAGE 40Pranning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 4. DRAINAGE EASEMENTS The subdivision must provide easements for drainage within and through the subject land for external outfall drainage to a point of lawful discharge to the satisfaction of the responsible Authority. 5. CONSTRUCTION OF WORKS Road works, drainage and other civil works must be constructed in accordance with the City of Greater Bendigo Infrastructure Design Manual and plans and specifications approved by the responsible authority and must include: * Drainage. 6. SECTION 173 AGREEMENT Prior to the issue of statement of compliance, the applicantfowner must enter into an Agreement under Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Such Agreement must covenant that; * Each system must be completed prior to connection to the responsible authority's drainage system * The owner will maintain each on-site treatment system and/or detention system and not modify without prior written approval from the responsible authority. * The owner shall allow duly authorised officers of the responsible authority to inspect the systems at mutually agreed times. * The Owner will pay for all costs associated with the construction and maintenance of each onsite treatment and detention system. 7. DRAINAGE WORKS Prior to the issue of the statement of compliance for the subdivision, drainage works must be constructed in accordance with plans approved by the responsible authority. 8. DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION Before a statement of compliance is issued for the subdivision, the common property driveway shown on the endorsed plans must be constructed, properly formed, drained and surfaced with an all-weather seal coat to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. 9. VEHICLE ACCESS (a) Access driveways must be constructed to a minimum width of 3metres and have an internal radius of at least 4 metres at changes of direction or intersections or be at least 4.2 metres wide. (b) Any driveway must be 1.0 metre clear of any stormwater pit or the pit lid be replaced with a Class C driveable lid. (c) The subdivision must ensure minimum sight lines for pedestrian safety are provided at the exit lane frontage so as to comply with Clause 52.06-8. 40. FIRE HYDRANTS Prior to statement of compliance being issued, operable hydrants (above or below ground) must be provided to the satisfaction of CFA and Coliban Water. The maximum distance between hydrants and the rear of all lots must be 120m. PAGE 41Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 and hydrants must be no more than 200m apart. Hydrants must be signed in accordance with CFA’s requirements. 11. COLIBAN WATER (a) The owner is required to provide reticulated water and sewerage services to each of the lots within the subdivision. Services are to be provided in accordance with our specifications, (b) All Coliban Water assets within the subdivision, both existing and proposed, are to be protected by an easement in favour of Coliban Region Water Corporation. 12, POWERCOR (a) The plan of subdivision submitted for certification under the Subdivision Act 1988 shall be referred to Powercor Australia Ltd in accordance with Section 8 of that Act. (b) The applicant shall: * Provide an electricity supply to all lots in the subdivision in accordance with Powercor’s requirements and standards, including the extension, augmentation or re-arrangement of any existing electricity supply system, as required by Powercor. ‘* Where buildings or other installations exist on the land to be subdivided and are connected to the electricity supply, they shall be brought into compliance with the Service and Installation Rules issued by the Victorian Electricity Supply Industry. You shall arrange compliance through a Registered Electrical Contractor and provide to Powercor Australia Lid a completed Electrical Safety Certificate in accordance with Electricity Safe Victoria's Electrical Safety System * The applicant shall provide to Powercor Australia Ltd, a copy of the version of the plan of subdivision submitted for certification, which shows any amendments which have been required. * Any buildings must comply with the clearances required by the Electricity Safety (Installations) Regulations. © Any construction work must comply with Energy Safe Victoria's “No Go Zone" rules. 13. TELECOMMUNICATIONS The owner of the land must enter into an agreement with: {a) A telecommunications network or service provider for the provision of telecommunication services to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with the provider's requirements and relevant legislation at the time. (b) A suitably qualified person for the provision of fibre ready telecommunication facilities to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with any industry specifications or any standards set by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the land is in an area where the National Broadband Network will not be provided by optical fibre. (c) Before the issue of a Statement of Compliance for any stage of the subdivision under the Subdivision Act 1988, the owner of the land must provide written confirmation from: (d) A telecommunications network or service provider that all lots are PAGE 42Planning for Growth Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 connected to or are ready for connection to telecommunications services in accordance with the provider's requirements and relevant legislation at the time. (e) A suitably qualified person that fibre ready telecommunication facilities have been provided in accordance with any industry specifications or any standards set by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the land is in an area where the National Broadband Network will not be provided by optical fibre. 14, EXPIRY OF THE PERMIT (a) The plan of subdivision is not certified within two years from the date of this permit; or (b) The subdivision is not completed within five years from the date of certification of the plan of subdivision. The responsible authority may extend the time for certification of the plan if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within six months afterwards. PERMIT NOTES: CITY OF GREATER BENDIGO ASSETS Before the development starts, the owner or developer must submit to the responsible authority a written report and photos of any prior damage to public infrastructure. Listed in the report must be the condition of kerb & channel, footpath, seal, street lights, signs and other public infrastructure fronting the property and abutting at least two properties either side of the development. Unless identified with the written report, any damage to infrastructure post construction will be attributed to the development. The owner or developer of the subject land must pay for any damage caused to any public infrastructure caused as a result of the development or use permitted by this permit. CONSENT FOR WORK ON ROAD RESERVES 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. The applicant must comply with: (a) The Road Management Act 2004, (b) Road Management (Works and Infrastructure) Regulations 2005, and (c) Road Management (General) Regulations 2005 with respect to any requirements to notify the coordinating authority and/or seek consent from the coordinating authority to undertake “works” (as defined in the Act) in, over or under the road reserve. The responsible authority in the inclusion of this note on this, planning permit is not deemed {to have been notified of, or to have given consent, to undertake any works within the road reserve as proposed in this permit. PAGE 43Planning for Grovah - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 5.3 41 HALL STREET, EAGLEHAWK 3556 - DEMOLITION OF DWELLING AND OUTBUILDINGS Document Information Author Lachlan Forsyth, Statutory Planner Responsible Bernie O'Sullivan, Director Strategy & Growth Director Summary/Purpose Application details: | Demolition of dwelling and outbuildings Application No: Dp/300/2016 Applicant: Shane Muir Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd Land: 11 Hall Street, EAGLEHAWK 3556 Zoning: General Residential Zone Overlays: Heritage Overlay 21 No. of objections: 0 Consultation Not applicable meeting: Key considerations: Would the proposed demolition have an adverse impact on the significance and appearance of the heritage place? Conclusion: The proposed demolition of an original heritage building is an unacceptable heritage outcome which is at odds with Council's Heritage Policy (Clause 22.06) and the Heritage Overlay (Clause 43.01). No permit should be issued. Policy Context City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013 - 2017 (2016-2017 Update) Planning for Growth * Planning ensures residents have access to diverse, affordable and sustainable housing choices. Presentation & Vibrancy ‘* Greater Bendigo is a community that values its heritage, arts facilities and major events and supports arts and cultural experiences. Sustainability ‘* The built and natural qualities that make Greater Bendigo an attractive and appealing place are valued and conserved. PAGE 44Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Background Information There is no relevant planning permit history for the site. A detailed history of the property and the structural integrity of the building are outlined in the attached report from Minerva Heritage. Report Subject Site and Surrounds The subject site is a generally rectangular shaped lot, located on the southern side of Hall Street, approximately midway between Market and Catherine Streets, Eaglehawk. The site sits directly opposite the Eaglehawk Railway Station and next to the Railway Station Hotel. The property has a 24 metre wide frontage, an average depth of 47 metres and a total area of 987m? An original weatherboard miner's cottage is located at the front of the site. Historic records indicate this cottage was constructed circa 1876/77, which predates the formation of Hall Street and construction of the Railway Station Hotel. The front section of the cottage is structurally sound and is clearly recognisable as an early miner's cottage. The rear of the cottage contains no floor and is in need of substantial repair, although its original form is generally intact. A thorough assessment of the building's condition is detailed in the attached independent heritage assessment and condition report conducted by Minerva Heritage. This report was commissioned by the Applicant and submitted with the application. The report concludes that ‘the structure itself, particularly the front gable section, is basically sound with conditions deteriorating to the rear’. The rear of the site contains an outbuilding clad in cement sheeting with an attached carport, two sheds and a large aviary. None of these structures hold heritage significance. An old mine shaft and poppet head exist in the front yard of the cottage. Surrounding land uses are residential in nature except for the hotel next door and the railway station. PAGE 45Pranning for Growth - Reports 7 Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Figure 1: Location map showing subject site. The subject building forms part of the Eaglehawk Railway Station Precinct which lists Hall Street, Market Street and Peg leg Road as contributory streets (Eaglehawk and Bendigo Heritage Study 1993 — Precinct 3.01). The City's Heritage Advisor has also emphasised the importance of the building and the Hall Street streetscape in stating: “The house is highly visible from the Eaglehawk Railway Precinct and, together with the three houses from a similar date on the opposite side of the hotel, is important in helping to establish the historic character of the Peg Leg and Railway Precincts’. piaubiessshiaiiy) Figure 2: View of building from Hall Street. Proposal The applicant proposes to demolish all buildings on the land. No replacement buildings were proposed as part of this application. PAGE 46Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Planning Controls - Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme The following clauses are relevant in the consideration of this proposal: ‘State Planning Policy Framework * 15.03 Heritage Municipal Strategic Statement © 21.08-3 Strategies (Heritage) Local Planning Policies * 22.06 Heritage Policy Overlays * 43.01 Heritage Overlay Other Provisions 65 Decision guidelines * 81.01 Incorporated documents (Heritage Design Guidelines, August 2015) Permit trigger * Clause 43.01 Heritage Overlay: Demolition of a building Overview of relevant Planning Scheme policy State policy at Clause 15.03 (Heritage) seeks to ensure places of heritage significance are protected and conserved. Key strategies to achieve this include: * Provide for the conservation and enhancement of those places which are of, aesthetic, archaeological, architectural, cultural, scientific, or social significance, or otherwise of special cultural value. + Retain those elements that contribute to the importance of the heritage place. Council's Heritage policy at Clause 22.06 builds on the MSS's recognition of the importance of heritage to the wider community and the need for policy guidance on demolition and development of heritage sites. The most relevant objectives of the policy are: * To retain heritage assets for the enjoyment, education and experience of residents, visitors and future generations of the municipality. * To encourage the preservation, maintenance, restoration and where appropriate, reconstruction of heritage places. Specific policy guidance has been developed for demolition, with the following most relevant for this case: ‘* Encourage the retention of a significant or contributory heritage building or place unless itis structurally unsound and beyond repair. PAGE 47Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 * Encourage the retention of original elements that contribute to the significance of a heritage place including but not limited to windows, doors, chimneys, verandahs, shopfronts, fences, outbuildings and trees. * Encourage the retention of the three dimensional form when considering any application for the partial removal of a building; retention of the fagade only is not supported. Protection of the Peg Leg Heritage Precinct is provided under Heritage Overlay Schedule 21. The most relevant purposes of Clause 43.01 Heritage Overlay 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. The decision guidelines of the Heritage Overlay reflect this, with the most relevant being the following: * Whether the demolition, removal or external alteration will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place. Consultation/Communication Referrals The following internal department has been consulted on the proposal: Referral Comment City of Greater Bendigo Heritage Advisor | Demolition not supported. Public Notification Notification of the application was given by erecting notice boards on the Hall Street frontage of the land and by sending letters to adjoining land owners and occupiers. As a result of advertising, no objections were received. Planning Assessment Would the proposed demolition have an adverse impact on the significance_and appearance of the heritage place? The major question raised by this application is whether removal of the original miner's cottage would negatively affect the significance and appearance of the heritage place. As identified earlier in this report, there is strong policy support in the Planning Scheme to conserve heritage buildings and to discourage demolition of heritage fabric. PAGE 48Planning for Growth - Reports ____ Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 In the case at hand, it is agreed that the outbuildings hold no heritage importance and that the rear of the cottage is in poor condition and is in need of significant repair works. It is of particular note that the applicant's independent heritage report identifies that the original front section of the cottage is structurally sound and could be successfully restored. The proposal to wholly demolish the cottage rather than to restore it is not consistent with the purpose or decision guidelines of the Heritage Overlay. This is also at odds with the policy objectives of Clause 15.03 and 22.06. The City's Heritage Advisor agrees with this position and has recommended that the demolition should not be supported. The following excerpt taken from the Heritage Advisor's report: “The front section of the house is entical in establishing the age of the precinct and the existence of a miner's right cottage on this site...Demolition is not supported” The City’s Heritage Design Guidelines 2015 also discourage standalone demolition applications. The guidelines state that all demolition applications must be submitted with replacement designs. Again it is noted that no replacement designs have been submitted in support of this application. ‘The most appropriate outcome would be to restore the front section of the cottage and to renovate the rear with an appropriately designed extension to make the building liveable. The City’s Heritage Advisor and the Planning Department support this approach and have encouraged the owner to pursue this. The applicant has advised that the owner is not willing to undertake repairs as their intention is to raze the site and sell the land. With consideration of the relevant policy outlined above and the purpose and decision guidelines of the Heritage Overlay, the proposal is not supported, Conclusion Complete demolition without replacement is not supported by policy and is at odds with the purpose and decision guidelines of the Heritage Overlay. The proposal will have an adverse impact on the significance and appearance of the heritage place. Given this, it is recommended that the application be refused. Options Council, acting as the responsible authority for administering the Planning Scheme, may resolve to: refuse to grant a permit, grant a permit or grant a permit with conditions. Attachments. * City of Greater Bendigo Heritage Advisor report * Independent heritage and condition report (Minerva Heritage - July 2016) PAGE 49Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 RECOMMENDATION Pursuant to section 61 of the Planning and Environment Act (1987), Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to issue a Notice of Refusal to Grant a Permit for demolition of the dwelling and outbuildings at 11 Hall Street, EAGLEHAWK 3556 on the following grounds: 1. The proposal is contrary to Clause 15.03, Clause 22.06 and the purpose and decision guidelines of Clause 43.01 (Heritage Overlay) of the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme as the proposed demolition will have a substantially adverse impact on the significance and appearance of the heritage place. PAGE 50Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 5.4 19 FORBES COURT, NORTH BENDIGO 3550 - VARIATION TO RESTRICTIVE COVENANT (SINGLE DWELLING RESTRICTION), CONSTRUCTION OF TWO DWELLINGS AND TWO LOT SUBDIVISION Document Information Author Lachlan Forsyth, Statutory Planner Responsible Bernie O'Sullivan, Director Strategy & Growth Director Summary/Purpose Application details: Variation to restrictive covenant (single dwelling restriction), construction of two dwellings and two lot subdivision Application No: Dsp/450/2016 Applicant: ‘Acumen Property Group Pty Ltd Land: 19 Forbes Court, NORTH BENDIGO 3550 Zoning: General Residential Zone (GRZ) Road Zone 1 Overlays: Nil No. of objections: Two Consultation None undertaken. meeting: Key considerations: Would owners or occupiers of lots which benefit from the covenant be likely to suffer loss of amenity, loss from the change to the character of the neighbourhood or any other material detriment as a result of the proposed covenant variation and development? Conelusion: Officers cannot be satisfied that the beneficiaries of the covenant will not be caused material detriment as a result of the covenant variation and development. The mandatory decision guidelines at Section 60 (removing or varying covenants) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 have not been met. No permit should be granted PAGE 51Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Policy Context City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013 - 2017 (2016-2017 Update) Planning for Growth © Planning ensures residents have access to diverse, affordable and sustainable housing choices. Presentation & Vibrancy * Greater Bendigo is a community that values its heritage, arts facilities and major events and supports arts and cultural experiences Productivity * Greater Bendigo has a vibrant and diverse economy that grows jobs and enables good living standards. Sustainability ‘© The built and natural qualities that make Greater Bendigo an attractive and appealing place are valued and conserved. Background Information Planning Permit DS/64/2013 was issued on 13 May 2013 for 33 lot subdivision and removal of an easement. This permit created the subject lot. As part of the subdivision the original developer applied private covenants to all lots created (see original plan of subdivision below). Part of this covenant states that: “The transferee(s)....will not at any time erect or cause permit to be erected or remain erected on the land hereby sold or any part thereof any building fencing other than: (a) One single dwelling house emphasis added] no part of which consist of a prefabricated pre-existing building or dwelling house and having not less than 75% of all external wails of brick, brick veneer, stone or glass and roofs of tiles or non-reflective materials and with any dwelling to be erected on lots 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 being restricted to a single storey." In simple terms, the covenant restricts each lot to having a single dwelling constructed on it. All lots within the original plan of subdivision are beneficiaries of this covenant. The importance of this is that beneficiaries have the right to enforce the covenant or to object to any application to vary or remove the covenant. PAGE 82Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 PLAN OF SUBDIVISION “| yo er Figure 1: Original plan of subdivision. Subject lot highlighted in red, Report ‘Subject Site and Surrounds Figure 2: Location map showing subject site. Objectors properties marked with a star. The subject land is located at the end of Forbes Court with road frontage to Holdsworth Road, North Bendigo. PAGE 63Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 The lot is generally rectangular in shape and measures 15.25m in width, an average of 27m in depth and 400m? in area. The land is currently vacant and contains no vegetation. Allotments either side have recently been developed with single dwellings. Surrounding lots all contain single detached dwellings. Proposal The applicant seeks approval for the following: * To vary the restrictive covenant on title to allow construction of two dwellings, rather than one single dwelling. To construct two, single storey, attached dwellings with two bedrooms each. To subdivide the land into two lots measuring 207m? and 193m? in size. ee 4 a ra ; N FORBES COURT HOLDSWORTH ROAD Figure 3: Proposed site plan Planning Controls - Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme The following clauses are relevant in the consideration of this proposal: State Planning Policy Framework «Regional development (cl. 11.05) © Urban environment (cl. 15.01) © Sustainable development (cl. 15.02) * Residential development (cl. 16.01) PAGE 54Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Municipal Strategic Statement ‘* Municipal profile (cl. 21.01) Key issues and influences (cl. 21.02) Strategic directions (cl. 21.04) Compact Bendigo (cl. 21.05) Reference documents (cl. 21.10) Local Planning Policies ° Nil Other Provisions General Residential Zone (cl. 32.08) Easements, Restrictions and Reserves (cl. 52.02) Car Parking (cl. 52.06) ResCode - Two or more dwellings on a lot (cl. 55) ResCode - Subdivision (cl. 56) Decision guidelines (cl. 65) Referral and notice provisions (cl. 66) Permit Triggers * Clause 52.02 Easements, Restrictions and Reserves: Variation of a covenant * Clause 32.08-4 General Residential Zone: Construction of two dwellings on a lot. * Clause 32.08-2 General Residential Zone: Subdivision. * Clause 52.29 Land Adjacent to a Road Zone, Category 1: Subdivision. Consultation/Communication Referrals The following authorities and internal departments have been consulted on the proposal: Referral Comment VicRoads No objection. Traffic & Design No objection — standard access conditions. Drainage No objection — standard drainage conditions. Public Notification The application was advertised in accordance with Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act by displaying a noticeboard on the site, by sending letters to all owners and occupiers of lots within the original subdivision and by placing a notice in the Bendigo Advertiser. As a result of advertising, two objections were received from owners who are beneficiaries of the covenant. The grounds of objection included: ‘* Opposition to variation of restrictive covenant. PAGE 55Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 * Increased traffic within Forbes Court and increased potential for road accidents. * Overshadowing concerns. * Development is out of character with the area and would diminish the existing appearance of the neighbourhood. © Opposition to higher density development. «Increased noise. + Negative impacts on property values. Negative amenity impacts Planning Assessment Outline of legislative framework A “restriction” is defined under the Subdivision Act 1988 as follows: Restriction A restrictive covenant or restriction which can be registered, or recorded in the Register under the Transfer or Land Act 1958. Clause 52.02 of the Planning Scheme states that a permit is required to create, vary or remove an easement or restriction. The purpose of Clause 52.02 is: Purpose To enable the removal and variation of an easement or restrictions to enable a use or development that complies with the planning scheme after the interests of affected people are considered. There is only one decision guideline specified in Clause 52.02 which reads as follows: Decision Guideline Before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines in clause 65, the responsible authority must consider the interests of affected people. In addition to Clause 52.02, Section 60(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 must be adhered to, Section 60(2) provides as follows: 60(2) The responsible authority must not grant a permit which allows the removal or variation of a restriction (within the meaning of the Subdivision Act 1988) unless it is satisfied that the owner of any land benefited by the restriction (other than an owner who, before or after the making of the application for the permit but not ‘more than three months before its making, has consented in writing to the grant of the permit) will be unlikely to suffer— (a) financial loss; or (b) loss of amenity; or (c) loss arising from change to the character of the neighbourhood; or (d) any other material detriment - as a consequence of the removal or variation of the restriction. PAGE 56Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Would owners or occupiers of lots which benefit from the covenant be likely to suffer loss of amenity, loss from change to the character of the neighbourhood or any other material detriment as a result of the proposed covenant variation and development? As outlined above, a permit is required to vary a restrictive covenant and the interests of affected people must be considered in deciding whether to grant a permit. Council can only issue a permit if it is satisfied that material detriment is "unlikely" to be caused and that no loss is suffered by beneficiaries of the covenant. In the VCAT case Hill v Campaspe SC [2011] VCAT 949 the tribunal stated that: "The Tribunal has emphasised in various cases that this does necessitate a finding that detriment would occur as a probability; rather it is sufficient that there be a probability, which is neither fanciful or remote, that a detriment may occur." Public notification of the application has been undertaken to ascertain the interests of affected people. Two owners of neighbouring lots which benefit from the covenant have objected on the grounds outlined earlier in this report. It is reasonable to conclude that by permitting the covenant to be varied to allow construction of two dwellings on the 400m? lot, the character of the area would be changed to some degree. The side by side arrangement, boundary to boundary development and separate low pitch roof forms of the proposed development are clearly different to the existing dwellings in Forbes Court. It is also reasonable to conclude that by allowing two dwellings to be constructed on the land there will be an increase in population density and traffic movements. This may cause detriment to the amenity of owners and occupiers within the original subdivision. The objecting neighbours have expressed their concern at these changes and have requested that Council refuse the application to protect their amenity and the existing character of the area It should be noted that the Section 60(2) test doesn't state that material detriment or loss of amenity needs to be substantial. Council must only consider whether material detriment, loss of amenity or loss arising from change to the character of the area is “unlikely” to occur. Given the nature of the objections, Council cannot be satisfied that Section 60(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 can be met. Would the proposal comply with the Planning Scheme if the restrictive covenant didn't exist? The principle of constructing more houses in existing urban areas which are fully serviced is generally supported by both State and local policy (see relevant clauses above). The Planning Scheme puts equal importance on neighbourhood character and the importance of good design in accommodating infill development. PAGE 87Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 In addition to this, it is a mandatory requirement of the General Residential Zone that ResCode is complied with. ResCode sets out the requirements for building siting, design, provision of on-site amenity and protection of off-site amenity. For the proposed development, it is fair to say it would generally meet the principles of providing infill development on urban land which falls within the urban growth boundary. With regards to character, the design is generally acceptable, although it would benefit from a shared roof form to appear more as one dwelling, rather than two small, side by side cottages which don't match the existing built form pattern of Forbes Court. As for ResCode, the dwellings do not meet Standard B10 — Energy Efficiency, as the living rooms have been located on the south with no north facing windows to achieve adequate solar access. All other ResCode Standards have been met. It should be emphasized that, notwithstanding the above, the planning merit of the proposal is irrelevant as the restrictive covenant on title prohibits more than one dwelling on the land. The merits of the development could only be considered if the restrictive covenant was varied or removed. As outlined above, the restriction can only be removed after the interests of affected people are considered and only if the decision maker is satisfied that amenity impacts, loss from change to character and material detriment is “unlikely” to be caused, regardless of how minor those impacts or losses may be. As discussed above, Council cannot be satisfied that this is unlikely to occur, particularly as neighbouring beneficiaries have objected on these grounds. Conclusion Section 60(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 bars Council from issuing a permit to vary a restrictive covenant if the variation is likely to cause material detriment, loss of amenity or loss arising from change to the character of the area The proposed development of two dwellings and two lot subdivision has potential to change the character of the area and to cause offsite amenity impacts on neighbours. Owners of lots who benefit from the restrictive covenant have objected to the variation on these grounds. Given this, Council cannot be satisfied that benefitting neighbours won't suffer material detriment or loss of amenity. No permit should be issued. 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. PAGE 58Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Attachments * Full copy of ttle including restrictive covenants. * Objections RECOMMENDATION Pursuant to section 61 of the Planning and Environment Act (1987), Greater Bendigo City Council resolve to issue a Notice of Refusal to grant a permit for variation to restrictive covenant (single dwelling restriction), construction of two dwellings and two lot subdivision at 19 Forbes Court, NORTH BENDIGO 3650 on the following grounds: 1, The proposed restrictive covenant variation does not comply with the purpose and decision guidelines of Clause 52.02 of the Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme and Section 60(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. 2. The responsibly authority is not satisfied that the proposed variation of restriction is unlikely to result in detriment or loss being suffered by the beneficiaries of the covenant. PAGE 59Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 Octobor 2016 55 41 ALEXANDER ROAD, JUNORTOUN 3551 (LOT 3 OF PS 649236 A) - APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN; REMOVAL OF COVENANT; AND SUBDIVISION OF LAND INTO 8 LOTS Document Information Author Peter O'Brien, Senior Planner Responsible Bernie O'Sullivan, Director Strategy & Growth Director Summary/Purpose Application details: Approval of a Development Plan; removal of covenant and subdivision of land into 8 lots. Application No: DS/58/2016 Applicant: Udevelop Property Development Consultancy Land: 41 Alexander Road, JUNORTOUN 3551 Lot 3 of PS 649236 A Zoning: Low Density Residential Zone (LDRZ) Overlays: Development Plan Overlay 4 (DPO4) Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO) Vegetation Protection Overlay 2 (VPO2) No. of submissions: 4 (2 have been unconditionally withdrawn) Consultation Held on 7 June 2016. The consultation meeting was attended meeting: by Councillor Campbell. Councillors Leach and Weragoda were apologies for the meeting. Two of the submitters and the applicant/owner also attended Key considerations: Is there policy support (State and local) for a subdivision in this location? Can the lots be appropriately serviced and accessed? Are bushfire planning requirements met? Are the lot sizes compatible with the general character of the area and will native vegetation be retained? © What are the implications on the existence of a ‘building envelope’ registered as a covenant on the title and should this be removed? Conclusion: Assessment and referral of the application has demonstrated that the lots can be appropriately serviced and bushfire risk of future dwellings limited to an acceptable level. Despite this, the application is recommended for refusal as: PAGE 60Planning for Growth - Reports _Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 * The need to construct the road to ‘Rural Access’ standard will mean an excessive amount of vegetation will be lost in the road reserve and the siting of dwellings will mean that established vegetation on the application site will also be lost; * The proposed lot sizes are inconsistent with established character. The character of the area has been defined by consistent decision making in subdivision applications by the City over the past 15 years. These decisions have generally adhered to the minimum lot size (1 hectare) for subdivisions in this area, which is the preferred lot size set by the Development Plan Overlay; and * In relation to the removal of a covenant, Council must refuse the application as the application has not satisfied the tests outlined in Section 60 (2) of the Planning and Environment Act (1987). Policy Context City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013 - 2017 (2016-2017 Update) Planning for Growth * Planning ensures residents have access to diverse, affordable and sustainable housing choices. Presentation & Vibrancy * Greater Bendigo is a community that values its heritage, arts facilities and major events and supports arts and cultural experiences, Productivity * Greater Bendigo has a vibrant and diverse economy that grows jobs and enables good living standards. Sustainability «The built and natural qualities that make Greater Bendigo an attractive and appealing place are valued and conserved. Background Information A near identical application to the proposal before Council (DS/537/2015) was received in July 2015. Officers advised that the application was unlikely to be supported and requested additional information. This application lapsed as the permit applicant did not respond to the City's request for additional information. The applicant's cover letter submitted with this application reads: “1 am lodging this application to COGB as the previous application was lapsed by council. All of the information is identical and | understand that council were going to refuse to issue a permit. | am happy for council to do the same with this application; | would however like to go directly to Note 3 on the RFI dated 24th August 2015 of application DS/537/2015. PAGE 61Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 | would like to advise that | seek to have the application determined in the submitted form which will result in notice of the Development Plan being given; and then the matter reported to Council with recommendation with Development Plan and Permit application be refused” (sic)." The lot that is the subject of this application was created by the approval of a Development Plan and Planning Permit (DS/86/2010) in June 2011, The lots included two 1.12 hectare lots fronting Alexander Road. Lot 1 contains an existing dwelling constructed in 2002-2003. Lot 2 contains an existing dwelling constructed in 2012-213. The balance of the land (lot 3) is the lot that is the subject of the proposal. The lot is 6.076 hectares in size and it has 75.52 metres of frontage to Alexander Road and is 359.17 metres deep. The lot contains scattered vegetation; a horse trotting track and a large dam (toward the Alexander Road frontage of the site. The approval of the subdivision permit that created the application site had a condition requiring a legal restriction on the plan of subdivision that reads “No building on lot 3 is to be constructed outside of the building envelope shown on the endorsed plan in City of Greater Bendigo Permit No. DS/861/2010”. A plan showing the building envelope is below. serncrenS| ovcuuserncrw a eee Pe CSve-op ivnes. Atma Re Aner a Figure 1: Endorsed building envelope plan. ~ PAGE@2Planning for Growth - Reports, Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Adjoining the site to the north is the Wellsford State Forest; to the east (on the opposite side of Alexander Road) is land in a different zone to the application site; being zoned Rural Living. Alexander Road is the border between Junortoun and Longlea. In the Rural Living Zone a minimum lot size of 8 hectares applies for subdivision. Land adjoining the site to the west is in Low Density Residential Zone; where the same Development Plan Overlay applies (preferred minimum lot size of 1 hectare). Between the application site and Popes Road (a distance of over 1.5 kilometres) there are 82 existing lots on the northem site of the Mclvor Highway. 73 of the 82 lots are 1 hectare or over in size. Of the lots less than 1 hectare: * 1 lotis 0.65 hectares in size (8 Mclvor Park Drive); © Another is 0.89 hectares in size (51 Mclvor Park Drive); and © The remaining 7 are between 0.94 and 0.99 hectares in size. Lots on the opposite side of Alexander Road (Longlea) being in the Rural Living Zone are all significantly larger, being 8 hectares and above. On the southem side of Mclvor Road in a similar area (bounded by Popes Road and Homebush Drive, there are 85 lots of which 47 are less than 1 hectare in size. The majority of the lots are over 0.8 hectares in size and the overall average is over 1 hectare. Alexander Road is a narrow unsealed road with extensive remnant vegetation in the road reserve. The road currently services the application site and 6 other properties and is on the City’s Road Register meaning it is subject to periodic maintenance. Proposal The application seeks approval to subdivide the existing lot of 6.076 hectares into a total of eight lots. The lots range in size from 0.6104 hectares to 0.7454 hectares. Therefore all of the lots are less than 1 hectare in size. The lots would be served by a road having PAGE 63Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 a road reserve width of approximately 20 metres and a court bowl with a 14 metre wide radius. The area the proposed road occupies is approximately 8,100 metres. The proposed subdivision layout (including dwelling and effluent envelopes) is shown in Figure 3 below. @ 5 2 2 8 3 3 a Figure 3: Plan of subdivision showing building/effluent envelopes and access. PAGE 64Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Planning Controls - Greater Bendigo Planning Scheme Pursuant to the Low Density Residential Zone and Bushfire Management Overlay a planning permit is required to subdivide land. if the Development Plan and Planning permit were approved; a further permit for a dwelling on each lot would not be required. Schedule 4 (Low Density Residential Zone - Density Management Area) to the Development Plan Overlay applies to the land. Under the Development Plan Overlay a permit must not be granted to subdivide land within the development area until a Development Plan has been approved. Lots under the minimum lot size of one hectare may be allowed if it can be demonstrated that: © the lots can be appropriately serviced; © remnant vegetation can be retained; and * the proposed lot size is compatible with the general character of the area. All the lots will be less than 1 hectare, thus it is necessary to have regard to the above three points in determining if the subdivision with the proposed lot sizes is appropriate. Clause 52.02 of the Planning Scheme states that a permit is required to create, vary or remove an easement or restriction (this is the reason why the covenant removal requires a permit), The following clauses are relevant in the consideration of this proposal: State Planning Policy Framework Regional development (clause 11.05). Protection of habitat/ Native vegetation management (Clause 12.01) Bushfire Planning (clause 13.05). ‘Catchment Planning and Water Management (Clause 14.02), Cultural identity and neighbourhood character (Clause 15.01) Housing (clause 16). Municipal Strategic Statement and Local Planning Policy Framework Settlement (clause 21.05). Housing (clause 21.06). Environment (clause 21.08). Reference documents (clause 21.10) Development at the urban — forest interface policy (clause 22.01) Salinity and erosion risk policy (Clause 22.04) Other Provisions * Low Density Residential Zone (clause 32.03) Development Plan Overlay Schedule 4 (clause 43.04) * Bushfire Management Overlay (clause 44.06) PAGE 65Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Easements, Restrictions and Reserves (clause 52.02) Native vegetation (clause 52.17). Planning for bushfire (clause 52.47) Bushfire protection: exemptions (Clause 52.48) Decision guidelines (clause 65). Referral and notice provisions (clause 66). Consultation/Communication Referrals The following authorities and internal departments have been consulted on the proposal: Referral Comment Powercor No objection subject to conditions Coliban Water No objection subject to conditions ‘AusNet Services (Gas) | No objection subject to conditions PL Country Fire Authority | No objection subject to conditions VicRoads No objection subject to conditions. Consent included a requirement that “Alexander Road at the intersection with Mclvor Highway must be sealed to a minimum distance of 10 metres from the edge of seal’. Traffic & Design and} No objection subject to conditions. Consent included a Drainage Engineers —_| requirement that Alexander Road have a ‘fully sealed pavement to Rural Living Access Street standard” (as per the City’s Infrastructure Design Manual’ Public Notification: As a result of the notice of the proposal; four objections were received (two have been unconditionally withdrawn), with the issues raised being: Impacts on vegetation as a result of small lot sizes; Potential for septic lines to run into objectors dam and water channel; Loss of privacy; Lot sizes being significantly smaller than those in the surrounding area; Rural amenity impacted by loss of spaciousness and country bush ‘feel’; and Approval of subdivision would create a bad precedent. Note: Correspondence received from an objector indicated they would conditionally withdraw, however this withdrawal was subject to a condition that Council could not legally include on a permit (if one were to issue) so as a result they are still considered to be an objector. The planning merits and issues raised by the submitters are outlined below. PAGE 66Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Planning Assessment Is there policy support (State and local) for a sub The proposed subdivision of the land can be considered as being consistent with some State and local planning policies such as Regional Development (clause 11.05), Bushfire Planning (clause 13.05); Catchment Planning and Water Management (Clause 14.02); Housing (clause 16); Development at the urban — forest interface policy (clause 22.01) and Salinity and erosion risk policy (Clause 22.04). It can be viewed as providing land for residential development and opportunity for choice in housing type and lifestyle which are broadly speaking housing policy objectives. It is also an objective of State Planning Policy (Clause 15.01-5) to “recognise and protect cultural identity, neighbourhood character and sense of place”. Strategies listed to meeting the objective include: * Ensure development responds and contributes to existing sense of place and cultural identity. * Ensure development recognises distinctive urban forms and layout and their relationship to landscape and vegetation. * Ensure development responds to its context and reinforces special characteristics of local environment and place by emphasising: © The underlying natural landscape character. ° The heritage values and built form that reflect community identity. © The values, needs and aspirations of the community. It is agreed there is some general policy support for the application; however this must be balanced with the consideration of proposals with regard to ‘character’ and Council's “Compact Greater Bendigo” policy at clause 21.05. The assessment of character appears later in this report. Can the lots be appropriately serviced and accessed? As is the case with all subdivision proposals; the application was required to be referred to the relevant servicing authorities. All services confirm that the site can be serviced with the exception of sewerage; which would be subject to on site effluent disposal systems. As reticulated sewerage services are not available the City's Environmental Health and Local Laws team have reviewed the proposal and the supporting technical documentation, being a Land Capability Assessment. The City's Environmental Health unit has confirmed that the siting of the dwellings and their proposed effluent disposal systems meet established standards and will not adversely affect the environment. PAGE 67jenn Tor Grow reeporta Soe ee Ordinary Meeting - 12 Orioner 2016. With respect to access; VicRoads have stipulated that ‘Alexander Road at the intersection with Mclvor Highway must be sealed to a minimum distance of 10 metres from the edge of seal” and the City’s Engineers have stipulated that the road must be a “fully sealed pavement to Rural Living Access Street standard” (as per the City's Infrastructure Design Manual). The impact of upgrading the road to Rural Living Access Street standard will be that a significant (though undefined) amount of native vegetation in the road reserve would require removal. The removal of the vegetation does not form part of this application and would be subject to a separate Planning Application due to the VPO on the land. Are Bushfire Planning requirements met? A number of provisions of the Planning Scheme deal with this issue. The subject site is within an identified area of bushfire risk, hence the provision of the Bushfire Management Overlay on the land. The CFA are the best qualified agency to provide advice on this issue. The CFA have advised that they are satisfied that the risk associated with the proposed dwellings is not unreasonable and that the siting, access, defendable space and water supply outlined in the Bushfire Management Statement are acceptable, subject to conditions to be placed on any permit that issues.. Are the lot sizes compatible with the general character of the area and will native vegetation be retained? Clause 43.04-3 of the Scheme states that a development plan may consist of plans or other documents. This was the form in which Development Plan (simultaneously lodged with the planning application) was received. As outlined previously, lots under the minimum lot size of one hectare may be permitted in the Low Density Residential Zone areas as shown on Map 6 Junortoun Area (refer to Figure 4) only if it can be demonstrated that: «the lots can be appropriately serviced; * remnant vegetation can be retained; and * the proposed lot size is compatible with the general character of the area. The applicant's submission on these points was simply: “in consultation with the Developer and Licensed Land Surveyor, the minimum lot size applicable to the development has been declared at 0.4ha. This lot size is in accordance with the requirements of the LDRZ zoning, and furthermore is required as the lots are not serviced by reticulated sewer. The LCA prepared to support this development, shows each lot is more than capable of achieving the land capability and environmental requirements as needed’. PAGE 68Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 MAP 6 | JUNORTOUN AREA MINIMUM LOT SIZE - 1.0 ha * The area designated DPO4 only applies to this Low Density Residential Zone section In assessing whether the lots of less than 1 hectare are appropriate the following two criteria are applicable; and have not been satisfactorily met. Remnant vegetation: The ‘building envelopes’ indicate that depending on the placement of dwellings within the envelope; that several remnant canopy trees would be lost (without the need for an offset or permit; owing to bushfire planning exemptions) The need to upgrade Alexander Road would result in an undefined; but significant amount of remnant vegetation (which links with the Wellsford State Forest) as being lost contrary to the requirements of the VPO. Character: The applicant relies on the fact that technical objectives of servicing, access, and bushfire planning requirements as being reasons why the application should be supported. When queried by officers with regard to the failure to include any submission with regard to character the applicant submitted: “lam aware that there are few parcels of land in the area that are smaller than the recommendations of the DPO; but | would challenge anyone to be able to walk onto a PAGE 69Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 block of land and accurately identify a lot of tha in size as opposed to a lot of 4,646m2; and this to me is the main planning argument that council are constrained to assess under the DPO requirements (sic)". As outlined previously in this report, between the application site and Popes Road (a distance of over 1.5 kilometres) there are 82 existing lots on the northern site of the Mclvor Highway. 73 of the 82 lots are 1 hectare or over in size. Of the 9 lots less than 1 hectare: * 1 lotis 0.65 hectares in size (8 Mclvor Park Drive); ‘* another is 0.89 hectares in size (51 Mclvor Park Drive); and + the remaining 7 are between 0.94 and 0.99 hectares in size. Lots on the opposite side of Alexander Road are in neighbouring locality of Longlea and are also in a Rural Living Zone. The Rural Living Zone lots are all significantly larger being 8 hectares and above. On the southem side of Mclvor Road in a similar area (bounded by Popes Road and Homebush Drive, there are 85 lots of which 47 are less than 1 hectare in size. However, the majority of the lots are over 0.8 hectares in size and the overall average is over 1 hectare. The largest subdivision (Homebush Estate) was also created prior to the introduction of the DPO. Consistent decision making by Council over a period of more than 15 years should not be departed from in this case to allow smaller lots, all which are less than 1 hectare in size. In the context of the area; the proposed lots are not compatible with the character of the area and the applicant's reliance on the fact the lots can be ‘serviced’ does not overcome this fatal flaw to the application. What are the implications on the existence of a ‘building envelope’ registered on the title of the application sit As noted in the Subject Site and Surrounds section of this report; the application site is a lot created under a 2010 subdivision planning permit. Two of the lots created were over 1 hectare in size and the largest lot (lot 3) being 6.076 hectares in size. The approval of that permit had a condition that a registered restriction (as a covenant) be placed on the plan of subdivision that reads “No building on lot 3 is to be constructed outside of the building envelope shown on the endorsed plan in City of Greater Bendigo Permit No. DS/861/2010". Section 60(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, applies in this case which states that: “The responsible authority must not grant a permit which allows the removal or variation of a restriction (within the meaning of the Subdivision Act 1988) unless it is satisfied that the owner of any land benefited by the restriction . will be unlikely to sutfer- (a) financial loss; or (b) loss of amenity; or (0) loss arising from change to the character of the neighbourhood; or (d) any other material detriment- as a consequence of the removal or variation of the restriction” PAGE 70Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 These matters must be considered even where no objection has been received; or in this case where an objection from a benefitting lot was received, however was then withdrawn. Council can only issue a permit if it is satisfied that material detriment is “unlikely” to be caused and that no loss is suffered by beneficiaries of the covenant. With respect to the meaning of “unlikely” the Tribunal case Hill v Campaspe SC [2011] VCAT 949 stated that: "The Tribunal has emphasised in various cases that this does necessitate a finding that detriment would occur as a probability; rather it is sufficient that there be a probability, which is neither fanciful or remote, that a detriment may occur." Given the assessed position with regard to the planning merits of the development plan and subdivision; Council cannot be satisfied that the tests; in particular with regard to amenity and character have been addressed by the application and the covenant removal aspect of the permit application must be refused. Conclusion Assessment and referral of the application has demonstrated that the lots can be appropriately serviced and bushfire risk to future dwellings limited to an acceptable level. Despite this, the application is recommended for refusal as: The need to construct the road to ‘Rural Access’ standard will mean an excessive amount of vegetation will be lost in the road reserve and the siting of dwellings will mean that established vegetation on the application site will also be lost; The proposed lot sizes are inconsistent with established character. The character of the area has been defined by consistent decision making in subdivision applications by the City over the past 15 years. These decisions have generally adhered to the minimum lot size (1 hectare) for subdivisions in this area which is the preferred lot size set by the Development Plan Overlay; and «In relation to the removal of a covenant, Council must refuse the application as the application has not satisfied the tests outlined in Section 60 (2) of the Planning and Environment Act (1987). Options Council, acting as the responsible authority for administering the Planning Scheme, may resolve to: * Decline to approve the Development Plan and to refuse grant a permit; or. ‘* Approve the Development Plan then issue a notice of decision to grant a permit. Attachments * Submissions PAGE 71Pianning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 RECOMMENDATION That having considered the Development Plan and Planning application at 41 Alexander Road, Junortoun (Lot 3 of PS 649236 A) for a subdivision of land into 8 lots and removal of a covenant, that pursuant to section 61 of the Planning and Environment Act (1987), Greater Bendigo City Council resolves to: (a) Refuse to approve the Development Plan prepared by DJK Engineers Reference number 14072, dated July 2015; and (b) Refuse to grant the Planning Permit for the following reasons: ty 2. There is no approved Development Plan pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Overlay. The proposed lot sizes are incompatible with the general character of the area. Remnant vegetation will not be retained on the lots or in the road reserve. The application to remove Covenant PS649236A created on 19 April 2012 has not satisfied the tests under Section 60(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. PAGE 72Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 56 STRATHFIELDSAYE TOWN CENTRE URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK - COMMUNITY CONSULTATION Document Information Author Els Viester, Strategic Planner - Design Responsible Bernie O'Sullivan, Director Strategy & Growth Director Summary/Purpose The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the work being undertaken on the Strathfieldsaye Town Centre Urban Design Framework (UDF). The Draft UDF is put to Council for endorsement to go out for community consultation. Policy Context Council Plan Reference: The draft Strathfieldsaye Town Centre UDF is in line with the Council Plan Theme 2: Planning for Growth: 2.2.3 Complete Urban Design Frameworks for Maiden Gully and Strathfieldsaye main streets. Strategy Referenc: This project is also mentioned as an action in the major strategies of the City: Commercial Land and Activity Centre Strategy: 6. Prepare an Urban Design Framework for the Strathfieldsaye commercial centre to attract investment and to guide development in this Activity Centre. As part of this project, investigate the preferred zoning of 2 Club Court Integrated Transport and Land Use Strategy: * Develop Urban Design Frameworks for the activity centres identified by the Commercial Land and Activity Centres Strategy, namely, Epsom, Strathfieldsaye, Maiden Gully, Marong, Golden Square and Ironbark to guide development in and around these centres and train station precincts, to accommodate a growing population and to induce and support public transport use and active travel by people living in and accessing the activity centres. Residential Strategy: GBRS7.0 An ongoing program of preparing Urban Design Frameworks for various activity centres including Strathfieldsaye PAGE 73‘Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Background Information In accordance with the Council Plan and the adopted Planning and Development Directorate work program, work has commenced on the Strathfieldsaye Town Centre Urban Design Framework. This project is different to a Structure Plan, and serves a more specific purpose. ‘An Urban Design Framework (UDF) sets the direction and coordination for the development of the main street of Strathfieldsaye with a focus on the town centre. The UDF involves the generation of ideas and the preparation of realistic design concepts based on extensive community engagement research and analysis. The Strathfieldsaye Town Centre UDF is a document that is developed as a follow up document to the Strathfieldsaye Township Plan (2009). Report Strathfieldsaye is growing rapidly and is forecast to more than double in population. This will result in the need for more commercial development and pressure for bigger and better community facilities. It is important that the development of the town centre meets the needs of the whole community, the landowners and businesses and presents as a well-designed, vibrant, safe and attractive place for all. The key recommended changes are: © Consolidation of the town centre on the north side of Wellington Street as a place for people to meet © The Town Centre within the creeks is a concept that will be promoted by strong native tree planting and landscaping * The Town Centre will support a network of foot and bicycle paths to and from the town centre connecting housing, commercial, social and recreation areas New developments should contribute in their design to the preferred Strathfieldsaye ‘Town Centre character See the map on the next page for the Overall Framework Plan. Timelines: If approved by Council the document would be out for community consultation from 24 October 2016 to 16 December 2016 Consultation on the draft: A survey will go online for the community to give their comments on the Draft UDF. City staff will have community consultation sessions on at least two occasions within the consultation timeframe. City officers will attend the Community Carnival held on October 9 with information about the Draft UDF. PAGE 74Planning for Growth - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Progress: The final UDF will be presented to the new Council for adoption in February 2016, PAGE 75Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Planning for Growth - Reports peqyas s919u1 ua} 0} xs yyMn @BeqUOY eqUEpIsey — 2peqias 19194 x5 01 Noy yum aBeIUO.,jenUepIsey — speqias soyow om} 0} o122 yyy aBeqUO jesse) —_ suopzouuoo Sumo pu Baye sone) teorsunuoo umn} ot wonepe oe augeou ain, ‘uodsuen anuse pue 559228 ajaiyan oy aneds paieys € = > SRua> umoy ayn yBnosyn uy BuypAn/uensapeg <> anus lumor ayp 01 549919 wey ssanne Buypk2/ueMNsapag <— Bans uorBuyjany Buoye ausoy) 921

PP We SPW” os SS 350,000 j ‘+ The Education and Public Programs delivered by the Gallery were a highlight for the financial year once again. Bookings, functions and hire of the Gallery was very much back on track from the previous (building/construction) year with better access to spaces and less restricted hours for the Gallery Café; and * Bendigo Art Gallery and the Post Office Gallery off programs throughout the 2015/16 financial year — exhi a diverse range of artistic ns included: ST Gill: The New Rush 20 June — 27 September 2015 PAGE 103Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports __orainary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Post Office Gallery Opulence: luxury in early Bendigo homes 3 July - 4 October 2015 Hiding in Plain Sight: A selection of works from the Michael Buxton Collection 18 July - 27 September 2015 Ken + Julia Yonetani: The Last Supper 18 July — 13 September 2015 2015 Arthur Guy Memorial Painting Prize 29 August - 1 November 2015 INK REMIX: Contemporary art from mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong 31 October 2015 - 7 February 2016 Theatrical traditions: stage & screen in Bendigo 16 October 2015 - 14 March 2016 Ron Mueck: Pregnant Woman 14 November - 21 February 2016 Out of Winter 28 November ~ 21 February 2016 Bendigo Art Gallery and Twentieth Century Fox present Marilyn Monroe 5 March 20116 — 10 July 2016 Eclectic Treasures: Bendigo’s private collections 24 March 2016-1 4August 2016 General Comments * In terms of the growth of the Bendigo Art Gallery art collection in 2015/16, 69 artworks valued at over $162,000 were acquired by the Gallery Board through purchases from its major bequests and gifts, particularly from donors under the Federal Government's Cultural Gifts Program. This represents a_ significant contribution to the Greater Bendigo community. At the point of acquisition, these artworks are transferred by the Board to the ownership of the City of Greater Bendigo. * The Board also contributed $170,000 towards the operating budget through their fundraising efforts to support our major exhibitions program and the salary for the Development Officer. The Gallery membership at the time of this report was 1,330 paid memberships with an additional 65 education school members. * Over 100 volunteers assisted the Gallery and Post Office Gallery throughout the year; and PAGE 104Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 ‘* Media and publicity was sustained and regular listings and references to exhibitions were evident in The Age, The Herald Sun, The Australian, on television and radio and various tourism publications. The key event which attracted national press was the international exhibition Bendigo Art Gallery and twentieth Century Fox presents Marilyn Monroe. The Bendigo Art Gallery was a six day per week operation except during the Marilyn Monroe exhibition when the Gallery moved to 7 days to meet demand on Mondays. The reason behind the 6 day operation was to provide extra time for cleaning and maintenance for the newly expanded spaces and also because the Gallery is generally quiet on Mondays relative to being relatively busy later in the week and weekends. Less depreciation, Bendigo Art Gallery 2015/16 budgeted operational net cost was $1,903,902. Its end of financial year net cost result however was $413,313. Expenditure totalled $4,176,944 whilst income totalled $3,763,631. | 2015/16 | 2014/15 | | | | | 2ons/ia | | | | 2on2/a3 | | 2011/12 | mactual | | | mbudget | 2010/11 | | 1 | 2009/10 SERRE — | | | | | | 2008/09 , | | 2007/08 — ~ | © 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 It is important to note that reasonable fluctuations in net cost can and do occur each year depending on the scale, nature and timing of exhibitions, associated costs, grant and sponsorships, ticket revenues and tourism fluctuations. In the last ten years, Bendigo Art Gallery has operated under budget on seven ‘occasions and over budget on three occasions. Future Challenges and Directions The challenge remains for Bendigo Art Gallery to maintain its strong national profile Regional galleries across Australia are endeavouring to emulate Bendigo's success. PAGE 105Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Whilst on the surface this is flattering, it is nonetheless very challenging in the face of unrelenting competition. Some of the key management principles and policy pursuits underpinning the current operations and future planning for Bendigo Art Gallery include: * There are several major exhibitions currently in the planning pipeline and these will be progressively announced over the next year. The Victorian Government continues to demonstrate a strong commitment to support and collaborate with many of these exhibitions; * Continue to offer a diverse and varied program that showcases exhibitions of national and international significance; ‘© Maintain profile of the Gallery nationally and internationally by creating an iconic destination and visitor experience; * Continue to build upon the permanent collection with a particular focus on contemporary visual art; and * Continue to develop a stronger education and academic sector partnership with La Trobe University. RECOMMENDATION That the Greater Bendigo City Council acknowledge the performance of the management, staff and numerous volunteers of Bendigo Art Gallery for the 2015/16 year and the gallery's significant on-going social, promotional, cultural and economic contribution to the region. PAGE 106Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 65 STATE GOVERNMENT FUNDING CHANGES FOR DISABILITY INCLUSION Document Information Author Steven Abbott, Manager Community Partnerships Responsible Michael Smyth, Acting Director Community Wellbeing Director Summary/Purpose The purpose of this report is to inform Council of changes in disability inclusion funding for the City, the City’s work in this area, plans to secure continual funds and to seek support to further advocate to the State Government. Policy Context Continual support for social inclusion of people with disability contributes to achieving the Council's vision to be the most liveable regional City in Australia. The percentage of people in the Greater Bendigo community living with a disability is estimated to be 22%, warranting dedicated efforts to ensure social inclusion and subsequently higher levels of liveability. Additionally the percentage of people living with a disability is projected to grow to 25% by 2021. Local government has core responsibilities regarding human rights and social equity, and is obligated to meet the following strategic and legislative responsibilities: * Greater Bendigo Community Access and Inclusion Plan 2015-2018 * Local Government Act 1989 * Disability Discrimination Act 1992 «Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibility 2006 Council Plan Reference: * Council Plan 2013-2017: Strategy 3.6 - Greater Bendigo has inclusive and equitable communities where people feel welcome and connected to others. Background Information The disability team within the Community Partnerships Unit develops and drives initiatives, and supports other business units and external stakeholders, to increase social inclusion for people with a disability in Greater Bendigo. PAGE 107Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Since 2002, the City has received external funding from the State Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Building Inclusive Communities (BIC) program to fund staff and related program costs of the City's disability team. The program also encompasses working across Loddon Shire. The BIC program is a community development approach, which aims to mainstream disability inclusion across all spheres of the community to ensure equal opportunity for people with a disability to participate in public life. The BIC has the following five objectives: 1. To mobilise and support people with a disability to optimise participation in the life of their local community. 2. To build and strengthen the community's capacity to provide support to people with a disability and their families 3. To facilitate integrated local community planning and coordination which engages and involves people with a disability and their families, disability service providers and community organisations. 4, To work with existing disability support providers to enhance their capacity to provide relevant and appropriate supports in the community. 5. To improve access to information about relevant services and community activities available to people with a disability in their communities. The City is currently in receipt of a three year contract, 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2018, from DHHS subject to transition arrangements between the State and the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) with the roll out of the NDIS. The NDIS will commence roll out in Greater Bendigo in May 2017. Of particular importance is the Information Linkages and Capacity Building component of the scheme, which has strong synergies with the above objectives of the BIC Program. The City was recently notified by DHHS that funding for the BIC program will form part of the State's financial contribution to the NDIS as part of the transition negotiations, confirming that DHHS will continue to fund the BIC program until the end of June 2017. There is no commitment beyond this time. There is no current Council budget allocation to disability inclusion programming or staff at the City of Greater Bendigo or Loddon Shire. ‘Some examples of the range of work and past achievements of the disability team for the City involve: * Strategic development: Community Access and Inclusion Plans; influencing disability inclusion of other plans and projects such as the Aquatic Centre, the Municipal Early Years Plan, and the Residential Strategy. PAGE 108Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meoting - 12 October 2016 * Supporting other business units to consider disability and increase inclusion: the Bendigo Art Gallery's introduction of Auslan and audio description tours of exhibitions; public play and recreation spaces designed for all abilities access and specific inclusions such as the Liberty Swing; the Community Grants Scheme inclusion of access and inclusion criteria, ‘* Increasing the accessibility of City information: website functionality; Easy English training to staff and subsequent publications; Ausian and Easy English Emergency Management resources; way finding maps inclusion of accessibility symbols. ‘* Development of resources: municipal access maps; scooter safety booklet; the availability of scooter and wheelchair recharge locations across Greater Bendigo. © Training: Easy English; disability awareness; deaf awareness; communication access for customer support staff. * Strengthening the disability sector and increasing the capacity of self-advocacy: facilitating the disability Peer network; development of an online Inclusive Communities Network; organising carer's forums. * Increasing employment opportunities; facilitation of a partnership with the National Disability Recruitment Coordinator, and subsequent development and implementation of a plan; facilitation of work experience placements for students with a disability across the organisation * Increasing accessibility of events: developing an accessible events guide; Companion Card acceptance at all City ticketed events and venues; the Easter Festivals consideration of additional accessible parking bays and venue accessibility signage, and designated viewing areas for people with a disability at the Easter parade. Current Disability Work In addition to funding some programing the BIC program funds the following positions: «Senior Disability Inclusion Officer (full time, approximately 1 day at Loddon Shire) * Disability Inclusion Officer (EFT 0.8; 0.4 Loddon, 0.4 the City) * Inclusive Towns Project Officer (EFT 0.6) — a project being delivered across both LGAs The disability team play a pivotal role internally and externally advocating on disability issues and supporting increased inclusion. The staff have a high level of expertise on disability issues, knowledge on the disability sector, and connections with disability service providers, community groups and residents / families of people with a disability, In addition to continuing the development of some of the before mentioned responsibilities, and the ongoing responding to access and inclusion issues raised by residents, some of the functions and projects the team are currently undertaking for the City include: PAGE 108Presentation and Vibrancy - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 * Development and continual support to the Disability Inclusion Reference Committee, and relevant advocacy. * Mediation and raising awareness between different stakeholders to increase community participation of people with a disability and mutual respect. * Providing support internally to other business units to increase their capacity at meeting their policy and legislative requirements. ‘* Initiating the Changing Places campaign, that involves advocating and community mobilisation to secure State funding for a public universal change facility for the City. A Changing Place is an accessible toilet with adult-sized change tables and hoists for people with complex disabilities. * Coordinating a trial Access, Inclusion and Advocacy Expo; an event to showcase services, technology, information and equipment for people with disabilities, their families and carers. * Preparation of the City and broader community for the introduction of the NDIS. * Providing support and coordination to the annual International Day of People with Disability event committee. * The Inclusive Towns Project; an innovative place based project being undertaken with the business and tourism sector. It involves working with businesses to increase their disability inclusion in the areas of: physical, attitudinal, communication and employment. People with a disability work with businesses to increase their awareness about accessibility issues, ways to be more inclusive and determine an overall rating for each business to promote. The Outcomes Report for 2015/16 and the Directions Report for 20016/17 are attached (Attachment 1 and 2) and provide further information to the qualitative aspects of the City's disability inclusion program. It should also be noted that the 2015/16 outcomes were achieved with significantly less staff resources than other years. The potential that this program is not continued is a risk to the Council’s aspirations to be the most liveability regional city in Australia and is of concern to the newly formed Greater Bendigo Disability Inclusion Reference Committee. This Committee resolved to write letters to the Council, Minister for Housing, Disability and Ageing and the Victorian Disability Advisory Council, advocating to continue the funding the BIC Program / disability inclusion team. Conclusion The Building Inclusive Communities Program provides vital resources to assist the organisation not only meet legislative requirements but increase the social inclusion of residents with a disability. The need for disability inclusion support will increase in accordance with the future growth of the numbers of people with a disability and the introduction of the NDIS. PAGE 110Prosontation and Vibrancy - Reports _Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 The Municipal Association of Victoria, on behalf of Council's is currently advocating to the Minister for Housing, Disability and Ageing to retain and continue the BIC program and the same amount of funding however further advocacy from the City is required. Attachments. 4. Building Inclusive Communities Outcome Report 2015/16 2. Building Inclusive Communities Directions Report 2016/17 RECOMMENDATION That Council advocate to the State Government to continue to support and fund the Building Inclusive Communities program, in addition to any activity under the NDIS. PAGE 111Productivity - Reports ____ Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016. 7. PRODUCTIVITY 77 BENDIGO SMALL BUSINESS FESTIVAL 2016 Document Information Author Peter Jeffery, Coordinator, Small Business Development (EDU) Brian Gould, Manager, Economic Development Responsible Bernie O'Sullivan, Director Strategy & Growth Director Summary/Purpose The purpose of this report is to provide Council with a summary of the recent Bendigo Small Business Festival held in association with the Victorian Government sponsored Victorian Small Business Festival. Policy Context Council Plan 2013 — 2017 (16/17 Update) 44 Council fosters business and industry growth. 4.2. Effective partnerships build and support increased workforce skills for young people in particular. 4.2.2 Foster new industry and business initiatives through business, agricultural and industry events and workshops. Economic Development Strateay 2014 - 2020 Reference: 5.3 Business Support and Investment Attraction. Background Information The Victorian Small Business Festival is a State Government initiative that promotes a series of independently run events, workshops and seminars across Victoria offering a range of support avenues for small business during the month of August each year. This year was the second time that the City's Economic Development Unit (EDU) has formally partnered with State Festival officers to assist with the program's delivery. The responsibility of a Festival Partner is to identify and coordinate local individuals or entities who wish to host appropriate events, workshops or seminars and to then help promote Festival awareness to their local business community. This report aims to outline the successful approach adopted by the City’s EDU as a Festival Partner this year, and to highlight some pertinent outcomes for the information of Councilors and the community. PAGE 112Productivity - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Report A review of previous year's Small Business Festival provided by the Victorian Government — as well as Bendigo specific feedback from 2015 - identified some strong trends that were taken into consideration when preparing for this year’s program. It was, identified that the most preferred communication method for small business was digital correspondence (Facebook, direct email or invitations in particular) influencing the EDU's approach towards enhancing a local digital marketing campaign. Other important considerations included events run at convenient times for business owners and a variety of event topics focused on stimulating new customers. It was also identified that the average festival attendee was typically female, between 30 - 59 years of age, passionate about their business and typically working 50+ hours per week. The EDU started developing this year’s festival program by facilitating an information session to help identify and inform potential ‘event hosts’ who wished to deliver local events. Twenty five (25) events were selected considering their ability to inform small business owners, managers, staff or someone considering starting or growing a local small business, including 3 events that had already been planned by Small Business Victoria. The events The official launch event of the festival - ‘Network Like a Pro’ ~ marked the beginning of the 2016 Bendigo Smail Business Festival on 27 July. This year the City’s Economic Development Unit coordinated the launch with Jen Harwood, a motivational speaker and business management consultant. The Economic Development and Tourism teams then partnered to deliver a further three events for the festival that provided attendees with practical business development advice, being: 4, ‘Business Planning Essentials’ 2. ‘Develop Your Online Strategy’ and; 3. ‘Build Your Business Advantage’. This workshop informed local businesses about the best ways to take advantage of the City's major events. This event was developed in partnership with the City’s Tourism Unit and the Australian Retailers Association. Other events covered a variety of topics including on-line marketing, retail advice, juggling workllife balance, social media and networking. The festival concluded on 34 August 2016 with two final events: ‘Small Business Bus: Heathcote’ and ‘Entrepreneurship: it's everybody's business’ covering business mentoring and entrepreneurial encouragement topics respectively. Qutcomes and feedback The outcomes and feedback from the festival met expectations and in some cases well exceeded them. A large number of social media posts were created to promote the Bendigo Festival, consisting of 96 regular posts to the Facebook page and 62 paid or boosted Facebook advertisements. Together, these reached approximately 200,000 individuals. Facebook activity peaked at the start of August and accumulated 16,819 counts of engagement (when someone ‘likes’, ‘comments’ or ‘shares’ a post). PAGE 113Productivity - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Newspaper advertising consisted of § quarter page advertisements and two front page “strip” advertisements in the Bendigo Advertiser, complimented by a variety of editorial interviews and articles by the Bendigo Advertiser various other media outlets, The Bendigo Advertiser also provided digital support to the festival, with a Medium Rectangle (MREC) advertisement booked for prime position on their online ‘Entertainment section’ and at 50% ownership for their ‘Life & Style section’ between 26 July and 25 August 2016. The advertisements were delivered 6,571 times to their local audience and received 103 clicks as a direct response. The number of page followers attracted on social media was one of the EDU’s primary goals set at the start of the promotional campaign. Followers totaled 1,907 on the Bendigo Small Business Festival's Facebook page by the 31° August 2016 which fell within range of set targets (an increase of 637 followers since the same time last year). Another goal of the Bendigo Small Business Festival was to attract over 800 attendees. In the end, 845 people attended the 25 events in Bendigo, which was considered @ very good result. Conclusion This year’s marketing efforts for the Bendigo Small Business Festival successfully engaged the business community's awareness of the 25 events conducted throughout August. This communication also helped raise awareness of Council's commitment to support the local small business community. Our mission is to build the success and momentum of the festival concept further next year and beyond. Resource Implications The EDU received $15,000 in funding from the Victorian Government to support the initiative. The Economic Development Unit contributed a further $12,000 to achieve this year's results, Attachments ‘© List of local events (summary only). RECOMMENDATION That the Greater Bendigo City Council acknowledge and commend the partnered delivery of the 2016 Bendigo Small Business Festival between the Victorian Government and the City's EDU and encourage it to continue to take place on an annual basis, PAGE 114Productivity - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 7.2 ANNUAL SUMMARY OF OPERATIONS: BENDIGO AIRPORT 2015/16 Document Information Author Phil Hansen, Manager Bendigo Airport Rachel Lee, Manager Major Projects Responsible Craig Lloyd, Director Presentation and Assets Directors Bernie O'Sullivan, Director Strategy and Growth Summary/Purpose The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the operation of the Bendigo Airport for the 2015/16 financial year. Policy Context Council Plan Reference: City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013-2017 (2016-2017 Update): Theme 2 Planning for Growth Strategic Objective 2 Greater Bendigo residents, businesses, and communities are connected with accessible transport options. Strategy 2.1 To maintain the unique character of Greater Bendigo, Council delivers major projects that accommodate the growing population and diversifies the economy. 2016/2017 Action 2.1.3 Complete the expansion and upgrade of the Bendigo Airport Stage Two, and continue planning and attraction of funding to progress Stage Three, the Business Park. Background Information Bendigo Airport is managed and operated by the City of Greater Bendigo and is located four kilometres north-east of the Bendigo City Centre. The airport was constructed in the 1970s and the main asphalt runway sealed in 1976, initially designed largely for recreational users only. The airport is now a moderately sized ‘regional airport’ and provides the following services «Victorian Air Ambulance Regional Base * Regional Base for Fire Emergency Activities (largely the fire season) * Charter Aircraft PAGE 115Productivity - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 © Flight Training © Private Aircraft Operations There are currently 36 tenants at the Bendigo Airport including MyJet, Air Ambulance, DSE Airbase, Bendigo Aviation Services (operating as Moorabbin Aviation Services), Bendigo Flying Club and various smaller recreational businesses and private tenants. The airport directly supports an estimated 50 jobs (most of which are associated with emergency services), has up to 29,000 aircraft movements per annum (i.e. one take off, one landing etc.) and is currently an uncontrolled airport (i.e. no control tower). Airport activities typically include charter flight services, flight training, emergency services, and recreational activity. Bendigo Airport is increasingly being used for a variety of charter transport services to and from Bendigo. Anecdotal evidence suggests the bulk of charter activity is to and from destinations including Mildura, Adelaide, Sydney, Canberra, Tasmania and other regional cities and towns across south-eastern Australia The City of Greater Bendigo employs an in-house Airport Manager to monitor, plan and administer the operation of the airport. In this role, the manager is supported by a range of colleagues, including a 0.4 EFT Safety and Maintenance Officer, that provide support through the provision of maintenance services, management oversight and safety inspections. Report Major Achievements for 2015/16 Major initiatives and achievements for the last financial year include: © Securing project funding of $5 Million from the Federal Government through the National Stronger Regions Fund. ‘* Sealing the Northern Taxiway, enabling all weather access to the northern end of the main runway. * Successful completion of the $1.09 Million Water State Government funded Bendigo Airport Water Recycling and Landscaping Project. * Successful tendering for Bendigo Airport Redevelopment Project Contract — awarded to BMD Constructions Pty Ltd * Commencement of the $15 Million Bendigo Airport Redevelopment Project. PAGE 116Productivity - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Operational Budget for 2015/16 Bendigo Airport: Constructed Hangars/Facilities é 35 35 31 | Number of hangars/facilties 8 sre z 10/11 1/2 12/3 13/14 yas 15/16 Year Number of hangars constructed Bendigo Airport: Rental/Lease income $140,000. + $120,000 ~ $100,000 + $80,000 + $ Dollars $60,000 + $40,000 +} $20,000 + 10/12 ayiz 2/3 Bld 14/15 15/16 Year ‘Annual revenue from leases/rent PAGE 117Productivity - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Bendigo Airport: Net Cost $300,000 ne — $250,000 $232,018- $210,239 20,603 $200,000 $150,000 ‘$ Dollars $100,000 ‘$50,000 ga 20/11 uz ws fa fs 15/16 Year Annual net cost Current or Emerging Challenges Current and emerging challenges include: ‘* Maintaining current operations whilst managing the redevelopment project (with an objective to minimise interruptions to existing operations). ‘* Maintaining maintenance of all current assets during major construction activities. * Managing the process of transitioning the airport from a ‘registered’ status to a Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) ‘Certified’ airport * Successful completion of the major airside construction redevelopment project. * Successful ‘commissioning’ of the new runway, lighting system and other airside infrastructure (a CASA process). * Continued attraction of new investment at the airport - including new tenants, hangars and commercial businesses. * Attracting a regional airline carrier with the view to providing Regular Public Transport (RPT) services to/from Bendigo. * _ Investigating the attraction of air freight services to the region. * Attracting the necessary funding to develop the Bendigo Airport Business Park (Stage 3). «Review and update of the functional capacity of the Airport Terminal Building to operate for passenger services. ‘* _ Finalisation and delivery of the updated Bendigo Airport Strategic Plan. PAGE 118Productivity - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 RECOMMENDATION That the Greater Bendigo City Council acknowledge the Bendigo Airport 2015/16 Annual ‘Summary of Operations Report. PAGE 119Productivity - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 7.3 ANNUAL REPORT - BENDIGO LIVESTOCK EXCHANGE 2015/16 Document Information Author Rachelle Quattrocchi, Manager Works Unit Responsible Craig Lloyd, Director Presentation and Assets Director Summary/Purpose The purpose of this report is to provide Council and the community with a summary of recent achievements by the Bendigo Livestock Exchange (BLE) and an outline of key management and policy pursuits guiding the future operation and development of this, venueffacility. Policy Context City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013-2017 (2016-2017 Update): Theme 1 Leadership and Good Governance Strategic Objective 1 Council demonstrates leadership in its decisions to meet future needs and challenges. Strategic Objective 6 Long-term planning and staff capacity building help to develop a resilient organisation. Strategy 1.6 Programs, projects and services are guided by best practice principles and delivered to respond to community needs. Theme 5 Sustainability Strategic Objective 4 Council managers its resources, assets and infrastructure for the long term. Strategy 5.3 Essential infrastructure is constructed, maintained and renewed to meet the needs of current and future residents, 2016/2017 Action 5.3.2 Maintain and renew existing Council owned and managed properties to agreed service level requirements and statutory regulations. Independent Review: Recommendation 18 — Annual reporting of City of Greater Bendigo entities. PAGE 120Productivity - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Report The BLE is a National Saleyard Quality Assurance (NSQA) and European Union (EU) accredited sheep, cattle and pig selling complex which conforms to the National Saleyard Quality Assurance Program and Occupational Health & Safety Management System for saleyards. The Exchange is located just 12 kilometres north of Bendigo at Huntly and is a Quality Accredited facility, Weekly sheep and cattle sales are conducted throughout the year. The BLE is one of the largest sheep and lamb selling centres in Victoria, transacting a quarter of the states sheep and lambs that go through saleyards. On average, it yards approximately one million sheep and lambs, and 15,000 cattle annually. This throughput represents sales of around $160Mil. The sheep and cattle sales at the Bendigo facility generate revenue of around $1.2Mil per year that is used to fund the operation of the yard, Key achievements or milestones achieved in 2015/16 include: * Weekly prime sheep and lamb, cattle markets and special store sales. * Maintained accreditation for National Saleyard Quality Assurance (NSQA) and European Union (EU) programs. * Trial site for Surefoot matting in sheep delivery yards to improve animal welfare. * Pilot program conducted by Ausmeat to review National audit procedures and standards for saleyards. ¢ Implementation of a new security system to the BLE including new front gate and Avdata key access to monitor and control access for all users of the facility. ¢ Representation on the National Saleyards Quality Assurance Committee and Livestock Saleyards of Victoria Executive. Financial Performance for the Year Ended 30 June 2016: The operational budget for the BLE of $1,377,840 was delivered with a variance of $104,709 due to use of agency staff and additional contracted expenses to conduct unbudgeted sales and decrease in throughput. There has been a decline in the throughput numbers at the sales during 2015/16 that has resulted in reduced revenue. Income Saleyard Revenue $1,094,447 Rental income $9,611 Other Income $6,000 Grants Nil Total Revenue $1,110,058 PAGE 121Productivity - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Expenditure Employee Benefits (e.g. wages) $341,142 Overheads (Finance, IT, Records etc) $108,645 Agency Relief Staff $259,098 Building Rental $201,567 Utilities $193,130 Contract Service Fees $34,880 Materials and Supplies $63,513 Insurance $14,347 Consultant $4,234 Plant & Equipment $13,318 Depreciation $32,480 Maintenance $43,743 Other Expenses $67,743, Total Expenses $1,377,840 The throughput figures have declined. A total throughput of 1,050,000 sheep and lambs and 16,000 of cattle were sold through the BLE facility during 2015/16. This is in ‘comparison to throughput figures of 1,125,568 sheep and lambs and 20,000 of cattle for 2014/15. Description Throughput 2015/16 Sheep & Lambs 1,050,000 Cattle 16,000 Current and Emerging Challenges: The priorities for the 2016/17 financial year for the BLE are to: «Maintain the National Saleyard Quality Assurance (NSQA) and European Union (EU) programs accreditation. * Commitment to staff training and awareness to support the Integrated Quality, OH&S and Environmental Management System. © Development and improvement to policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the Integrated Quality, OH&S and Environmental Management System. PAGE 122Productivity - Reports Ordinary Mecting - 12 October 2016 * Maintain animal welfare standards to ensure that consumers have confidence in the livestock saleyard industry. * Decline in pig sales within the industry led to the decline of pig sales at the BLE, with the closure of pig sales at the end of 2015. This has provided an opportunity to review the future use of the pig sale yard. * Development of a Master Plan for the Bendigo Livestock Exchange that will include a review of marketing and future growth opportunities for the BLE in light of changing markets and new technology. * The Victorian Government has recently mandated Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags on all sheep and goats bom after 1 January 2017 with scanning at Victorian saleyards from July 2017. The implementation of electronic NLIS of sheep has not been considered within the budget considerations for the operation budget, therefore the BLE will seek funding assistance from the Victorian Government for the implementation of the new system. Management and Policy Directions: The BLE has been actively involved in the trial of National Livestock Identification System (NLIS) for sheep. This has involved trialling scanners, reading EID tags, assessing animal flows and producing a proposed implementation plan for the BLE saleyard site, The BLE is looking at new technology advancements for the selling of livestock such as electronic NVD's and sheep identification, to provide traceability, disease management and access to global markets. The BLE maintains animal welfare standards to provide for the ethical treatment of livestock whilst at saleyards and will continue to work with authorities and stakeholders to maintain standards and improve management processes. Risk Management The identification and minimisation of risk is an integral part of the quality management system of the BLE operations. The BLE is included within the Integrated Management System (IMS) which includes OHS (AS/NZS 4801), Quality (ISO 9001) and Environmental Management (ISO 14001) and operations are maintained to these standards and support the following * Ongoing development and improvement to policies and procedures relevant to the BLE operations. * Ongoing auditing of staff to ensure compliance with adopted processes. * Commitment to staff training in the Integrated Management System and technical skills development to perform their roles efficiently, safely and effectively. PAGE 123,Productivity - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 Consultation/Communication BLE Stakeholder meetings were established at the commencement of the 2014/15 financial year. The attendee list of key stakeholders include Cr James Wiliams, representatives from the farming community, transport sector, Department of Environmental Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) and stock agencies. The stakeholder meetings provide a forum where key stakeholders can meet and discuss relevant issues related to the operation of the BLE. The stakeholder meetings have allowed for the establishment of strong relationships with key stakeholders of the BLE operations. Resource Implications This Council-owned facility employs two full-time staff members, two part-time staff members and a number of casual employees which equate to 4 full-time equivalent staff on an annual basis. Full-time: 2 2 2 FTE: 4 Attachments Nil. RECOMMENDATION That Greater Bendigo City Council acknowledge the performance of the Bendigo Livestock Exchange in 2015/16. PAGE 124Productivity - Reports Ordinary Mooting - 12 October 2016 TA ANNUAL REPORT - WORKS UNIT 2015/16 Document Information Author Rachelle Quattrocchi, Manager Works Unit Responsible Craig Lloyd, Director Presentation and Assets Director ‘Summary/Purpose The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an overview of the performance of the Works Unit during the 2015/16 financial year. Policy Context Council Plan Reference: City of Greater Bendigo Council Plan 2013-2017 (2016-2017 Update): Theme 4 Leadership and Good Governance Strategic Objective 1 Council demonstrates leadership in its decisions to meet future needs and challenges Strategic Objective 6 Long-term planning and staff capacity building help to develop a resilient organisation. Strategy 1.6 Programs, projects and services are guided by best practice principles and delivered to respond to community needs. 2016/2017 Action 1.6.3 Implement continuous improvement strategies in the Works area in accordance with best practice guidelines. 2016/2017 Action 1.6.4 Deliver the budgeted works program, both capital and maintenance and enhance planning for the future with relevant skills development. ‘Theme 2 Planning for Growth 2016/2017 Action 2.3.4 _ Increase footpath maintenance in accordance with the Road Management Plan. Theme 5 Sustainability Strategic Objective 4 Council managers its resources, assets and infrastructure for the long term. Strategy 5.3 Essential infrastructure is constructed, maintained and renewed to meet the needs of current and future residents. PAGE 125Productivity - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 2016/2017 Action 5.3.2 Maintain and renew existing Council owned and managed properties to agreed service level requirements and statutory regulations. Previous Council Decision(s) Date(s): At the 28 May 2014 meeting, Council resolved that annual reports be provided by the Works Unit. Report The Works Unit sits within the Presentation and Assets Directorate and is responsible for the construction of new and renewal projects and maintenance of civil infrastructure by the City of Greater Bendigo. The construction and maintenance teams undertake the construction and maintenance of the City’s roads, drains and footpaths. The construction team also undertakes the civil works construction of sporting facilities, car parks and other civil projects. The Works Unit is responsible for delivery of maintenance works in accordance with the Capital Works Program and Road Management Plan. The Works Unit is also responsible for the Bendigo Livestock Exchange; however as per Council's previous resolution, this business is reported separately New Capital Works and Renewal Projects: A total of 57 new Capital Works and Renewal projects totalling approximately $13Mil were delivered for the 2015/16 financial year by the Works Unit, including the following significant project: * East Bendigo Link Road Project Stage 4 (Final Stage) - this project serves one of the city’s largest industrial areas and links the Midland and Meclvor Highways. Other Major Road Construction and Drainage projects included: © Church Street Roundabout. co Moran Street Kerb & Channel and Road Reconstruction. © Fumess Street Drainage, Kerb & Channel and Road Reconstruction including intersection improvements on the comer of Fumess Street and Crusoe Road. © Broad Parade Drainage. © Strathdale Crescent Drainage. © Tumbull Street Drainage. * Various Black Spot and Roads to Recovery funded projects. ¢ Completion of the redevelopment of Mitchell Street between Myers Street & McLaren Street and Lyttleton Terrace & Mollison Street. * Mitchell Street Bus Interchange Project, delivered by City of Greater Bendigo in partnership with Public Transport Victoria. PAGE 126Productivity - Reports Ordinary Meeting - 12 October 2016 © $2.5Mil re-sheet renewal program for unsealed roads; program developed to improve the condition on approximately 85km of unsealed roads and shoulders. Maintenance Operations: The maintenance area of the Works Unit delivers day-to-day maintenance activities, responds to customer requests, emergency works and traffic management for events. The annual program for maintenance of footpaths, unsealed and sealed roads was delivered during 2015/16. Some of the works delivered as part of this program included the following: * Maintenance works in accordance with the intervention levels of the City’s Road Management Plan. © Footpath repair works of paving within the CBD of Bendigo. ‘* Works in collaboration with the Sustainable Environment Unit to manage roadside vegetation in accordance with legal requirements. * Drainage repair works. * Road patching and programmed repair works for sealed roads. * Treatment of mineshafts that opened up on Council owned land. «Response to emergencies and urgent repair works. * Traffic management in support of major events within the city and surrounds including Easter festival A total of 4,000 customer requests were received for maintenance works during the 2015/16 financial year; 80% of these requests were responded to within 9 days. In addition to responding to customer requests, the maintenance area of the Works Unit co-ordinates work in response to commitments in the City's Road Management Plan. During 2015/16, the total number of footpath defects above the intervention level of 25mm was reduced from 816 to 97. Proactive works were also completed on steps below 25mm in footpaths that could potentially end up as defects. A grinding footpath contract was introduced as part of the works program for 2015/16, which has resulted in the reduction of the number of defects from 3,695 to 756. Financial Performance for the Year Ended 30 June 2015: A summary of the Works Unit operational budget for 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16 financial years (as shown below), provides an overview of the financial performance of the Works Unit over the last three years. PAGE 127,