Council Minutes - Section B: Reports - 26 July 2016
Contents | Previous Page: Section A - Procedural Matters | Next Page: Section C - Assembly of Councillors
Contents | Previous Page: Section A - Procedural Matters | Next Page: Section C - Assembly of Councillors
Reports tabled at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Tuesday date held at the Council Conference and Reception Centre in City Hall, 57 Little Malop Street, Geelong.
Amendment C316 Lara Heritage Review – Consideration of Panel Report and Adoption of Amendment
Sale of Land to Department of Health and Human Services – Waterworld Norlane
Geelong Major Events Committee – Appointment of External Representatives
Revocation of Flood-Prone Area Designation of New Lots at Armstrong Waters, Stages 1A, 1 B and 1 C
Revocation of Flood-Prone Area Designation of New Lots at Warralily, Stage 65 (Confidential)
Source: |
Planning and Development – Strategic Implementation |
Acting General Manager: |
Peter Bettess |
Index Reference: |
Planning Committee |
The purpose of this report is to enable Council to consider the Planning Application 692/2015 – 405-455 Sandy Creek Road and 1720 Bacchus Marsh Road, Little River as well as the Section 191 Planning and Environment Act Committee Report on the application and to make a final decision on the application.
The subject sites comprise of two regular shaped allotments at 405-455 Sandy Creek Road and 1720 Bacchus Marsh Road, Little River. The combined area of the two sites is 167.89ha. The site is predominately cleared farming land used for grazing. Both sites contain a dwelling. A sand extraction area of 5ha is located along the northern boundary of 1720 Bacchus Marsh Road and is accessed from Sandy Creek Road. Hovells Creek is also partly located in this lot which also contains significant River Red Gums. The You Yangs Regional Park is located approximately 500m to the south-east. Lara is approximately 8km to the south.
The application proposes to use and develop the land for the purposes of stone (sand and soil) extraction and the removal of native vegetation (retrospective approval for the removal of one (1) dead scattered tree). The extraction area is proposed to be 82ha in area. Minor buildings and works are proposed in the form of site huts/offices, a weighbridge and car parking for staff and visitors.
The sites are located within the Farming Zone and are subject to the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 1 – Foothills of the You Yangs.
The application was advertised by way of letters to adjoining property owners and occupiers and two signs on-site. A total of 241 objections were received with two (2) letters of support. The objections predominately relate to detriment to the rural landscape and character, especially to the You Yangs; amenity impacts (including dust, noise, vibrations and visual); impacts on farming and non-compatibility with agriculture pursuits; increase in truck movements leading to conflicts with other road users; impacts on surface water/groundwater/bores; impacts on native vegetation and wildlife; impacts on tourism and the film industry; the extent of public notification and incomplete application. The permit applicant declined Council’s offer of a consultation meeting.
The proposal has been assessed against the Farming Zone, the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 1 and relevant state and local planning policies and particular provisions of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.
Council resolved to establish a Section 191 Committee to hear submissions and make a recommendation to Council.
The Section 191 Committee heard parties at a hearing on Tuesday 5th July 2016.
The Hearing Committee considered that the proposal involves the exploitation of a sand resource that is neither valuable nor important. Planning policy supports exploitation of the sand resource, however this is not at any cost.
The Committee has assessed the various issues raised at the Hearing and found the proposal to be unsatisfactory, particularly in terms of the economic, visual, amenity and traffic outcomes.
While this proposal has been the subject of scrutiny by various state authorities who do not oppose the grant of a permit, the Committee is not satisfied the proposal has satisfactorily passed a high level of scrutiny. In addition the Committee has found the applicant’s documentation inadequate, particularly with respect to the key issues.
Having considered all submissions and evidence presented with regard to the applicable policies and provisions of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, the Committee recommends that the permit be refused.
While Council officers disagree with the Committee’s assessment of the issues, it is considered that the Committee’s recommendation should be accepted as it had the opportunity to hear submissions from all parties, including the applicant, objectors and Council officers.
L Gardner moved, P Dorling seconded -
That the Responsible Authority having considered all matters which the Planning and Environment Act, 1987, requires it to consider, decides to Refuse to Grant a Planning Permit for the use and development of the land for stone (sand and soil) extraction, buildings and works and removal of native vegetation at 405-455 Sandy Creek Road and 1720 Bacchus Marsh Road, Little River on the following grounds the proposal will:
undermine the achievement of a diversified economy contrary to the objectives and strategies of Clause 11.07-7;
have an enduring and inappropriate impact on the landscape values of the region.
Carried.
The Site & Locality
The subject site is known as 405-455 Sandy Creek Road and 1720 Bacchus Marsh Road, Little River and is located on the western side of Sandy Creek Road and the eastern side of the Bacchus Marsh Road, Little River. The site consists of two titles, is regular in shape with a frontage of approximately 603 metres to Sandy Creek Road and approximately 608 metres to Bacchus Marsh Road with an overall combined area of approximately 167.89 hectares. The site is located within the Farming Zone and is covered by Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 1 – Foothills of the You Yangs. The You Yangs are located approximately 500m to the south-east.
The Proposal
The application proposes to use and develop the subject sites for the purposes of stone (sand and soil) extraction and removal of native vegetation.
The permit applicant describes the proposal as follows:
This proposal seeks a planning permit for the use of the land to extract sand and soil, building and works associated with this use and the removal of native vegetation. The proposed extraction area covers approximately 82 hectares and will be accessed via the existing crossover from Sandy Creek Road. The proposed extraction works entail the staged use of conventional sand quarrying techniques to extract and process sand as outlined in Work Authority 1532.
Public Notification
The application is not exempt from the notice requirements of Section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of Section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of Section 82(1) of the Act and pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 the following forms of advertising were undertaken:
Notices were sent to owners and occupiers of adjoining land (including opposite)
Two (2) A3 signs were placed on the land
As a result of public notification two hundred and forty one (241) objections were lodged and two (2) letters of support were received.
Officers Recommendation
The proposal has been assessed against the Farming Zone, the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 1 and relevant policies and particular provisions of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, and is considered an appropriate use and development of the site. It is recommended that the application be supported subject to conditions. (See Appendix 1, Council Officers Report).
Section 191 Committee
A Planning Committee was scheduled for 12 April 2016 to hear the planning application.
Due to the announcement that the Council were to be dismissed, a quorum of seven (7) councillors was unable to be achieved, therefore the meeting was cancelled.
As the item was called into a Planning Committee by Councillors, parties have an expectation of being heard by elected representatives.
With the dismissal of City of Greater Geelong Councillors on 15 April 2016 this was no longer possible.
At the Council Meeting of 28 June 2016, Council resolved;
That Council:
appoints Lester Townsend (Chair), Kate Partenio and Adrian Vlok as a Committee under Section 191 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to hear and make recommendations on the following Planning Applications;
1679/2015 – 2-4 Waverly Road, Lara
692/2015 – 405-455 Sandy Creek Road and 1720 Bacchus Marsh Road, Lara
agrees to pay the reasonable fees and allowances of the persons’ services to the Committee at the rates set by Planning Panels Victoria.
The Section 191 Committee heard parties for Planning Application 692/2015 at a hearing on Tuesday 5th July 2016.
Presenters at the Hearing included a Council Officer, the Applicant and 24 objectors.
Based on issues presented at the Hearing the Committee has identified the following issues for consideration:
What is the importance of the sand resource to be extracted?
Impacts on agricultural, recreation, tourism and film industry
Visual impact on landscape values
Impact from noise, vibration and dust
Impact or conflicts with other road users
Impact on surface water, flooding and ground water
Impacts on flora and fauna
Impacts on cultural heritage.
Details of the areas of concern to the Hearing Committee are briefly described. A full copy of the 191 Committees report can be found at Appendix 2.
Importance of the sand resource to be extracted
The Committee concludes from the evidence that the sand resource is not important for local and wider regional communities at this time. The Committee is not satisfied that there is, or is likely to be, an undersupply of sand resource in the region if the proposal does not proceed.
Officer Comment
VCAT has recently commented on the quality of an extracted resource in Aerolite Quarries Pty Ltd v Greater Geelong CC (2014) VCAT 1611 (24 December 2014) where the Members said that they “do not accept that only the best grades are marketable or valuable”.
They also addressed the issue of alternative site locations:
The other argument raised was as to whether there are alternative sites off the land. It was suggested that, from a net community benefit point of view and more generally, there are plenty of other sites and deposits of basalt that can serve whatever need the community has for such products.
This argument has long since, indeed for decades, been recognised as irrelevant as a planning consideration. The question is always whether the proposal for this site is acceptable, irrespective of whether there are other sites, even other preferable sites, that may exist yet not be available to the proponent.
Impacts on agriculture, recreation, tourism and film industry
Given the significant and enduring adverse impact on landscape values, the Committee considered that it follows that the proposal is likely to impose significant economic costs on the recreation, film and tourism industries. On balance the Committee concluded that the proposal will work against the achievement of a diversified economy as sought by Clause 11.07-7 and Clause 21.02 (City of Greater Geelong Sustainable Growth Framework).
Officer Comment
It is noted that neither Parks Victoria nor Film Victoria expressly objected to the application or provided information on how the proposal may impact on the film industry or the recreational users of the You Yangs Regional Park.
Visual impacts on landscape values
In summary the Committee agrees with submissions that the proposal will result in an unreasonable and enduring impact on landscape values and the applicant has not provided credible evidence to the contrary. In the Committee’s assessment, the applicant has not demonstrated the proposal adequately addresses Clause 42.03 (Significant Landscape Overlay), Schedule 1 to the Significant Landscape Overlay (Foothills of the You Yangs), relevant matters under the Farming Zone, Clause 11.07-4 (Geelong (G21) Regional Growth – Environmental Assets), Clause 12 (Environmental and Landscape Values) and Clause 52.09 (Stone Extraction and Extractive Industry Interest Areas), including:
The effect of the extractive industry operation on the natural and cultural landscape of the surrounding land and the locality generally.
The ability to rehabilitate the affected land to a form or for a use which is compatible with the natural systems or visual appearance of the surrounding area.
The ability to rehabilitate the land so it can be used for a purpose or purposes beneficial to the community.
Officer Comment
The objectives and decision guidelines of the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 1 set out to achieve the statement of nature and key elements of the landscape of the schedule.
The Schedule states that the area is “comprised of treeless foothills and plains at the base of the You Yangs. The You Yangs are the most prominent landscape feature in the northern area of the municipality providing panoramic views of Geelong. The surrounding foothills and plains create an open view path to the You Yangs, visually exposing them when viewed from the surrounding basalt plains.
The key element of the landscape is its open character and contrast with the You Yangs.”
The aim of the Schedule is to retain the You Yangs as being the dominate feature of the landscape and to provide a contrast of the You Yangs to the open plains at the foothills.
The location of the mine is noticeable in the landscape but when considered in the greater panorama of the views to and from the You Yangs, is a minor incursion into the landscape. The rehabilitation will still provide for an open character of the plains and will maintain the You Yangs as the dominant feature of the landscape.
Impacts or conflicts with other road users
The Committee is not satisfied that the applicant has adequately considered impacts on the amenity and safety of other road users as required by Clause 52.09 (Stone Extraction and Extractive Industry Interest Areas).
Officer Comment
The application documents were reviewed by Council’s Traffic department and by VicRoads. Neither authority objected or raised concerns as those raised by the Committee.
Council’s Traffic department acknowledged that Sandy Creek Road is mostly sealed except for the northern section between the entrance to the Ford Proving Grounds and Little River – Ripley Road and those additional truck movements in this section (northern section) may have an impact on the frequency that Council maintains the road. However, in the main, any additional truck movements will not have an impact on the traffic in the region as they have very small traffic volumes.
Traffic did not raise any concerns that the current road pavement width, current speed limits or frequency of truck movements would have any impacts on other road users.
VicRoads provided a response that all vehicles movements associated with the use and development are the Sandy Creek Road access thereby not allowing access to Bacchus Marsh Road. It is not Council’s role to assume VicRoads requirements and permissions to roads that they control regardless if they have provided permissions in the past.
Impact on surface water, flooding and groundwater
The Committee noted proposed conditions 56 and 57 (requested by Southern Rural Water (SRW)) dictate that rainfall and surface water generated inside the mine pit cannot be used for quarry operations (for example sand washing and dust control) and water storage dams for quarry operations “must only be filled with licensed groundwater extraction”. If these conditions are to be complied with, there may not be adequate groundwater to undertake the operation. Furthermore the applicant would have to adequately clean and discharge sediment leaden surface water from the mine pit to Hovells Creek. The implications of these two conditions have not been addressed by the applicant’s hydrogeological report or Work Authority document.
Officer Comment
The Committee expressed concerns that two conditions required by SRW, that if they were complied with, that there may not be adequate ground water to undertake the operation and that sediment laden surface water would have to be cleaned prior to discharge to Hovells Creek.
SRW requires groundwater that is used in the operation to be stored within dams located within the extraction area. The subject site has an extraction licence for 50 megalitres of groundwater per year as confirmed by SRW and that the operation will not impact on groundwater levels. This water extraction can therefore be stored in these dams as required by SRW.
SRW also requires that any direct rainfall that falls and is captured in the pit itself is directed to a sump and then pumped to a point where water will be returned to the natural receiving waterway. The Work Authority requires that all water that leaves the site to comply with recommended EPA techniques and that the EPA itself does not anticipate that the water quality of Hovells Creek will be impacted on as a result of the proposal.
It is also noted that apart from the concerns of the two SRW conditions, that the Committee is satisfied that the proposal can acceptably manage surface and ground water subject to compliance with the Work Authority and the conditions as proposed by the Council Officer.
Environmental implications have been considered as part of the Planning process.
Net financial implications have been considered as part of the Planning process.
All Statutory implications have been considered as part of the Planning process.
No Council Officers involved in the drafting of this report have a direct or indirect interest in the issue, in accordance with Section 80C of the Local Government Act.
There are no notable risks associated with implementing the recommendations contained in this report.
Social considerations are considered as part of the Planning process.
The Human Rights Charter has been considered as part of the Planning process.
The Planning Applications have been subject to consultation under the Planning and Environment Act.
The holding of a Section 191 Committee in lieu of a Planning Committee provided all parties to present their views prior to the Council deciding the applications.
All parties have been notified of the recommended process to determine the application.
Application No: |
692/2015 |
Applicant: |
TGM Group Pty Ltd |
Subject Land: |
405-455 Sandy Creek Road and 1720 Bacchus Marsh Road, LITTLE RIVER |
Owner: |
Bisinella Investments Pty Ltd |
Zone: |
Farming Zone |
Overlays: |
Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 1 (Foothills of the You Yangs) |
Listed Buildings: |
None |
Existing Use: |
Farming (Grazing) |
Proposed Use: |
Use and Development of the Land for Stone (Sand and Soil) Extraction and Removal of Native Vegetation |
The subject sites comprise of two regular shaped allotments at 405-455 Sandy Creek Road and 1720 Bacchus Marsh Road, Little River. The combined area of the two sites is 167.89ha. The site is predominately cleared farming land used for grazing. Both sites contain a dwelling. A sand extraction area of 5ha is located along the northern boundary of 1720 Bacchus Marsh Road and is accessed from Sandy Creek Road. Hovells Creek is also partly located in this lot which also contains significant River Red gums. The You Yangs Regional Park is located approximately 500m to the south-east. Lara is approximately 8km to the south.
The application proposes to use and develop the land for the purposes of a Stone (sand and soil) Extraction and the removal of native vegetation (retrospective approval for the removal of 1 dead scattered tree). The extraction area is proposed to be 82ha in area. Minor buildings and works are proposed in the form of site huts/offices, a weighbridge and car parking for staff and visitors.
The sites are located within the Farming Zone and are subject to the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 1 – Foothills of the You Yangs.
The application was advertised by way of letters to adjoining property owners and occupiers and two signs on-site. A total of 237 objections were received with 2 letters of support. The objections predominately relate to detriment to the rural landscape and character, especially to the You Yangs; amenity impacts (including dust, noise, vibrations and visual); impacts on farming and non-compatibility with agriculture pursuits; increase in truck movements leading to conflicts with other road users; impacts on surface water/groundwater/bores; impacts on native vegetation and wildlife; impacts on tourism and the film industry; the extent of public notification and incomplete application. The permit applicant declined Council’s offer of a consultation meeting.
The proposal has been assessed against the Farming Zone, the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 1 and relevant state and local planning policies and particular provisions of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme and is considered an appropriate use and development of the site.
It is recommended that a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit be issued subject to the conditions contained in this report.
That the Responsible Authority having considered all matters which the Planning and Environment Act, 1987, requires it to consider, decides to Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit for the Use and Development of the Land for Stone (Sand and Soil) Extraction and Removal of Native Vegetation at 405-455 Sandy Creek Road and 1720 Bacchus Marsh Road, LITTLE RIVER in accordance with the plans submitted with the application and subject to the following conditions:
Prior to works commencing, amended plans must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Such plans are to be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be submitted. When approved the plans will be endorsed as evidence of their approval and will thereby become the endorsed plans in relation to this permit. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted to Council on the 11 September 2015, but modified to show:
The Development Plan, Site Layout Plan (End Stage 3) and Rehabilitation Plan amended to accord with the Sandy Creek Road Frontage Concept Plan dated 20 November 2015 received by the Responsible Authority on 10 February 2016.
The Development Plan and the Site Layout Plan (End Stage 3) amended to reflect the native vegetation to be protected and removed within and adjacent to the Work Authority area.
Prior to works commencing, the Work Plan (text and plans) must be modified as follows:
Section 1.5 Flora, Fauna & Native Vegetation Offsets:
Further explanation as to what ‘protection measures’ for the existing trees within the buffer area of WA 1532 are to be put in place.
The second paragraph needs to be updated to reflect the correct number of trees being removed. Reports including those in Appendices also need to be updated.
Those ‘management measures’ to be used to limit potential injury to the kangaroos on the property within the operational areas must be further explained and identified in the report.
Section 7.8 Vermin and Noxious Weeds:
This section needs to make mention of a Pest Plant and Animal Management Plan.
Section 7.10 Net Gain:
All references to the amount of trees required for removal must be changed to reflect one (1) tree.
The date of the DEPI BAR report needs to be changed to reflect the most recent report submitted for the one (1) tree for removal.
Section 8 Rehabilitation:
The information within this section needs to be portrayed on the Rehabilitation Plan in Attachment 5.
Appendix 3 DEPI Biodiversity Assessment Report:
This report needs to be revised to reflect the removed one (1) scattered tree.
The use and development as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
The use and development of the subject land must not commence until the Work Authority, including an Approved Work Plan is issued pursuant to the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 unless with the written consent of the Responsible Authority and the Department of State Development, Business and Innovation.
The use and development of the Land must proceed in the order of stages as shown on the endorsed plans unless otherwise approved in writing by the Responsible Authority and the Department of State Development, Business and Innovation.
Except with a permit, no alteration may be made to the natural condition or topography of the land within 20 metres of the boundary of the land. This does not apply to driveways, drains, bund walls or landscaping.
Shrubs and trees must be planted and maintained to screen activity on the site to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Parking areas must be provided for employees’ cars and all vehicles used on the site to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Responsible Authority, prior to the use and development commencing, an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. The EMP must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The EMP must provide for, but not be limited to:
Water balance calculations including water sources, storage, internal drainage lines and sediment repositories;
Measures to be undertaken to control sediment-laden water being discharged from the site;
Emergency response procedures to be implemented and other measures required to control the discharge of sediment-laden water in flood events;
Management of grey water and sewage generated on site; and
Management of storage of fuels and other materials to prevent interaction with surface waters.
When approved, the EMP will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit. The use and development must be undertaken in accordance with the approved EMP to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
If groundwater is intercepted on the site, the permit holder must:
Immediately cease excavation;
Immediately contact the Responsible Authority and Southern Rural Water;
Not recommence excavation until:
The relevant water authority has advised that a groundwater licence is not required, or any necessary groundwater licence has been acquired.
The operation is modified to the satisfaction of the water authority and the Responsible Authority.
Prior to the use and development commencing, an Air Emissions Management Plan (AEMP) must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. The AEMP must detail, but not be limited to:
a risk management strategy addressing measures to reduce air emissions at nearby sensitive locations (meaning residences and recreational areas) and to address the potential for nuisance dust off-site including details of the following:
a baseline monitoring program of nuisance dust which must be completed prior to the commencement of the use;
how activities which generate dust on site will be managed to minimise dust emissions including spray bars on transfer points, application of water on haul roads, water cannons on stock piles;
the circumstances in which quarrying activities will cease on site due to weather conditions that will result in dust being discharged beyond the boundaries of the premises;
how dust will be monitored, such monitoring to be in compliance with the State Environmental Protection Policy (Air Quality Management) 2001 and the Protocol for Environmental Management: Mining and Extractive Industries and to include dust deposition gauges at locations to be determined in consultation with the Responsible Authority;
contingency measures to deal with any elevated dust conditions or upset conditions.
To the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Once approved, the AEMP will be endorsed as evidence that it is the AEMP approved under this condition.
The extraction operation must at all times be conducted in accordance with the AEMP to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The AEMP may be amended to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Any failure to meet the standards of the State Environmental Protection Policy (Air Quality Management) and the Protocol for Environmental Management: Mining and Extractive Industries must be brought to the attention of the Environment Protection Authority and the Responsible Authority and such failure is to be rectified to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Prior to works commencing, a Landscape Plan for the entire site must be prepared by a suitably qualified Registered Landscape Architect and submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the endorsed plans of this permit. The Landscape Plan must include, but not limited to:
details of existing conditions and vegetation (including windrows and road plantings) and details of this existing vegetation to be retained and/or removed as part of the bunding works;
a rural character to the external road edge landscapes and visual layers to the landscape with multiple lines and returns within the planting system to imitate existing rural landscape forms;
a landscape buffer system based around a combination of tall windrow plantations (Sugar Gums or mixed species plantations) along perimeter fence lines;
dense screen planting and screen mounding within the site;
planting to address the mitigation of views to the site generally in accordance with the recommendations of the Sandy Creek Road Frontage Concept prepared by Allan Wyatt (20 November 2015);
use of suitable stockpiled soil in the mix of the material for the landscaping to encourage the establishment of planting in the buffer areas;
species and planting densities of the vegetated buffer areas (avoiding species listed in the ‘Garden Plants Going Bush... Pest Plants/Environmental Weeds’, Version 8, City of Greater Geelong which must not be used); and
an effective irrigation and watering regime during the establishment phase and for the ongoing maintenance.
Prior to the use commencing, the approved Landscape Plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Screening vegetation and landscape planting in accordance with the endorsed plans must be planted and maintained for the operational life of the quarry to screen activity on the site to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All vegetation that is dead must be replaced as soon as practicable to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Overburden must be maintained and located so as to minimise visual impact and be top soiled and hydro-seeded so as to reduce the event of erosion and degradation of the subject or surrounding land, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Responsible Authority, prior to works commencing, a Pest Plant and Animal Management Plan (PPAMP) for the entire site must be submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. The PPAMP must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The PPAMP must include, but not be limited to:
list of pest plant and animal species applicable to site;
species targeted for control;
management techniques including regular weed management along the bunds and perimeter landscaping; and
monitoring and reporting.
When approved, the Pest Plant and Animal Management Plan (PPAMP) will be endorsed as evidence of its approval and the use and development must be undertaken in accordance with the approved PPAMP.
Prior to commencement of works, a Rehabilitation Plan for the entire site must be submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. The Rehabilitation Plan must include, but not be limited to:
existing conditions and vegetation (eg windrows and road plantings);
objective of the end use (i.e. agricultural);
progressive rehabilitation methodology of disturbed areas;
staging and timing of rehabilitation; and
species and planting densities on the basis that species listed in the ‘Garden Plants Going Bush... Pest Plants/Environmental Weeds’, Version 8, City of Greater Geelong must not be used.
When approved, the Rehabilitation Plan will be endorsed as evidence of its approval.
The rehabilitation must be undertaken in accordance with the approved Rehabilitation Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
At least 6 months prior to the cessation of the use, the Rehabilitation Plan must be reviewed and if necessary amended to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
The extraction, processing and sales must only occur between the following hours:
Monday to Friday |
7:00am to 6:00pm |
Saturday |
7:00am to 1:00pm |
Sales and plant maintenance must only occur between the following hours:
Saturday |
1:00pm to 6:00pm |
|
|
Sunday & Public Holidays |
No Work |
Works outside of these hours will only be for essential maintenance.
Heavy vehicles associated with the use must only access the site from Sandy Creek Road, Forest Road North, Windermere Road and Bacchus Marsh Road.
The operator must prepare a Truck Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When approved the Truck Management Plan will be endorsed as evidence of its approval. The Truck Management Plan must address:
driver education concerning truck routes;
covering of loads prior to exiting the site;
measures that will be taken to educate truck drivers as to the operating hours of the quarry;
strategies to prevent trucks arriving and queuing outside the site before operating hours;
actions to be taken in the event that trucks attending or exiting the site do not comply with the Truck Management Plan.
The operator must keep a register of any complaints by the public concerning the operations and the register must be made available to the Responsible Authority on request.
The site must be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and no concentrated or sediment laden storm water may drain or discharge from the land to adjoining properties.
Runoff from any workshop and/or re-fuelling areas must be appropriately bunded in accordance with current EPA Best Practice Guidelines to prevent contaminated stormwater from leaving the site.
Prior to the use commencing, the developer must:
upgrade the existing vehicular crossing to a Rural B-double access standard with a minimum thickness 40mm Type H Asphalt surface for the whole of Sandy Creek Road where the required shoulder widening is to occur and the driveway to the gate. The works shall be undertaken in accordance with the requirements and standards of the City of Greater Geelong, or otherwise as approved and shall have drivable endwalls;
remove any redundant vehicular crossings to Sandy Creek Road and reinstate the area to match existing conditions in the road.
All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Prior to the use commencing, the developer must construct the car park including access ways, surface with an all-weather surface to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
No native vegetation shall be removed other than that marked on the endorsed plan, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
In order to offset the removal of one (1) scattered tree approved as part of this permit, the applicant must provide a native vegetation offset that meets the following requirements, and is in accordance with the Permitted clearing of native vegetation – Biodiversity assessment guidelines and the Native vegetation gain scoring manual:
The general offset must:
contribute gain of 0.002 general biodiversity equivalence units.
be located within the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority boundary or City of Greater Geelong municipal district
have a strategic biodiversity score of at least 0.080.
Before any native vegetation is removed, evidence that an offset has been secured must be provided to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. This offset must meet the offset requirements set out in this permit and be in accordance with the requirements of Permitted clearing of native vegetation – Biodiversity assessment guidelines and the Native vegetation gain scoring manual. Offset evidence can be either:
a security agreement, to the required standard, for the offset site or sites, including a 10 year offset management plan.
a credit register extract from the Native Vegetation Credit Register.
Any credit register extract from the Native Vegetation Credit Register must be submitted to the Environment Unit as a formal record of the offset evidence.
Prior to works commencing, the vegetation marked to be retained within or adjacent to the Work Authority area shall be protected by Tree Protection Fencing in accordance with AS4970-2009 Protection of Trees on Development Sites. An inspection is required to be undertaken by the Responsible Authority.
The Tree Protection Fencing must have signs attached around the fencing which clearly states - TREE PROTECTION ZONE - No Access Permitted. An inspection is required once the Tree Protection Fencing has been erected. Please contact the City’s Environment Unit to arrange an inspection.
Except with the written consent of the Responsible Authority, none of the following are permitted to occur within the Tree Protection Zone:
vehicular or public pedestrian access.
trenching or soil excavation.
storage or dumping of tools, equipment, soil, stone or waste is to occur.
construction of entry and exit pits for underground services.
temporary or permanent installation of signs and utilities.
Water run-off must be designed to ensure that native vegetation to be protected is not compromised, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Prior to works commencing, all persons undertaking works on site must be informed about the areas of native vegetation to be retained and all environmental conditions included as part of this planning permit. This information must be provided by means of an induction process, and records of this must be kept. A copy of the permit must be made available to all people working on the project.
All vehicle movements associated with the use of development are to use the Sandy Creek Road access.
Details of any proposed extraction or excavation within 30 metres of the electricity transmission towers must be submitted to AusNet Transmission Group for approval prior to the commencement of any works.
If explosives are to be used, measures must be taken to prevent damage to transmission lines and towers. Electrical detonation of explosives must not be used.
Vehicles and equipment working within 20 metres horizontally of AusNet Transmission Group’s lines and towers (ie any proposed works carried out at current ground levels) must not exceed 3 metres maximum operating height without prior written approval from AusNet Transmission Group.
The storage or handling of fuel, and refuelling of vehicles and equipment is not permitted within 20 metres of AusNet Transmission Group’s transmission lines.
Prior to the commencement of works, a separate application direct to Corangamite CMA must be made and approved for a new culvert crossing over the waterway on the track along the southern boundary.
Prior to the commencement of stage 3, a separate application direct to Corangamite CMA must be made and approved for a waterway diversion to divert all waterway flows entering the site at the northern boundary from the eastern waterway. This diversion must direst all flows around the site for all events up to and including the 1% AEP. It must discharge at the southern boundary at the location of the existing natural discharge point at the location of the culvert crossing in condition 1 above.
If at a later stage flows are reconnected to the western waterway from the neighbouring property, provision must be made to divert flows from the waterway to the downstream boundary discharge point in a similar manner as outlined in condition 2 above.
Quarry operations must be carried out in accordance with the assessment and recommendations detailed in the hydrogeological assessment report prepared by Nolan Consulting (February 2015);
A groundwater monitoring program must be installed and be operational prior to any quarry operations commencing;
Prior to works commencing the collection of baseline groundwater monitoring data must be undertaken and recorded;
Groundwater monitoring results must be interpreted by a qualified person and the results forwarded to Southern Rural Water and other responsible agencies on a six monthly basis;
As a result of adverse monitoring data, Southern Rural Water may restrict groundwater extractions without the required prior notification;
Existing groundwater bores must be decommissioned in accordance with Southern Rural Water approval and any proposed new bores must be constructed in accordance with Southern Rural Water approval;
The use or extraction of groundwater for quarry operation must be licensed in accordance with an amended (to include groundwater monitoring conditions) take and use licence issued by Southern Rural Water
In the event that groundwater extractions for quarry operations significantly impact on neighbouring groundwater users, the quarry owner may be liable to compensate, supply water or reinstate the supply of water to affected persons;
Surface water management must be in accordance with approved plans and specifications, the approved Work Authority and in addition drainage works must consider any changes to adjoining upstream drainage works;
Proposed surface-water drainage works must be installed to the satisfaction of Southern Rural Water and the Catchment Management Authority prior to the commencement of quarry operations;
Proposed water storage dams for quarry operations must only be filled with licensed groundwater extraction;
No catchment water including direct rainfall shall be impounded and used for quarry operations. All catchment water must be diverted/passed downstream into the natural receiving waterway;
Catchment drainage discharges shall not be directed into an existing dam or be impounded by any dam located on the property;
All dams located on the works site or property without purpose must be decommissioned in accordance with responsible authority approval;
Completed drainage works must be inspected and approved prior to the commencement of quarry operations;
At the completion of quarry operations, the quarry owner must ensure that the approved catchment drainage regime is maintained and continues to operate so as no catchment water is directed into the pit or impounded;
The applicant shall implement controls to ensure that there is no polluted seepage from the work site into the groundwater or surface water resource. Controls must include an appropriate water quality monitoring program;
Works shall not interfere or impact on any waterway without the responsible authority approval;
Sediment runoff from the site shall be retained on site during and after operations. Controls particularly on steep slopes are to be in accordance with the Environment Protection Authority (EPA recommendations detailed in the construction techniques for sediment pollution control No 275, May 1991. Sediment control structures such as sediment basin, sediment fences and sediments traps must be installed prior to the commencement of operations and maintained post development; and
Any approval given by Southern Rural Water does not preclude the need to obtain other relevant Authority approval.
Upon completion of the extractive activities, the site must not be used as a landfill without seeking the appropriate approval of the EPA.
Process water or contaminated stormwater must not be discharged off site.
This permit as it relates to the use and development of buildings will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
The development of the building(s) hereby approved has not commenced within two (2) years of the date of this permit.
The use hereby approved has not commenced within two (2) years of the date of this permit.
The development of the building(s) hereby approved is not completed within four (4) years of the date of this permit.
The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires; or
Within six (6) months after the permit expires where the use or development has not yet started; or
Within twelve (12) months after the permit expires, where the development allowed by the permit has lawfully commenced before the permit expiry.
Construction of the site stormwater connection/s is to be inspected by Council Representative prior to any backfilling. An appropriate fee equivalent to 3.25% of total cost of civil works, excluding GST (a minimum fee of $100 applies if the 3.25% amount is less than $100), is to be paid to Council for inspection. Relevant evidential documentation of the cost is to be provided.
All internal property drainage must be designed and constructed to satisfy AS/NZS 3500.
A Vehicle Crossing Permit must be obtained prior to commencement of works.
The subject site is known as 405-455 Sandy Creek Road and 1720 Bacchus Marsh Road, Little River and is located on the western side of Sandy Creek Road and the eastern side of the Bacchus Marsh Road, Little River. The site consists of two titles, is regular in shape with a frontage of approximately 603 metres to Sandy Creek Road and approximately 608 metres to Bacchus Marsh Road with an overall combined area of approximately 167.89 hectares. The site is located within the Farming Zone and is covered by Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 1 – Foothills of the You Yangs. The You Yangs are located approximately 500m to the south-east.
The site is currently agricultural land with two dwellings and associated farming sheds on each lot. The land has a natural depression (waterways) running west to east towards the southern section of the site and one running north-south towards the eastern section of the site. Generally, the site is covered by pockets of remnant native vegetation and broadacre farming areas. The site also contains a bore that is registered with Southern Rural Water.
Figure 1: Site context aerial photograph.
The subject land at 1720 Bacchus Marsh Road has had a small sand extraction operating from the site located half way along the northern boundary. The extraction area approved was 5ha in size with an extraction depth of 2m. The extraction has ceased and the area is currently being rehabilitated in accordance with the approved Work Plan.
The subject site and general locality are identified as being located in an Extractive Industry Interest Area (EIIA). EIIA’s are applied to land that has been identified by the Department of State Development, Business and Innovation (DSDBI) as likely to contain stone resources of sufficient quantity and quality to support commercial extractive industry operations and where limited environmental and social constraints apply.
Directly to the north and east of 405-455 Sandy Creek Road are a number of properties subject to extraction activities with the land to the east of Sandy Creek Road zoned Special Use Zone 7 – Earth and Energy Resources Industry.
Land used for farming purposes adjoins the southern and north western boundary and also adjacent to the western boundary along Bacchus Marsh Road. Hovells Creek runs along the southern boundary of 1720 Bacchus Marsh Road and a small section of the south west corner of 405-455 Sandy Creek Road.
The application proposes to use and develop the subject sites for the purposes of stone (sand and soil) extraction and removal of native vegetation.
The permit applicant describes the proposal as follows:
This proposal seeks a planning permit for the use of the land to extract sand and soil, buildings and works associated with this use and the removal of native vegetation. The proposed extraction area covers approximately 82 hectares and will be accessed via the existing crossover from Sandy Creek Road. The proposed extraction works entail the staged use of conventional sand quarrying techniques to extract and process sand as outlined in Work Authority 1532.
The proposed works include:
The stripping of top soil to be stored temporarily and used for rehabilitation and landscaping as stages progress.
Extraction of sand using excavators, scrapers and dozers.
Processing and stockpiling of sand.
Transportation of sand product from the subject site via delivery trucks.
Staged rehabilitation of mined areas in accordance with the Works Authority requirements.
Environmental works also proposed and detailed in the Work Authority include:
Diversion of surface water away from operation areas.
Use of settling dams to recycle and manage water within the operational area.
Removal of slime material from sand washing process to be dried and incorporated in the overburden material used in the rehabilitation works.
The development of a landscaped screening bund along the frontage of Sandy Creek.
Planting of screening plants along the access road adjacent to southern boundary of the subject site.
The land will be progressively rehabilitated and ultimately sewn with pasture species.
Noxious weeds will be regularly managed.
The proposed building works as outlined in the Work Plan includes:
The development of a weighbridge, temporary office and amenities along the access road at the southern boundary of the property. The office and amenities are ancillary to the use and will be in the form of a non−permanent 'Atco' type building used for staff and provided at this location to manage truck and visitor movements. Car spaces will also be provided at this location for staff and visitor use. In addition, the existing dwelling near the western edge will continue to be used as an office and amenities for workers.
Plant for extraction and screening will be mobile and brought to the site on an as needs basis.
The existing work shop (near the dwelling) will be utilised for the servicing and maintenance of equipment. A bunded bulk storage diesel facility will be developed close to the workshop area to prevent fuel spills.
Operating hours
Proposed operating hours for extraction, processing and sales are:
Monday to Friday 7:00am to 6:00pm
Saturday 7:00am to 1:00pm
Proposed operating hours for sales and plant maintenance only:
Saturday 1:00pm to 6:00pm
The use will not operate on Sunday or on public holidays
Rehabilitation
Over its life the proposed stone extraction will be subject to progressive rehabilitation, with terminal faces smoothed and treated using stockpiled soil and overburden, with the land eventually being returned to pasture.
Removal of Native Vegetation
The application seeks retrospective approval for the removal of one dead river red gum which was located towards the southern boundary in proximity to the south-west corner of the Work Authority area.
WA1532 submitted with the application builds on the above and provides the following information regarding the proposed operation:
Anticipated Impacts of Proposed Development
The proposed excavation within WA1532 area will be shielded from roadside views with the establishment of screening bunds and plantations. The staged development and progressive rehabilitation of WA1532 will also help minimise the visual impact from more distant elevated views.
The nearest dwelling (outside of the subject land) is located approximately 1200m south of the site and therefore a considerable distance from the extractive operation. Given this distance and the proposed regulatory controls to manage operational emissions it is considered the proposed operation will meet all regulatory requirements. The processing plant and stockpile area will be located in the central portion of the property, within the extraction area. Further planting will be undertaken on the southern boundary to further minimise the visual impact of this facility.
Surface drainage leaving the site will be managed via diversion of runoff away from
disturbed areas and the use of settling dams and EPA recommended techniques within disturbed areas to ensure there is no impact upon HoveIls Creek. A minimum 30m buffer will be maintained to HoveIls Creek with no disturbance extractive activities undertaken within this zone.
The existing Access to the Work Authority sites onto Sandy Creek Road will continue to be used for cartage of products from the site. An additional access onto the Geelong Bacchus Marsh Road will be sought at a later date.
Resource Information
The sand resources in the Bisinella property were investigated in 1995 with the drilling of 24 holes and testing of 365 samples. These works outlined an extensive fine quartz sand resource of estuarine or alluvial origin ranging from 13m to 34m thick. This is underlain by a coarser granitic sand resource which ranges from 1 m thick in the west to 13m thick in the east. These sands appear to be Tertiary in age and are probably within the Moorabool Viaduct Sand formation.
The sand resources are overlain by a thin capping of recent fine aeolian sand in parts of the elevated north western portion of the property. The fine quartz sand resource is variably feruginised and would be suitable for processing into unwashed and washed packing sands, mortar sands and for blending and washing with the coarser sands to produce fine aggregates for use in concrete.
Resource Estimates
The total sand resource within the proposed extraction area in WA1532 has been estimated at 10,700,000 cubic metres insitu to the base of the granitic sand resource.
Soil & Overburden Estimates
Top soil thickness appears quite variable but for rehabilitation purposes the top 200mm of material from the proposed extraction area within WA1532 will be kept. The total volume of this material is estimated at approximately 140,000 cubic meters insitu. The proposed extraction area within WA1532 is expected to yield approximately 3,460,000 m3 of overburden.
The overburden will initially be used for re−enforcing and lining water storage and settling dams and used as base filler to form internal roads, screening bunds as well as the base for the process plant and stockpile area. Beyond this excess overburden will be stored in a temporary out of pit storage and then used to backfill the worked out areas of the pit.
Geotechnical Constraints / Ground Water
The total depth of excavation in the proposed Extraction Pit will be approximately 25 – 40 metres below the natural ground surface.
Working faces will be cut at 1V:1H, with a minimum 15 metre wide bench and maximum 7.5m face height. The terminal faces will be cut at 1V:3H, with a 7.5 metre bench at 15m vertical intervals creating an overall batter slope of 1V:3.5H. Experience in the adjoining and nearby pits has shown these working and terminal batter slope configurations to be safe and stable.
A minimum 34m buffer will be maintained between the excavation edge and the high voltage transmission tower in the south eastern corner of the WA1532. A 60m buffer will be maintained to Sandy Creek Road.
DSDBI geotechnical guidelines is complied with around the site.
Ground water was not intersected in the original drilling program. A farm bore is located near the northern boundary of WA 1532. This bore will be monitored for any impacts from the pit development.
Markets
Sales from the site are estimated to be in the order of 30,000 tonnes per annum initially increasing to approximately 150,000 tonnes per year. It is anticipated the market for concrete, mortar and other construction sands will grow over the life of the site.
Extractive Buffer Zones
There will be a minimum 30m non−extraction buffer from the extraction edge to the Work Authority boundary on the southern boundary adjoining the Wooloomanata property.
A minimum 20m buffer will be kept to the adjoining WA 347 along the northern boundary although this area may be extracted if a common boundary agreement is reached with the adjoining WA holder.
A minimum 30m buffer will be maintained to the base of the transmission towers in the south eastern corner of the site.
A minimum 40m buffer will be kept to the WA boundary along the remainder of Sandy Creek Road north of the transmission towers.
Sand Extraction & Staging
Sand materials will be extracted using scrapers, dozers, excavators and dump trucks.
Extracted materials will either be dry screened within the extraction area using portable self powered plant or transported to the processing plant via dump trucks and/or slurry lines.
The final extraction limit will be surveyed and marked out with yellow posts. Terminal face positions will be monitored and surveyed to ensure that terminal extraction designs are achieved. The extraction will generally be staged as shown on the Development Plan, Figure 5.
Key points of each stage are summarised below:
remove topsoil in front of face (enough for 24 months extraction);
place topsoil in prepared rehabilitation areas or into temporary bunds;
remove overburden from ahead of extraction;
place overburden into rehabilitation areas and grade to final profiles before topsoiling and planting or place in temporary storage areas for later use;
extract sand using excavators, scrapers and dozers;
Treated slimes materials will be incorporated into overburden used in rehabilitation works.
Explosives Use & Storage
Explosives will not be used on this site.
Water Control
Surface water entering the site will be diverted via cut off drains away from disturbed
operational areas and will be directed into the external drainage system. Surface water within disturbed areas of the site will be collected via drains and channelled to settling dams and sumps. This water will be directed into surface storages or the extraction area for use as process water.
Process water will be recycled through a series of settling dams, prior to returning to the extraction area. All settling dams and storages on the site will be managed to maintain a minimum 1.0 metre freeboard.
Processing Operations
Material Transport
The predominant means of transporting materials from the pit to the plant will be scrapers and dump trucks although a slurry pipeline may also be used from time to time.
Once material is at the processing plant, pumps, conveyors and pipelines will transport material through the process, until product is placed on stockpiles. Products can then be loaded directly into road trucks for delivery or transported by dump trucks to other stockpiles away from the plant area.
Material Processing
Feed sand will be washed over screens to remove any large material prior to being further washed and sized. Secondary fines recovery equipment and processes may be utilised in conjunction with this method.
Product Handling & Storage
The majority of finished product will be stockpiled beneath cyclone and screen discharge points or by stacker conveyor. Other product stockpiles will be located in the vicinity of the plant and trucking areas. Product from the stockpile area will be loaded directly into delivery trucks with front end loaders.
Process Effluent Handling & Storage
Slimes generated in the sand washing process will be treated using a thickener to recover process water and reduce slimes volume. Thickened slimes will be stored in temporary surface storages within the extraction area before being either dried or placed in cells in the base of the pit and capped with overburden.
Further slimes dewatering systems may be used to recover more process water and allow the dried slimes to be incorporated with overburden for rehabilitation use.
Definition and Nesting
Stone Extraction is defined in the Planning Scheme as:
Land used for the extraction or removal of stone in accordance with the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990.
Stone Extraction is nested under Earth and Energy Resources Industry.
Under the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990, stone is defined as:
sandstone, freestone or other building stone; or
basalt, granite, limestone or rock of any kind ordinarily used for building, manufacturing or construction purposes; or
quartz (other than quartz crystals); or
slate or gravel; or
clay (other than fine clay, bentonite or kaolin); or
peat; or
sand, earth or soil; or
other similar materials;
Farming Zone
The subject site is located within the Farming Zone. The purpose of the Farming Zone is:
To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.
To provide for the use of land for agriculture.
To encourage the retention of productive agricultural land.
To ensure that non-agricultural uses, including dwellings, do not adversely affect the use of land for agriculture.
To encourage the retention of employment and population to support rural communities.
To encourage use and development of land based on comprehensive and sustainable land management practices and infrastructure provision.
Surrounding properties to the north, south and west are also within the Farming Zone. The land to the east of Sandy Creek Road is zoned Special Use Zone - Schedule 7 (Earth and Energy Resources Industry). The You Yangs are zoned Public Conservation and Recreation Zone and Bacchus March Road is a Road Zone Category 1.
Figure 2: Zoning
Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 1
The subject site is affected by the Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 1 (Foothills of the You Yangs).
The Objectives and Decision Guidelines of the SLO1 seek to minimise impacts on the visual and open landscape values of the area including to the You Yangs and ensure that buildings and works are responsive to these values in their design and siting and facilitate rehabilitation of extractive industries upon completion of their economic life.
Figure 3: Overlay
Farming Zone
Pursuant to Clause 35.07-1 of the Farming Zone, Stone Extraction is a section 2 use requiring a permit. A permit is also required under Clause 35.07-4 to construct and carry out buildings and works associated with a section 2 use.
Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 1
Pursuant to Clause 42.03-2 of the Significant Landscape Overlay, a permit is required to construct and carry out buildings and works associated with the proposed stone extraction.
Clause 52.08 – Earth and Energy Resources Industry
Pursuant to Clause 52.08-1, a permit is required for the use and development of land for earth and energy resources industry.
Clause 52.17 – Native Vegetation
Pursuant to Clause 52.17, a permit is required to remove native vegetation.
There are no restrictive covenants listed on the Certificate of Titles.
The Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 specify the circumstances in which a Cultural Heritage Management Plan is required for an activity or class of activity.
Part 2 - Division 2 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 specifies exempt activities which do not require a Cultural Heritage Management Plan. The proposal is not listed as an exempt activity.
Areas of cultural heritage sensitivity are defined within Part 2 - Division 3 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007. Part 2 - Division 3 identifies the site or part of the site as within an area of cultural heritage sensitivity.
High impact activities are defined within Part 2 - Division 5 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007. Part 2 - Division 5 lists the proposal as a high impact activity.
The site is not considered to have been the subject of significant ground disturbance which is defined as ‘disturbance of (a) the topsoil or surface rock layer of the ground or (b) a way - by machinery in the course of grading, excavating, digging, dredging or deep ripping, but does not include ploughing other than deep ripping.
In accordance with the above assessment, a Cultural Heritage Management Plan is required and Cultural Heritage Management Plan Number 10511 has been approved. It is considered that the use and development is consistent with the approved CHMP as there are no recommendations in the approved CHMP relating to the extraction area. It is recommended that a note be placed any permit issued that requires works by accord with the approved CHMP.
Not applicable as the subject site is not located within 1km of the coast line.
Before deciding on a Planning Permit application, a Responsible Authority is required to consider, amongst other things:
Any significant effects the responsible authority considers the environment may have on the use or development [S 60(1) of the PEA].
Clause 13.01-1 of The State Planning Policy Framework which aims to ensure that potentially contaminated land is suitable for its intended future use and development, and that contaminated land is used safely.
The EPA has adopted the “Best Practice Environmental Management, Siting, Design Operation and Rehabilitation of Landfills” (September 2010) or “Landfill BPEM.”.
The Landfill BPEM identifies that:
Risks associated with landfill gases may occur for at least 30 years post-closure.
Appropriate buffer distances must be maintained between the landfill and sensitive land uses. The BPEM recommends a 500 metre buffer for landfills that contained putrescible waste and 200 metres for landfills that contained non-putrescible waste.
Where the recommended buffers are unavailable, it must be demonstrated that risks are suitably mitigated.
All buildings and structures and associated infrastructure should be considered.
The BPEM specifies that development undertaken within a buffer distance of up to 500 metres may be at risk. As the subject site is not located within 500 metres of an identified former landfill site, a risk assessment is not required.
No Council officers have any direct or indirect interest in the matter to which this report relates, in accordance with Section 80 (C) of the Local Government Act.
Clause 52.06 does not have a statutory car parking requirement for stone extraction and must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Clause 52.34 does not have a statutory bicycle parking requirement for stone extraction.
10.02 - Goal
The State Planning Policy Framework seeks to ensure that the objectives of planning in Victoria (as set out in Section 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987) are fostered through appropriate land use and development planning policies and practices which integrate relevant environmental, social and economic factors in the interests of net community benefit and sustainable development.
The objectives of planning in Victoria are:
To provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use, and development of land.
To provide for the protection of natural and man-made resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity.
To secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria.
To conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value.
To protect public utilities and other facilities for the benefit of the community.
To facilitate development in accordance with the objectives set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e).
To balance the present and future interests of all Victorians.
10.04 - Integrated Decision Making
Society has various needs and expectations such as land for settlement, protection of the environment, economic well-being, various social needs, proper management of resources and infrastructure. Planning aims to meet these by addressing aspects of economic, environmental and social well-being affected by land use and development.
Planning authorities and responsible authorities should endeavour to integrate the range of policies relevant to the issues to be determined and balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations.
Consistent with the objectives of local government under the Local Government Act 1989, municipal planning authorities are required to identify the potential for regional impacts in their decision-making and co-ordinate strategic planning with their neighbours and other public bodies to achieve sustainable development and effective and efficient use of resources.
11.05-3 - Rural Productivity
Objective
To manage land use change and development in rural areas to promote agriculture and rural production.
Strategies
Prevent inappropriately dispersed urban activities in rural areas.
Limit new housing development in rural areas, including:
Directing housing growth into existing settlements.
Discouraging development of isolated small lots in the rural zones from use for single dwellings, rural living or other incompatible uses.
Encouraging consolidation of existing isolated small lots in rural zones.
Restructure old and inappropriate subdivisions
11.07-4 – Environmental Assets
Objective
To protect, restore and enhance the region’s unique environment.
Strategies
Protect, restore and enhance the quality of land and marine areas, waterways, biodiversity and soils.
Maintain and protect the region’s natural assets, including the region’s parks and reserves.
11.07-5 – Agricultural Productivity
Objective
To secure food, water and energy resources.
Strategies
[…]
Support a productive, robust and self sustaining region by harnessing existing energy and natural resources while protecting and enhancing farming and natural assets.
Protect critical agricultural land, energy and earth resources required to support a growing population by focussing development to existing township areas and directing growth to towns which provide rural services.
[…]
11.07-7 – A Diversified Economy
Objective
To build the region’s economy.
Strategies
[…]
Support diversity in the region’s economy that builds on its competitive strengths, including tourism and agricultural land resources and economic, social and natural assets.
[…]
12.01-1 – Protection of Biodiversity
Objective
To assist the protection and conservation of Victoria’s biodiversity, including important habitat for Victoria’s flora and fauna and other strategically valuable biodiversity sites.
Strategies
Ensure that decision making takes into account the impacts of land use and development on Victoria’s high value biodiversity.
12.01-2 Native Vegetation Management
Objective
To ensure that permitted clearing of native vegetation results in no net loss in the
contribution made by native vegetation to Victoria’s biodiversity.
Strategies
Apply the risk-based approach to managing native vegetation as set out in Permitted clearing of native vegetation – Biodiversity assessment guidelines (Department of Environment and Primary Industries, September 2013). These are:
Avoid the removal of native vegetation that makes a significant contribution to Victoria’s biodiversity.
Minimise impacts on Victoria’s biodiversity.
Where native vegetation is permitted to be removed, ensure that an offset is provided in a manner that makes a contribution to Victoria’s biodiversity that is equivalent to the contribution made by the native vegetation to be removed.
12.04-2 Landscapes
Objective
To protect landscapes and significant open spaces that contribute to character, identity and sustainable environments.
Strategies
Ensure sensitive landscape areas such as the bays and coastlines are protected and that new development does not detract from their natural quality.
Improve the landscape qualities, open space linkages and environmental performance in green wedges and conservation areas and non-urban areas.
Recognise the natural landscape for its aesthetic value and as a fully functioning system.
Ensure natural key features are protected and enhanced.
13.04-1 - Noise Abatement
Objective
To assist the control of noise effects on sensitive land uses.
Strategy
Ensure that development is not prejudiced and community amenity is not reduced by noise emissions, using a range of building design, urban design and land use separation techniques as appropriate to the land use functions and character of the area.
13.04-2 - Air Quality
Objective
To assist the protection and improvement of air quality.
14.02-1 Catchment Planning and Management
Objective
To assist the protection and, where possible, restoration of catchments, waterways, water bodies, groundwater, and the marine environment.
Strategies
Consider the impacts of catchment management on downstream water quality and freshwater, coastal and marine environments.
Retain natural drainage corridors with vegetated buffer zones at least 30m wide along each side of a waterway to maintain the natural drainage function, stream habitat and wildlife corridors and landscape values, to minimise erosion of stream banks and verges and to reduce polluted surface runoff from adjacent land uses.
Undertake measures to minimise the quantity and retard the flow of stormwater runoff from developed areas.
Encourage measures to filter sediment and wastes from stormwater prior to its discharge into waterways, including the preservation of floodplain or other land for wetlands and retention basins.
Ensure that works at or near waterways provide for the protection and enhancement of the environmental qualities of waterways and their instream uses.
Ensure land use and development proposals minimise nutrient contributions to waterways and water bodies and the potential for the development of algal blooms.
14.02-2 Water Quality
Objective
To protect water quality.
Strategies
Ensure that land use activities potentially discharging contaminated runoff or wastes to waterways are sited and managed to minimise such discharges and to protect the quality of surface water and groundwater resources, rivers, streams, wetlands, estuaries and marine environments.
14.03 – Resource Exploration and Extraction
Objective
To encourage exploration and extraction of natural resources in accordance with acceptable environmental standards and to provide a planning approval process that is consistent with the relevant legislation.
Strategies
Protect the opportunity for exploration and extraction of natural resources where this is consistent with overall planning considerations and application of acceptable environmental practice.
Provide for the long term protection of natural resources in Victoria.
Recognise the possible need to provide infrastructure for the exploration and extraction of natural resources.
Planning schemes must not impose conditions on the use or development of land that is inconsistent with the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990, the Greenhouse Gas Sequestration Act (2008), the Geothermal Energy Resources Act (2005),or the Petroleum Act (1998).
Planning permit applications should clearly define buffer areas appropriate to the nature of the proposed extractive uses, which are to be owned or controlled by the proponent of an extractive industry.
Buffer areas between extractive activities and sensitive land uses should be determined on the following considerations:
Appropriate limits on effects can be met at the sensitive locations using practical and readily available technology.
Whether a change of land use in the vicinity of the extractive industry is proposed.
Use of land within the buffer areas is not limited by adverse effects created by the extractive activities.
Performance standards identified under the relevant legislation.
Policy guidelines
Planning must consider as relevant:
Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990.
[…]
Geelong Supply Area - Extractive Industry Interest Areas – Geological Survey of Victoria Technical Record 1999/2.
[…]
Any relevant State Environment Protection Policy.
15.03-2 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage
Objective
To ensure the protection and conservation of places of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance.
Strategies
Identify, assess and document places of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance, in consultation with relevant Registered Aboriginal Parties, as a basis for their inclusion in the planning scheme.
Provide for the protection and conservation of pre- and post-contact Aboriginal cultural heritage places.
Ensure that permit approvals align with recommendations of a Cultural Heritage Management Plan approved under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.
Municipal Strategic Statement
The following policies of the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) are applicable to this application:
21.05-3 - Biodiversity
Objective
To protect, maintain and enhance the biodiversity of the municipality.
Strategies
Ensure that land use and development enhances areas of native vegetation and other habitats.
Ensure that land use and development minimises the fragmentation of areas of native vegetation and other habitats.
Ensure habitats of indigenous species are protected from the impacts of land use and development.
Ensure that land use and development does not aggravate existing salinity impacts or lead to the generation of newly affected areas, particularly through rising groundwater levels.
21.06-5 Heritage and identity
Objectives
To ensure that urban development enhances Geelong’s sense of place and identity.
To conserve and enhance individual places and areas of pre and post contact cultural heritage significance.
Strategies
Protect places of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance.
21.07 – Economic Development and Employment
This clause outlines strategies in relation to economic development and notes the importance of farming and agriculture to the Anakie area:
Farming and agriculture are important and valued activities in the northern area of the municipality, particularly in the Anakie area.
Relevant objectives and strategies at Clause 21.07-5 (Rural Areas) are:
To support the use of the northern, western and southern rural areas for productive agriculture.
To ensure that rural areas provide an attractive setting through the preservation of a farmed rural landscape. Maintain rural land in large and productive parcels, in accordance with the schedules to the farming zones.
Minimise non farming land uses in rural areas.
Ensure that any non farming land uses will not compromise farming activity in the area.
Ensure development in rural areas respects the farmed landscape character, particularly significant landscapes identified through the Coastal Spaces Landscape Assessment Study.
Clause 52.08 – Earth and Energy Resources Industry
A purpose of this clause is to encourage exploratory and extractive resources industry in accordance with acceptable environmental standards, and ensure relevant planning controls are consistent with other legislation governing these land uses.
The clause also provides application requirements and referral requirements for mineral extraction (which includes quarrying of sand).
The applicable application requirements and referral requirements of Clause 52.08 were met as part of the permit application.
Clause 52.09 – Stone Extraction and Extractive Industry Interest Areas
The purpose of Clause 52.09 is:
To ensure that use and development of land for stone extraction does not adversely affect the environment or amenity of the area during or after extraction.
To ensure that excavated areas can be appropriately rehabilitated.
To ensure that sand and stone resources, which may be required by the community for future use, are protected from inappropriate development.
This clause sets out specific requirements for stone extraction proposals and requires all permit applications to be accompanied by:
A copy of a work plan or a variation to an approved work plan that has received statutory endorsement under section 77TD of the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990.
The written notice of statutory endorsement under section 77TD(1) of the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990.
Any conditions specified under section 77TD(3) of the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990.
The above documents were provided with the permit application.
Clause 52.17 – Native Vegetation
The purpose of Clause 52.17 (Native Vegetation) of the Particular Provisions is to:
Protect and conserve native vegetation to reduce the impact of land and water degradation and provide habitat for plants and animals.
To achieve the following objectives:
To avoid the removal of native vegetation.
If the removal of native vegetation cannot be avoided, to minimise the removal of native vegetation through appropriate planning and design.
To appropriately offset the loss of native vegetation.
Provide for the management and removal of native vegetation in accordance with a property vegetation plan.
Manage vegetation near buildings to reduce the threat to life and property from wildfire.
Referrals
INTERNAL
Authority/Department |
Advice/Response/Conditions |
Environment |
Council’s Environment Unit provided the following response: The Environment and Waste Services Unit have no objections to the proposal subject to the following conditions being included on any permit issued: Please Note that many of the below conditions are in line and form a consistent approach with those used for PP528/2014 issued for Aerolite Quarry, 255-355 Brownes Road, Anakie.
|
Response: Noted. Recommended conditions will be included on any permit issued except for conditions in relation to removal/placement of stags as one additional native vegetation will be required to be removed. |
|
Engineering Services |
Council’s Engineering Services Unit provided the following response: Drainage: It is noted that the CCMA is requiring a Surface Water Management Plan to demonstrate how the declared watercourse will be diverted around the worksite and that no sediment laden runoff leaves the site. This response is supported. Vehicle Access & Car Parking: Information suggests that the existing access off Sandy Creek Road is failing and not suitable for the proposed use. The access will need to be upgraded to allow B-Double Access with Sandy Creek overlayed / upgraded full width to a Type H Asphalt surface with a minimum thickness of 40mm for the full length where the pavement widening is required. Council will consider the use of the VicRoads standard for Truck access to Rural Properties, SD2065 is sight constraints make the use of SD265 impractical. Planning should consider if dust from internal vehicle movements will be an issue. Sealing of the driveway from Sandy Creek Road to the Workshop as part of stage 2 may be desirable. Flooding & Coastal Inundation: Comments from CCMA supported. Permit Conditions: The following conditions must be placed on the planning permit: Drainage & Vehicular Access
all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Note:
Car Parking Prior to the commencement of use, the developer must construct the car park including access ways, surface with an all-weather surface to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. |
Response: Noted. Recommended conditions will be added onto any planning permit issued. With regards to dust caused by the internal accessway, dust suppression measures will be undertaken as part of the Work Plan and it is considered that sealing is not required on this occasion. |
|
Traffic |
Council’s Traffic Unit provided the following response: It is difficult to determine how much additional traffic generation the proposal will have. All vehicle movements will be confined to Sandy Creek Rd, and the direction of the trucks leaving/accessing the site is dependant on where they are going. Sandy Creek Rd is mostly sealed except for the northern section between the entrance to the Ford Proving Grounds and Little River – Ripley Rd. Additional truck movements in this section may have an impact on the frequency that Council maintains the road. However, in the main, any additional truck movements will not have an impact on the traffic in the region as they have very small traffic volumes. |
Response: Noted. No conditions required. |
|
EXTERNAL
In accordance with the Statutory Endorsement of Work Plans process, the relevant Work Plan was referred to relevant authorities by the Department of State Development, Business and Innovation (DSDBI) prior to lodgement of the planning application. These authorities included the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP), Heritage Victoria, Powercor/SP AusNet and Corangamite Catchment Management Authority (CCMA). These referral authorities provided consent to the statutory endorsement of the Work Plan and any conditions requested were incorporated into the Work Plan conditions provided by DSDBI.
In addition to the referrals undertaken as part of the Statutory Endorsement process, the following referrals where undertaken by Council as part of the planning permit application process:
Section 55
Authority/Department |
Advice/Response/Conditions |
Powercor |
Powercor Australia Ltd does not object to the issue of a planning permit subject to conditions. |
Response: Conditions will be included on any permit issued. |
|
VicRoads |
VicRoads did not object to the issue of a planning permit subject to the following condition: All vehicle movements associated with the use of development are to use the Sandy Creek Road access. |
Response: Condition will be added to any permit issued. |
|
DELWP |
DELWP did not object or require any conditions. |
Response: Noted. |
|
Section 52
Authority/Department |
Advice/Response/Conditions |
CCMA – 1st Referral |
In light of the above information and pursuant to Section 56 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the Authority objects to the granting of a permit, on the following grounds: 1. The proposal does not satisfactorily address the designated waterways and floodplain issues existing on the site. |
CCMA – 2nd Referral |
Further to correspondence dated 24 July 2015 (Our Ref F-2015-0481 document 1), the Corangamite CMA hereby withdraws its objection to the above application. Pursuant to Section 56 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the Authority does not object to the granting of a permit, and recommends the following conditions:
|
Response: Noted. Recommended conditions will be added to any permit issued. |
|
Southern Rural Water |
Thank you for your referral regarding the above-mentioned planning permit application. It is noted that the proposal is located in a water sensitive area and that adjoining property owners have voiced their concerns that relate to potential impacts on groundwater and surfacewater resources. In addition, the proposal is also located in an area where there are several existing sand and stone extractions. The hydrogeological report prepared by Nolan Consulting is comprehensive and basically addresses issues that Southern Rural Water (SRW) would consider in assessing such a proposal. Taking all matters into consideration, SRW does not object to the proposal subject to conditions. |
Response: Noted. Recommended conditions will be added to any permit issued. |
|
Parks Victoria |
Parks Victoria didn’t object and provided the following response: The You Yangs Regional Park is located 55km south west of Melbourne—and attracts approximately 340,000 each year. These visitors enjoy the natural landscape scenery from lookouts, and experience activities such as bushwalking, mountain bike riding, scenic drives and enjoying the many species of flora and fauna found in the Park. There are various vantage points located within the Park, including the popular Flinders Peak Lookout. This Lookout takes in the views of the surrounding culturally rich landscape, including views to the northwest. Identified in the You Yangs Strategic Directions paper is the significant vegetation occurring along the banks of Hovells Creek and the surrounding foothills of the You Yangs. These communities include the Endangered Creekline Grassy Woodland and Vulnerable Hills Herb−rich Woodland. Some of these vegetation communities have previously been disturbed and this disturbance has contributed to the invasion if the highly noxious weed, Boneseed. Through nutrient competition and displacement of species, Boneseed endangers many threatened plant species and communities, including the Endangered brittle greenhood orchid found in the You Yangs and only at two other locations in Victoria. Rehabilitation The rehabilitation plan is not clear or detailed on the proposed sequence of extraction and therefore sequence or methods of rehabilitation. Parks Victoria requests further information on the rehabilitation plan, including extraction, rehabilitation and any planned revegetation or reseeding. Parks Victoria also requests further information on how the Applicant will endeavour to reduce the risk of spread of Boneseed and other disturbance−related weed species into the Park or nearby Hovells Creek. View shed and Visitor Impacts Page 22 of the Planning Permit Application No. 692/2015 states that the site is not visible within the public view shed of the You Yangs and that there will be no impacts. The site and surroundings mines are visible from popular visitor sites within You Yangs Regional Park, including Flinders Peak Lookout, East−West−Walk and Royalty Wall; accessed by walkers, scenic drivers and mountain bike riders. Access and Visitor Safety Given the estimated fifty (50) truck trips per day using Sandy Creek Road, Parks Victoria recommends the City of Greater Geelong consider implementing a speed restriction for the Applicant to ensure safe passage of visitors to the You Yangs Regional Park. |
Response: Noted. The issue of weeds can be dealt with via a Weed Management Plan condition. In relation to speed limits, this is outside the realm of Planning however this issue has been conveyed to Council’s Traffic department for their consideration. |
|
EPA |
EPA did not object and provided the following response:
|
Response: Noted. Conditions relating to water and no landfill will be added to any permit issued. |
|
AMENDMENT OF THE PROPOSAL PRIOR TO PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
The application was not amended prior to public notification.
However additional information and plans were submitted as a result of a Council Request for Further Information letter dated 2 July 2015.
These are the plans and reports that form the basis of this report and formed part of the documents for public notification.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
The application is not exempt from the notice requirements of Section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of Section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of Section 82(1) of the Act and pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 the following forms of advertising were undertaken:
Notices were sent to owners and occupiers of adjoining land (including opposite)
Two (2) A3 signs were placed on the land
As a result of public notification two hundred and thirty-seven (237) objections were lodged and two (2) letters of support were received.
One objection received from a competing mine was rejected under Section 57(2A) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 as it was considered that the objection had been made primarily to secure or maintain a direct or indirect commercial advantage as they raised concerns in relation to the profitability of their operation should the proposal be supported.
The permit applicant declined Council’s offer of a consultation meeting.
Recently the Planning and Environment Amendment (Recognising Objectors) Act 2015 amended the Planning and Environment Act 1987 at Section 60(1B) and Section 84B(2)(jb). The amendment requires responsible authorities and VCAT to consider the number of objectors to a permit application and whether a proposed use or development may have a significant social effect.
The Advisory Note prepared to accompany the Amendment is clear in indicating that a large number of objections does not necessarily equate to evidence of a social effect. The content of objections and whether the issues raised in the objections are relevant planning considerations and relate to the reasons why the proposal requires a permit is a key issue.
In applying the new consideration Council continues to be required to:
Determine if a social effect is relevant to the particular decision being made;
Balance any significant social effects with any other significant effects that the proposal may have;
Integrate the range of policies and planning provisions relevant to the issues to be determined;
Consider whether the number of objectors indicate a significant social effect of a proposal;
Decide whether the proposal produced an acceptable planning outcome that is in the interests of net community benefit.
While there are a significant number of objections raised, it is not considered that there is a significant social effect which has been identified and which would warrant refusal of the application. The majority of the concerns raised by objectors relate to the planning permissions required, but Council is required to consider whether the social impacts are significant and balance these with any other significant effects of the proposal having regard to:
The objectives of the Planning and Environment Act;
The provisions of the planning scheme;
Relevant policies and decision guidelines in the planning scheme;
Other considerations in sections 60 and 84B of the Planning and Environment Act.
As can be seen throughout this report, it is considered that the proposal results in an acceptable planning outcome and results in net community benefit.
AMENDMENT OF THE APPLICATION FOLLOWING PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
The application was not amended following public notification.
OBJECTIONS
The objections have been summarized and predominately relate to visual impacts on the rural landscape character and the You Yangs especially non-rehabilitation of existing mines, amenity impacts (including dust and noise), the proposal is inconsistent with the Farming Zone and policies relating to agriculture, impacts on tourism, impacts on the local film industry, removal of vegetation, impacts on wildlife, increase in truck movements, impact on surface water/groundwater/bores, impacts on Indigenous heritage, the extent of public notification, the application form was not completed correctly and it is a legal requirement to complete the application form in full and lack of net community benefit and need.
Objection - Visual impacts on the rural landscape character and the You Yangs and effects of non-rehabilitation of existing mines in the area
The main theme from the objections is the visual impact the proposed sand mine would have on the open, farming landscape at the foothills of the You Yangs. This concern is based from the public realm at ground level (Sandy Creek Road) and particularly when viewed from the elevated positions within the You Yangs Regional Park i.e Flinders Peak and Big Rock lookouts to name a few.
The subject site and area has been identified as having a significant landscape and is covered by the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 1 (SLO1) – Foothills of the You Yangs. This schedule recognises that this area covered by the overlay is an area comprised of treeless foothills and plains at the base of the You Yangs. The You Yangs are the most prominent landscape feature in the northern area of the municipality, providing panoramic views of Geelong. The surrounding foothills and plains create an open view path to the You Yangs, visually exposing them when viewed from the surrounding basalt plains. The key element of the landscape is its open character and contrast with the You Yangs.
The landscape objectives to be achieved are:
To protect and enhance the open character, contrast and scenic quality of the landscape.
To maintain an open view path to the regionally significant You Yangs.
To protect the landscape from visual intrusion by inappropriate buildings and works and their siting, design or materials.
To encourage the siting, design and landscaping of buildings and works to be responsive to the landscape values of the area.
To facilitate the rehabilitation of extractive industries when they reach the end of their economic life.
It is noted that the overlay relates to viewing towards the You Yangs across the open plains and not the other way around.
It is also noted that the National Trust of Australia (Victoria) submitted a detailed objection in relation to the significance of the landscape as referenced in the DPCD South West Victoria Landscape Assessment Study 2013 and that the objection placed heavy weight on this document. However this document is not referenced in the Planning Scheme and therefore has little, if any, strategic weight in decision making.
The application is for a sand mine, which entails digging down below ground level rather than constructing above ground level. It is considered that when looking towards the You Yangs across the subject sites from Bacchus Marsh Road that this fact ameliorates any built form impacts on these plains. In addition, the gradual rehabilitation of the land will return the site back to the open plains that currently exist. The location of the mine and the fact that the works will predominately be below ground level will continue to provide for an open view path towards the You Yangs and will continue to provide a contrast with and visually expose the You Yangs from the surrounding open plains which is the key element of the landscape.
This conflict between a quarry and a Significant Landscape Overlay has recently been discussed in Aerolite Quarries Pty Ltd v Greater Geelong CC [2014] VCAT 1611 (24 December 2014), where Members Byard and Hadjigeorgiou said in paragraph 97:
As the schedule provisions recognise, it is important that new buildings and works should not compromise important aspects of this positive landscape. However, this proposal does not have that effect. Most of the works will be below the existing ground level. The stockpiling of material and the construction of bunds and rehabilitation are matters that can be appropriately dealt with in conditions and rehabilitation.
In paragraph 99, they said:
The proposal is basically an inconspicuous removal rather than to build a conspicuous intrusion. It is proposed to remove part of the apron which, in our judgement, is not a significant part of the landscape or of the concerns of the Significant Landscape Overlay. The proposed removal, when viewed from relevant points would be minor to minimal and generally imperceptible.
In our judgement the proposal does not threaten the landscape generally or in particular does not in relation to the three sisters hills, their intervening saddles or their skylines. We are not persuaded that there are any points of which the contrary would be true, and if there is such a point, its impact and importance must nevertheless be very minor. Significant impacts on significant landscapes do not include alterations that are very minor or imperceptible.
It is acknowledged that this decision relates to a different site and overlay, however the sentiments expressed are equally applicable to the subject sites.
The applicant is proposing boundary setbacks in accordance with or greater than those as required by Clause 52.09-7 of the Planning Scheme. The setbacks along the eastern (Sandy Creek Road) and southern boundaries will be planted with vegetation including River Red gums and Sugar gums to provide natural screening rather than relying on bund walls. This area will also include a new drainage channel to convey surface water flows from the north-east corner of the subject land to its natural exit point midway along the southern boundary. It is considered that the planting of vegetation along these boundaries will assist in screening the mine operation on site. It is also considered that as the works are below ground level, that the proposal continues to provide for a view across the open plains at the foot of the You Yangs.
Some objections also referred to the Decision Guideline in the overlay relating to the containment of extractive industries to ensure development and subsequent reclamation are carried out without significant detriment to recreational and scenic vaule of the surrounding area.
This does not preclude extractive industries in this area. It is considered that when viewing from the You Yangs (even though the overlay does not consider this view) that the location of the proposed mine is contained to an area of existing mines as shown below in Figure 4. It is also reiterated that this is a staged extraction so areas will be rehabilitated once that area has been exhausted of the product and will return the land to the open farmed landscape of the area.
Figure 4 – View from Flinders Peak looking out towards the existing mines circled in yellow. The area circled in red is the subject site.
Many objections also referred to other sand mines in the immediate area and the visual impacts the non-rehabilitation of these mines has had on the landscape. These mines were approved decades ago when mining requirements regarding rehabilitation were more lax then they are today.
Prior to the lodgement of the planning application, the applicant had to undergo a Statutory Endorsement process under the Minerals Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990.
This statutory endorsement includes a rehabilitation plan which will be staged over the lifetime of the extraction. In addition, the operators must pay the State government a bond/security that could be used by the government in the event that the land is not rehabilitated.
DSDBI is the relevant State government department that enforces the approved work plan and subsequent rehabilitation plans. It has been indicated that this department is currently in negotiations with the landowner of the mine directly to the north of the subject site to implement the rehabilitation of the land.
Overall, it is acknowledged that the proposal will be noticeable in the local landscape, however the mine will be a small feature within the whole landscape panorama, especially when viewed from vantage points within the You Yangs (see Figure 6). It is considered that the proposal does not present as an unacceptable or unreasonable “blight” in the wider panorama and does not warant refusal of the application.
Figure 5 – Panorama view looking west to north west from Flinders Peak
Objection – Impact on surface water/groundwater/bores
Many objections were received in relation to reduced surface water flows to Hovells Creek, impacts on groundwater/bores and contaminated water getting into Hovells Creek which will impact on the Ramsar wetlands further down the creek.
The issue of water is a relevant consideration especially as the application proposes to use water for dust suppression and in the cleaning of the sand.
The application was referred to the CCMA through the Statutory Endorsement process and the planning permit process and to Southern Rural Water and the EPA through the planning permit process. The authorities did not object to the granting of a permit.
The draft Work Plan includes measures to retain water on-site used through the washing process and the use of holding/settling dams. The water used here will come from on-site capture within the WA area and from a bore on-site. The EPA has confirmed that the measures required in the Work Plan to contain and reuse wastewater generated from the operation on-site will not impact on the water quality of Hovells Creek and therefore will not contaminate the Ramsar wetlands.
In relation to reduced surface water flow not reaching Hovells Creek, this is an existing condition caused by existing mines in the area. The DSDBI is currently working with mine operators upstream to rectify this issue and allow for the resumption of surface flows across the land.
In response to this issue, the application is seeking to construct a diversion channel around the Work Authority area with a connection point in the north east corner. This channel will divert along the eastern boundary before turning westwards to run along the southern boundary where it will discharge at the natural discharge point from the subject land and continue along the natural waterway to Hovells Creek and then onto Lascalles Dam located on the property to the south.
It is considered that returning natural surface water flows to Hovells Creek will assist in preserving the river red gums that have been showing signs of recent distress.
Objections have been received that the use of groundwater/bores will contaminate groundwater and also produce flow on effects to adjoining properties bores in reducing their water levels.
The applicant provided a hydrogeological report prepared by Nolan Consulting demonstrating that the proposal will not impact on the supply of groundwater to neighbouring property bores or that the extraction pit will penetrate groundwater levels.
The report and application in general was referred to Southern Rural Water (SRW) for comments on possible effects the proposal may have on groundwater quality and availability.
SRW reviewed the report and the application in detail and stated that:
The hydrogeological report prepared by Nolan Consulting is comprehensive and basically addresses issues that Southern Rural Water (SRW) would consider in assessing such a proposal.
The Nolan assessment adequately addresses potential impacts from extracting groundwater from the applicants bores on neighbouring bores, in particular bores located on the Wooloomanata property. The assessment concludes that a best estimate drawdown of 0.53 m at the nearest Wooloomanta bore. Southern Rural Water has estimated that this would equate to 6% which is in accordance with good groundwater management principle and therefore acceptable.
Taking all matters into consideration, SRW does not object to the proposal subject to conditions.
Overall, it is considered that the proposal has taken measures to limits impacts on water in general and that the conditions required by SRW are appropriate and will address issues relating to drainage and discharge control, dams and groundwater .
Objection – Increase in truck movements, conflicts with trucks, speed and road surfacing
Numerous objections were received in relation to the proposed 50 additional truck movements per day and the impacts this would have on traffic in central Lara and Little River, along Branch Road (main access to the You Yangs, across Grants (bluestone) Bridge and impacts on business/properties adjoining the truck routes.
The applicant considered the option of having direct access out onto Bacchus Marsh Road. When investigating this, the applicant found that the access would be unviable and the new access road would have a significant impact on Hovells Creek and native vegetation. In addition, VicRoads who are the road authority for Bacchus Marsh Road, was not supportive of this option.
As a result of the lack of support from VicRoads in relation to accessing Bacchus Marsh Road and the concerns raised by objectors about trucks, the applicant is agreeable to a condition on any permit issued that stipulates that all truck movements are via Sandy Creek Road, Forest Road North and Windermere Road out to Bacchus Marsh Road. This designated route would remove the trucks from Lara, Little River and Grants Bridge. It is recommend that this condition be placed on any permit issued.
In addition, the application was referred to both Council’s Traffic Department and VicRoads for comments on the proposed truck movements. Both agencies did not raise any issues with the increased traffic movements nor did they require any conditions in relation to upgrading the road surface.
Other objections were received in relation to truck movements along Sandy Creek Road and possible conflicts with walkers, cyclists and horse riders especially in relation to truck speed.
The speed limit along this section of Sandy Creek Road is 100 km/h. The issue of speed and enforcing speed limits is beyond the control of the Planning Scheme and is enforced via other means. Council’s Traffic Department are aware of the current issues relating to speed in this area and they, along with consultation with VicRoads, can reduce the speed limit.
Objection - Lack of net community benefit/scale of economies
A number of objections suggested that the proposal would only benefit the quarry operators; would not provide any net community benefit to the community; that there is an oversupply of sand resources in the local area; it is uneconomical and the quality is low and there are other areas in Victoria where sand extraction can be undertaken.
The issue of net community benefit, economics and the like and quarry operations has been discussed in numerous VCAT decisions.
In Aerolite Quarries Pty Ltd v Greater Geelong CC [2014] VCAT 1611 (24 December 2014), the above points were discussed by Members Byard and Hadjigeorgiou
In terms of quality and economics, the members said in paragraph 131:
We do not accept that only the best grades are marketable or valuable. The company has been warned that it may be taking a financial risk if it develops this quarry if it will not be able to produce processed basalt of freeway quality. That is a risk that it must assess for itself. It is not our responsibility to protect the company from itself, or to make financial decisions for it. We confine ourselves to considering whether the proposal is acceptable from the planning point of view.
This was in response to the quality of the product, which was considered to be on the lower grade.
In relation to net community benefit, they said in paragraph 133:
We consider that there is a net community benefit in this proposal in that it is to give rise to a product that is saleable and needed by the community, quite apart from providing employment and other business opportunities to suppliers of necessary goods and services.
They also addressed the issue of alternative site locations in paragraphs 136-138.
The other argument raised was as to whether there are alternative sites off the land. It was suggested that, from a net community benefit point of view and more generally, there are plenty of other sites and deposits of basalt that can serve whatever need the community has for such products.
This argument has long since, indeed for decades, been recognised as irrelevant as a planning consideration. The question is always whether the proposal for this site is acceptable, irrespective of whether there are other sites, even other preferable sites, that may exist yet not be available to the proponent.
In any event, although there may be considerable amounts of basalt in the district, if excessive and unreasonable demands and standards are applied, there may well be that little or none of it could be exploited. The question remains, is this an acceptable proposal. We consider that it is.
It is considered that there is a clear community benefit of quarrying. It provides natural resources for a variety of uses that benefit the community. In the case of sand quarrying, it provides a material used in the construction industry.
As required by Clause 10.04, Council is required to balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development. In making this assessment it is necessary to balance up the suite of planning policy, the zoning provisions, particular provisions and the site context.
What needs to be balanced is the community benefit of quarrying the resource and the impacts that doing so has on the environment, landscape and amenity of others.
As noted, the use will make a contribution to the economy by providing direct employment and indirect employment for a range of others related to the operations of the site. The proposal also assists in ensuring the most effective use is made of an extractive industry interest area. The development of the site makes good use of a required resource for the construction industry with its continued contribution to the broader Victorian economy.
The investment and the generation of new employment is considered to provide for net community benefit. The assessment of the application concludes that the siting of the use and its development has been managed to ensure that there are no unacceptable emissions from the site, or unacceptable risks to the neighbouring properties and visitors to the You Yangs. Noise and dust emissions and provision of water have been considered in detail and recommended permit conditions will require relevant plans to be submitted and approved by Council.
Overall, it is considered that the proposal provides for a net community benefit.
Objection - Amenity impacts (including dust and noise)
Discussed below under Assessment section.
Objection - The proposal is inconsistent with the Farming Zone and policies relating to agriculture and will conflict with farming uses in the area
Discussed below under Assessment section.
Objection - Impacts on wildlife
Some objections were received in relation to the impacts on wildlife the proposal would have, especially on birds that inhabit Lascelles Dam and on the Golden Sun Moth, an endangered species found on the Wooloomanata property to the south.
The applicant has provided a letter from Ecology Australia (dated 14 December 2015) that explains that the subject site does not contain habitats that are favourable to these species as the area is dominated by exotic, low grade pasture.
The ecologist also states that the subject site is not suitable to the Golden Sun Moth and has disputed that the proposal would impact on the moths found on the Wooloomanta property unless the dust was so thick that the health of the grasses the moth relies on was compromised – a scenario they found unlikely to occur.
They also stated that there is no evidence that the subject land functions as a corridor or pathway for faunal movements considering that the land consists of exotic pasture and is devoid of trees.
They also said that the operation of the mine is unlikely to impact on the bird species found at Lascelles dam which is approximately 400m to the south and that most bird species are adaptable to noise and visual intrusion.
They have acknowledged that the additional truck movements may cause the potential of road-kill or injury, but recommended that truck movements are not conducted at night to protect nocturnal species.
In addition, the application was referred to DELWP under Section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act due to the presence of the Golden Sun Moth on the Wooloomanata property and for general comments on any impacts on wildlife including birdlife around Lascelles Dam.
DELWP did not object to the proposal and concurred with the observations and analysis contained in the Ecology Australia letter provided by the applicant in response to objectors concerns regarding wildlife and endangered species, especially the Golden Sun Moth.
Therefore it is considered that the proposal will have limited impacts on wildlife and does not warrant the refusal of this application.
Objection - Removal of vegetation
The draft work plan submitted with the application indicated that 8 river red gums were proposed to be removed. Concerns with the amount of vegetation to be removed resulted in the applicant changing the Work Authority boundaries so that 7 of the trees will be retained on site.
It is now proposed to remove one dead river red gum. It is noted that this dead tree had already been removed prior to the lodgement of this application and this is now a retrospective approval for the removal of this tree.
The application was referred to Council’s Environment department who had no issues with the removal due to the offset required that can be accommodated on-site. Also, additional trees will be planted to provided screening to the mine.
The area where the extraction is located does not contain any native grasses.
Objection – Impacts on tourism and the local film industry
A few objections were received that related to impacts the proposal would have on tourism to the You Yangs and impacts to the local film industry who film in the area.
The underlying concern is that the appearance of the proposal and the noise and dust associated with it will stop people from visiting the You Yangs. This is hard to quantify as no supporting evidence was provide to support this claim. Mines already exist and abut the You Yangs and have operated without impacting on visitation numbers to the park to a detrimental level that would warrant a refusal of this application.
In relation to the film industry, it is acknowledged that the You Yangs and broader area have been used in filming due to its natural landscapes, adaptability to present a variety of locations and its proximity to Melbourne.
A letter from Film Victoria describes the importance of this location however it did not expressly object to the proposal or state how this proposal might possibly affect filming within the area. It is also noted that one of the mine sites itself was used as a set to film “The Pacific”. Also other film/television examples given seem to be filmed on the eastern side of the You Yangs rather the western side where the proposed mine will be located.
It is considered that the proposal will have limited affects on the film industry.
It is considered that this is not a reasonable ground to refuse the application.
Objection - Impacts on Indigenous heritage and the Wooloomanata homestead to the south
The subject site contains an area of Aboriginal cultural sensitivity and as such a Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) is required as the proposal is a high impact activity.
CHMP #10511 was approved by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs Victoria on the 18 December 2008. The CHMP has found the proposed Work Authority area does not contain any areas of Aboriginal heritage.
Therefore while the area has cultural significance to the local indigenous people, the proposal will have no impacts on this heritage.
In relation to the Wooloomanata property, which is heritage listed, the objections relating to the impacts the proposal may have on this property are not a relevant planning consideration. Council can only assess post contact heritage if the subject site itself is covered by a heritage overlay, which it is not.
Objection - The application form was not completed correctly and it is a legal requirement to complete the application form in full
The application form was completed to the satisfaction of Council and allowed for a through and proper assessment of the application.
Objection - The extent of public notification
Public notification of the application comprised letters to adjoining land owners and occupiers and via two signs on-site in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
It is noted that there has been significant media and social media interest in this application. Interested third parties have provided information on various websites detailing how to object to the application. Given the above and the substantial number of objections received, it is considered that adequate public notification has been carried out and that objectors have raised many varied grounds.
Assessment
State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks
Relevant State and local policies encourage economic growth by building on the region’s competitive strengths and encouraging the extraction of natural resources in accordance with acceptable environmental standards, whilst protecting the environment and agricultural land from inappropriate development and effects.
It is considered that the proposed use will encourage economic growth through the construction industry without compromising the continued use of surrounding land for agricultural production and other stone extractions, as has been demonstrated in the written submission and Work Plan provided with the permit application. It is noted that all relevant referral authorities have provided consent to the statutory endorsement of the Work Plan prior to the lodgement of the planning permit application and have not objected to the application when referred from Council.
It is acknowledged that there are strong state and local policies regarding the protection of agricultural land and to limit incompatible land uses that may conflict with agricultural uses.
However there is equally strong state policy regarding resource exploration and extraction. Clause 14.03 (Resource Exploration and Extraction) encourages exploration and extraction of natural resources in accordance with acceptable environmental standards and to provide a planning approval process that is consistent with the relevant legislation.
This policy also directs the assessment of planning applications to consider the Geelong Supply Area - Extractive Industry Interest Areas – Geological Survey of Victoria Technical Record 1999/2.
This document acknowledges that:
Geelong is an important centre dependent on locally derived extractive industry resources which are used as raw material for the manufacturing industry; and
Geelong is also a regional centre with a substantial population and an important use of quarry products.
The site and a substantial area surrounding it is identified as an Extractive Industry Interest Area (EIIA) in the document. Amongst other things, the purpose of the EIIAs is to provide a basis for ensuring the long term availability of stone resources for use by the community and at minimal detriment to the environment, and to create awareness that extractive industry is a possible land use within these areas.
The extraction of useful sand material is of importance and to be encouraged (and not frustrated) in suitable circumstances. This does not mean that anything goes, but it is nevertheless an important positive consideration. There will, no doubt, be circumstances where extraction will not be permitted from a planning point of view. There are always likely to be some constraints associated with extraction operation, but the present proposal is considered to be free of such constraints.
As discussed below, it is considered that the proposed quarry can operate with minimal detriment to the environment and agricultural uses in the area.
Farming Zone
The Farming Zone encourages the retention of productive agricultural land and seeks to ensure that non-agricultural uses do not adversely affect the use of land for agriculture. Further, it does not prohibit the use of land for stone extraction.
Farming of land in farming zones has to be regarded as robust rather than as a quiet rural or retreat. It is for this reason that such zoning is considered to be suitable for extraction activities. Of course, extraction can only take place where the resource to be won is available.
The subject site is currently used for agriculture (grazing). Its use for stone extraction would obviously reduce the ability to continue this use whilst in operation. However progressive rehabilitation is proposed, whereby ongoing pasture planting would be undertaken in worked out areas as soon as practical, providing opportunity for agricultural uses on-site to co-exist with the extraction area. Recommended permit conditions require progressive rehabilitation in accordance with the approved Work Plan. The extraction site is to be retained as a large single allotment which can be fully returned to agricultural production following the completion of the use.
It is noted that that the proposed extraction would not only be regulated by the planning permit but, as previously mentioned, by a Work Authority and a Work Plan required under the Mineral Resources Act. This enables ongoing regulation and ultimately rehabilitation of land quite apart from a planning permit and its conditions.
Both those requirements and planning permission can be expected to contain rehabilitation requirements pursuant to which the review site would progressively or ultimately be rehabilitated for farming purposes. This is mentioned because the second purpose of the Farming Zone includes the encouragement of the retention of agricultural land. That is a very appropriate purpose in itself, but in the event of land being temporarily withdrawn from agricultural use to enable some other justified activity, it is nevertheless relevant that the withdrawal should be temporary and the land ultimately restored in accordance with the purposes of that zone.
Another purpose of the Farming Zone is to ensure that non-agricultural uses do not adversley affect the use of the land for agriculture. This is particularly pertinent as the land directly to the south is currently farmed for cropping among other agricultural uses. This property has also objected on the grounds of incompatibility with their farming endeavours particularly in relation to dust and the effect this will have on their crops.
As discussed previously, the Work Plan has dust suppression measures incorporated within the document to reduce off-site impacts caused by dust. In addition to this, the applicant has provided a landscape plan that relocates the current access road from Sandy Creek Road away from the common boundary to within the site with the setback to be used for the surface water diversion channel and to be landscaped. It is recommended that an amended plans condition be included on any permit issued to require this new access/buffer design. Overall it is considered that the requirements of the Work Plan together with the revised buffer design along the southern boundary will reduce any impacts that the proposed extraction may have on the adjoining farming operation to the south to acceptable levels.
A number of objections to the application also raised concerns about the impact the quarry would have on the amenity of the residents of the Wooloomanata property to the south and visitors in general to the You Yangs. It is agreed that some level of amenity should be expected in the Farming Zone but agricultural activities themselves tend to lessen amenity. Once again provision within the Work Plan should reduce amenity impacts on neighbouring properties and visitors to the You Yangs.
Arguably, the Farming Zone is one of the zones best suited for extractive industry given the lower level of amenity that should be expected and the generous setbacks from sensitive uses and built-up areas.
Amenity
Various objections were received from landowners and visitors to the You Yangs concerned about the detrimental impact the proposed quarry would have on the amenity they currently enjoy. Amenity issues raised related to dust, noise, vibrations and visual impact.
The Farming Zone encourages agriculture, rural industry, timber production and economic development compatible with rural activities. Residential use, unless it specifically relates to agriculture, is not encouraged and the planning scheme is generally silent on the level of amenity a visitor to a regional park might expect to enjoy.
Nevertheless, the generation of noise, dust and vehicles on private land and country roads are manifestations of farming in general and have to be accepted. Vehicles of various sizes, including large tankers, cattle trucks and vehicles moving farm produce or bringing farm requirements are commonplace. Depending on circumstances, vehicles and equipment are used regularly, intermittently or seasonally at all hours of the day and night. Dust is generated by vehicles and unsealed roads, ploughing, harrowing, harvesting, spreading of fertilisers by a vehicle, crop dusting and so on.
Dust
In relation to dust, it is considered that extensive landscaping along the boundaries of the site and dust suppression measures required under the approved Work Plan will go some way to reduce the amount of dust that leaves the site. It is noted that the EPA has supported the dust suppression method as outlined in the Work Plan. Dust emissions are likely to be negligible when the quarry is operating at maximum depth provided surface areas under rehabilitation are appropriated grassed to limit exposed earth and dust suppression measures are followed. Given the surrounding land to the north-west, south and west is zoned Farming, where farming operations might include ploughing and other activities that cause dust and existing extractions to the east and north-east, it is anticipated that dust emissions would not be unreasonable given the context. Irrespective, it is recommended that a permit condition requires a Dust Management Plan.
Noise and Vibrations
No blasting is proposed.
The closest residence is located approximately 1200m from the proposed extraction area. Whilst no blasting is proposed, it is noted that this setback is consistent with the recommended separation distance for quarrying with blasting provided in EPA Publication 1518 – Recommended Separation Distances for Industrial Residual Air Emissions, March 2013.
Noise associated with day-to-day works requires consideration, particularly in the early stages of the quarry’s life when the use will not benefit from depth to provide appropriate acoustic barriers. An acoustic assessment prepared by Watson Moss Growcott dated 11 December 2014 was provided with the permit application. This report concluded that noise modelling results have indicated that the quarry can operate as proposed while maintaining noise levels within the recommended maximum noise levels at the nearest adjacent dwelling located to the south at the Wooloomanata homestead.
This report was referred to the EPA for comments. The EPA also concluded, based on this report, that the proposal will not have any adverse impact on the amenity of the closest sensitive receptor (Wooloomanata).
Visual Impact
The visual impact on the broader surrounding area is discussed in the response to objections. In relation to visual impact for nearby properties, the proposed landscaping would protect the views from surrounding properties and from Sandy Creek Road. Screening the quarry has been illustrated in the application material.
Traffic
The proposed extraction will utilise the existing local road network. It is not anticipated that the output of the proposed extraction will generate truck movements which exceed the carrying capacity of the local road network.
It is proposed that all trucks accessing the quarry will use the designated truck routes. Council’s Traffic Unit and VicRoads supports this arrangement. It is noted however that the applicant is willing to have a condition on any permit granted that requires trucks to access Bacchus Marsh Road via Windermere Road thus alleviating any issues of trucks within Lara, Little River and crossing Grants Bridge.
Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 1 (SLO1)
The entire site is affected by the Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 1 (Foothills of the You Yangs).
The Objectives and Decision Guidelines of the SLO1 seek to minimise impacts on the visual and landscape values of the area and ensure that buildings and works are responsive to these values in their design and siting.
The site forms part of the foothills of the You Yangs.
It is considered that appropriate vegetation screening works and setbacks from boundaries will ensure the quarry does not unreasonably impact on the landscape character of the SLO1.
Further justification for supporting the proposal in relation to the SLO1 is provided above as part of the response to objections.
Clause 52.09 - Stone Extraction and Extractive Industry Interest Areas
It is considered that the application meets the requirements of this clause in relation to effects on flora and fauna, impacts on cultural and historical significance, effects on the natural and cultural landscape of the surrounding land and locality, meets the requirements of the Mineral Resources Act, effects of vehicle traffic, noise and dust on the amenity of the area, ability to rehabilitate the land and the effects on surface and groundwater has been extensively detailed previously in this report.
Clause 52.17 – Native Vegetation
It is noted that the draft Work Plan indicates that 8 scattered trees were proposed to be removed that required a substantial offset.
Since the lodgement of the draft work plan with DSDBI and subsequent planning permit application, the work authority area was revised to retain 7 of the scattered trees and now requires the removal of one scattered tree.
This tree was removed prior to the lodgement of the planning permit in that this application seeks retrospective approval for the removal of one dead gum tree. The application as referred to Council’s Environment department who were satisfied with the proposed offset and recommended conditions on permit to facilitate this offset.
It is considered that the application has avoided the removal of native vegetation to the best of its ability and the removal of one dead scattered tree that has been offset is considered to be appropriate.
Legislative Issues
The Planning and Environment Act 1987 and the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme are the relevant documents under which Council must consider this application.
Conclusion
The proposal has been assessed against the Farming Zone, the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 1 and relevant policies and particular provisions of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, and is considered an appropriate use and development of the site. It is recommended that the application be supported subject to the conditions in this report.
Report prepared by Hugh Griffiths
Source: |
Planning and Development |
General Manager: |
Peter Bettess |
Index Reference: |
Planning Committee |
The purpose of this report is to enable Council to consider the Planning Application 1679/2015 – 2-4 Waverley Road, Lara as well as the Section 191 Planning and Environment Act Committee Report on the application and to make a final decision on the application.
The subject site is located to the north east corner of the intersection of Station Lake Road and Waverley Road in the Lara town centre.
The site is irregular in shape and has an area of 1.92 hectares. The site has been developed under planning permit 1487/2012/A for a primary tenancy supermarket, smaller tenancy shops, cafe and a convenience restaurant. Since the issue of this permit, the construction has been completed with Coles taking up the main tenancy.
The development permit allowed the reduction of car parking also, with a sufficient amount of car parking space to be supplied to the centre and western parts of the site, with frontage to Waverley Road. The car park area also has an interface with the Public Park and Recreation Zoned area of Austin Park, located adjoining the subject site, to the north east.
The application proposes the construction of shade structures over three rows of the car park, being the row with the pedestrian access through the site, and the two rows adjacent to the north east. The structures are proposed to be constructed of a galvanised steel frame covered by ‘weatherproof carport fabric’. Four trees are located in the space proposed for the cover, to which cut-outs are proposed to allow the trees to grow through.
The area to be covered is approximately 1,400sqm at a maximum height of 4.2m from ground level.
The site is located in the Commercial 1 Zone and covered by the Design and Development Overlay, Schedule 29, with both these provisions triggering the need for planning approval of the proposal.
The proposal has also been considered under the relevant policies of the State and Local Planning Policy Framework and the reference documents “Activity Centre Design Guidelines” (Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2005); “Safer Design Guidelines for Victoria” (Crime Prevention Victoria and Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2005); and “Lara Town Centre Urban Design Framework” (David Lock Associates, 2006).
Officers, in considering the relevant policies, reference documents and site context, considered that the proposal is not in accordance with the preferred development of the Lara Town Centre. The proposed shade structures serve to increase the dominance of the car park area and impede visual permeability and passive surveillance through the site, and in between the key features of the retail developments and the public open space of Austin Park.
Preferred car park design includes softening and shade provision through landscaping, to which the proposal is not in accordance with.
The Section 191 Committee considered that the proposed development of shade structures within the car park of 2-4 Waverley Road is consistent with state and local planning policy and with aims of the Lara Town Centre Urban Design Framework, principally the provision of shelter.
Based on the relevant policies, reference documents and site context the Committee considers that the proposal is in accordance with the preferred development of the Lara Town Centre. In particular, it will improve pedestrian amenity within the car park and across the car park to the Waverley Road pedestrian crossing by providing ‘shelter areas along paths and high traffic areas that are not bounded by buildings’ as set out in the Lara Town Centre Urban Design Framework, March 2006.
The design does not alter the landscaping that has been established within and around the car park.
While the design of the structures presents a low profile, they will never the less be visible and will obstruct some vistas. Of principal concern is the view line between Austin Park and the retail along the Centreway. This view line adds to the legibility of the overall town centre and a setback of some of the structures further from Waverley Road would provide a better balance between legibility of the town centre and the need for shelter.
It is recommended that the extent of the proposed shade structures be reduced to ensure that a good visual connection is maintained between Austin Park and the established town centre of The Centreway.
P Dorling moved, L Garnder seconded -
That the Responsible Authority having considered all matters which the Planning and Environment Act, 1987, requires it to consider, decides to Grant a Planning Permit for buildings and works for the construction of car park shade structures at 2-4 Waverley Road, Lara subject to the following conditions:
Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application but modified to show:
a reduction in length of the set of shade structures closest to Austin Park by 13 metres (5 car bay widths, to tree) and the centre set of shade structures by 6.5 metres (2½ car bay widths), from their Waverley Road ends.
The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
The development must be maintained in good order and appearance to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
The development of the building(s) hereby approved has not commenced within two (2) years of the date of this permit.
The development of the building(s) hereby approved is not completed within four (4) years of the date of this permit.
The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires; or
Within six (6) months after the permit expires where the use or development has not yet started; or
Within twelve (12) months after the permit expires, where the development allowed by the permit has lawfully commenced before the permit expiry.
Carried.
The Site & Locality
The subject site is located to the north east corner of the intersection of Station Lake Road and Waverley Road in the Lara town centre.
The site is irregular in shape and has an area of 1.92 hectares. The site has been developed under planning permit 1487/2012/A for a primary tenancy supermarket, smaller tenancy shops, cafe and a convenience restaurant. Since the issue of this permit, the construction has been completed with Coles taking up the main tenancy, and other tenants of the site including McDonalds, Anytime Fitness and the Reject Shop.
The car park area comprises approximately 6,0000sqm of the site arranged predominantly in five 90 degree space rows. Car spaces are also allocated around the edges with some of these spaces nominated for disabled and pram spaces.
Landscaping beds are arranged around the edges that interface with Waverley Road and Austin Park. Landscaping to the car park rows includes eight Eucalyptus leucacoxylon ‘Rosea’ or Eucalyptus mannifera ‘Little Spotty’ over the five rows.
The Proposal
The application proposes the construction of shade structures over three rows of the car park, being the row with the pedestrian access through the site, and the two rows adjacent to the north east. The structures are proposed to be constructed of a galvanised steel frame covered by ‘weatherproof carport fabric’. Four trees are located in the space proposed for the cover, to which cut-outs are proposed to allow the trees to grow through.
The area to be covered is approximately 1,400sqm at a maximum height of 4.2m from ground level. The proposal will resemble three curved roof tunnel like structures running perpendicular to the main tenancy frontage.
Public Notification
The application is exempt from the notice requirements of Section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of Section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of Section 82(1) of the Act, pursuant to Clause 34.01-7 of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme for the Commercial 1 Zone.
The application is not exempt from the notice requirements of Section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d) of the Act, the decision requirements of Section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of Section 82(1) of the Act, pursuant to Clause 43.02-2 of the Design and Development Overlay.
It is considered that no material detriment to surrounding owners or occupiers would result from the granting of a permit therefore public notification was not required.
Officers Recommendation
In considering the relevant policies, reference documents and site context it is considered that the proposal is not in accordance with the preferred development of the Lara Town Centre. The proposed shade structures serves to increase the dominance of the car park area and impede visual permeability and passive surveillance through the site, and in between the key features of the retail developments and the public open space of Austin Park. Preferred car park design includes softening and shade provision through landscaping, to which the proposal is not in accordance with. As such, the proposal is recommended for refusal... (See Appendix 1, Council Officers Report).
Section 191 Committee
A Planning Committee was scheduled for 12 April 2016 to hear the planning application.
Due to the announcement that the Council were to be dismissed, a quorum of seven (7) councillors was unable to be achieved, therefore the meeting was cancelled.
As the item was called into a Planning Committee by Councillors, parties have an expectation of being heard by elected representatives.
With the dismissal of City of Greater Geelong Councillors on 15 April 2016 this was no longer possible.
At the Council Meeting of 28 June 2016, Council resolved;
That Council:
appoints Lester Townsend (Chair), Kate Partenio and Adrian Vlok as a Committee under Section 191 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to hear and make recommendations on the following Planning Applications;
1679/2015 – 2-4 Waverly Road, Lara
692/2015 – 405-455 Sandy Creek Road and 1720 Bacchus Marsh Road, Lara
agrees to pay the reasonable fees and allowances of the persons’ services to the Committee at the rates set by Planning Panels Victoria.
The Section 191 Committee heard parties for Planning Application 1679/2015 at a hearing on Tuesday 5th July 2016.
Presenters at the Hearing included a Council Officer and the Applicant. A full copy of the 191 Committee report can be found at Appendix 2.
The Hearing Committee considered that the proposed development of shade structures within the car park of 2-4 Waverley Road is consistent with state and local planning policy and with aims of the Lara Town Centre urban Design Framework, principally the provision of shelter.
Based on relevant policies, reference documents and site context the Committee considers that the proposal is in accordance with the preferred development of the Lara Town Centre. In particular, it will improve pedestrian amenity within the car park and across the car park to the Waverley Road pedestrian crossing by providing ‘shelter areas along paths and high traffic areas that are not bounded by buildings’ as set out in the Lara Town Centre Urban Design Framework, March 2006.
The design does not alter the landscaping that has been established within and around the car park.
While the design of the structures presents a low profile, they will never the less be visible and will obstruct some vistas. Of principal concern is the view line between Austin Park and the retail along The Centreway. This view line adds to the legibility of the overall town centre and a setback of some of the structures further from Waverley Road would provide a better balance between legibility of the town centre and the need for shelter.
It is recommended that the extent of the proposed shade structures be reduced to ensure that a good visual connection is maintained between Austin Park and the established town centre of The Centreway.
Environmental implications have been considered as part of the Planning process.
Net financial implications have been considered as part of the Planning process.
All Statutory implications have been considered as part of the Planning process.
No Council Officers involved in the drafting of this report have a direct or indirect interest in the issue, in accordance with Section 80C of the Local Government Act.
There are no notable risks associated with implementing the recommendations contained in this report.
Social considerations are considered as part of the Planning process.
The Human Rights Charter has been considered as part of the Planning process.
The Planning Applications have been subject to consultation under the Planning and Environment Act.
The holding of a Section 191 Committee in lieu of a Planning Committee provided all parties to present their views prior to the Council deciding the applications.
All parties have been notified of the recommended process to determine the application.
Source: |
Planning and Development - Strategic Implementation |
General Manager: |
Peter Bettess |
Index Reference: |
Application: Amendment C327 |
The purpose of this report is to seek Council support to prepare and exhibit Planning Scheme Amendment C327 for land in Portarlington, subject to authorisation being obtained from the Minister for Planning.
A Planning Scheme Amendment application has been lodged by Insight Planning on behalf of landowners to rezone five lots in Portarlington, bounded by Geelong-Portarlington, Batman, Allens and Tower Roads, from Farming Zone to General Residential Zone – Schedule 1.
The largest of the lots 185-235 Geelong-Portarlington Rd, is currently used for olive production, hence the site is sometimes referred to as the “Olive Grove”.
The application has been the subject of extensive discussion with the proponent and consultation with referral authorities, particularly with respect to stormwater drainage matters given the site drains to wetlands in the Point Richards Fauna and Flora Reserve and west of Point Richards Road.
The subject land has been identified within a Settlement Boundary for Portarlington for over twenty years. Rezoning of the land to allow residential subdivision and development is consistent with both the recently adopted 2016 Portarlington Structure Plan and the 2008 Portarlington Structure Plan.
The subject land is the last remaining Farming zoned land within the Settlement Boundary and rezoning represents a logical rounding off of the Portarlington urban area.
Land supply within Portarlington has been assessed and a strong case has been made that, by the time of development, land supply within the town will have diminished to the threshold for further residential growth set out in the Portarlington Structure Plan 2008 and the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.
A Development Plan Overlay (DPO) is being prepared to ensure the subdivision and development of the area occurs in an integrated manner, appropriately addresses interfaces with adjoining land and provides appropriate infrastructure.
Design and Development Plan Overlay – Schedule 14 (DDO14) will be applied to the subject land, consistent with land to the north of Tower Road and given the elevated nature and views available from the subject land.
A Section 173 Agreement will be prepared that will address development contributions.
The proposal is supported by the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks and is recommended for exhibition subject to the Minister’s authorisation and finalisation of the DPO Schedule and S173 Agreement.
L Gardner moved, P Dorling seconded -
That Council:
supports the preparation and exhibition of Amendment C327 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme to:
rezone land bounded by Geelong-Portarlington, Batman, Allens and Tower Roads, Portarlington (151-179, 181-183 185-235 Geelong-Portarlington Road, 62-80 Pigdon Street and 2-20 Allens Road and the Pigdon Street road reserve) from Farming Zone to General Residential Zone – Schedule 1;
apply a Development Plan Overlay to that land; and
apply Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 14 to that land.
resolves to prepare and exhibit a draft Section 173 Agreement, as outlined in this report, concurrently with the Amendment; and
requests the Minister for Planning to authorise the preparation and exhibition of Amendment C327.
Carried.
Amendment C121 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, exhibited in June and July 2006, proposed to rezone the subject land from the then Rural Zone to the then Residential 1 Zone, and to apply Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 14 and a Development Plan Overlay.
530 submissions on the Amendment were received, including 524 objections. Issues raised in objections included impact on the rural landscape, elements of inconsistency with the then Portarlington/Indented Head Structure Plan, the adequacy of existing lot supply in Portarlington, detrimental impact on nearby wetlands, increased traffic and the desirability of deterring consideration of the Amendment until the then new Portarlington Structure Plan.
In August 2006, Council deferred consideration of submissions pending adoption of the Portarlington Structure Plan. In April 2007, Council adopted the Portarlington Structure Plan. In May 2007, Council resolved to abandon Amendment C121 for the following reasons:
The Portarlington Structure Plan 2007 nominates the Smythe Street/Tower Road urban growth area as the first stage of future residential development; and
A review of the structure plan will be undertaken every 5 years and the rezoning of this area should be reconsidered when lot supply in Portarlington falls below 10-12 years.
Pre-application discussions on the current Amendment commenced in late 2014 and the Amendment application was formally submitted in February 2016. The Amendment application proposes to rezone five lots in Portarlington from Farming Zone and Public Use Zone to General Residential Zone – Schedule 1. The location of these lots is shown in the aerial photo in Appendix 1. Existing and proposed zoning is shown in Appendix 2 and Appendix 3.
The application has been accompanied by reports addressing stormwater management and quality and an urban and landscape concept masterplan. The amendment application report also refers to some reports prepared for the previous Amendment C121 and proposes to defer detailed consideration of some issues to the Development Plan stage.
Location and Site Description
The subject land is located at the south-western entry to Portarlington. The land is bounded by the Geelong-Portarlington Road on the northwest, Batman Road on the south, Allens Road on the east and Tower Road on the north. Batman and Allens Road are unsealed rural roads; a portion of Allens Road adjacent to the subject land is a dry weather only road. The subject land comprises five lots, as detailed below. The total area of the proposed rezoning, including the Pigdon Street road reserve between Geelong-Portarlington Road and Allens Road, is approximately 28 ha.
Lot |
Area |
151-179 Geelong-Portarlington Road |
1.52 ha |
181-183 Geelong-Portarlington Road |
4.07 ha |
185-235 Geelong-Portarlington Road |
15.06 ha |
62-80 Pigdon Street |
3.31 ha |
2-20 Allens Road |
3.29 ha |
185-235 Geelong-Portarlington Road, the largest and southernmost of the lots, is currently used for olive production. Accordingly, the land subject of the Amendment is sometimes referred to as the “Olive Grove”. A vineyard is located on a portion of 2-20 Allens Road. The remainder of the subject land is used for rural residential purposes, with a pottery studio on one of the lots. The land has mostly been cleared of native vegetation; a small area of scattered native vegetation (sheoaks) is located in the northwest of the area.
The land slopes from a high point in the southeast of the site (intersection of Batman Road and Allens Road) of about 77m AHD down to an elevation of about 31m AHD at the intersection of Geelong-Portarlington Road and Pigdon Street. In some parts of the site, particularly in the southwest, the slope exceeds 10%. Given this slope and the location of the lowest point, most of the site has an ‘amphitheatre’ topography. Much of the site enjoys panoramic views across Port Philip Bay. Conversely, the higher portions of the site are highly visible from some vantage points in Portarlington, such as the coast near Point Richards. Land immediately south of Batmans Road is within a Significant Landscape Overlay for Murradoc Hill.
Portarlington Structure Plan
At is meeting of 10 May 2016, Council adopted the Portarlington Structure Plan 2016. A Planning Scheme Amendment will incorporate the Structure Plan into the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. The 2016 Structure Plan supersedes the previous Portarlington Structure Plan (adopted in 2007, incorporated into the Scheme in 2008).
The land subject of this proposed Amendment is located within the Settlement Boundary in the Portarlington Structure Plan (see Appendix 4). It is the only area identified for future growth and is the last land within the Settlement Boundary that is in the Farming Zone. The Structure Plan indicates that development of area should be undertaken in a staged manner to assist in dispersing land supply over a number of years and encourage infill development in other areas of the town. One of the directions of the Structure Plan is:
Support extension of the residential area in a staged manner within the ‘Olive Grove’ growth area shown on the Portarlington Structure Plan Map 2 to General Residential Zone – Schedule 1.
The subject land has been within the identified Settlement Boundary for Portarlington since the 1993 Portarlington/Indented Head Structure Plan.
Section 3.0 of Part B of the 2016 Structure Plan provides more detailed comment and direction on the subject land. It reiterates that the Structure Plan supports the development of the ‘Olive Grove’ residential growth area, comprising the subject land. It notes that while the community has previously expressed concerns that development on the land will be detrimental to the landscape values of the Bellarine Hills, it is considered that the landscape impacts do not preclude development of the entire site. It also notes that application of appropriate overlays may be required to minimise visual intrusion (e.g. minimising building heights, ensuring use of appropriate building colours and materials, landscaping) and that a Development Plan would be a prerequisite to subdivision and development.
Section 3.0 goes on to specify that the Development plan will need to address a number of principles, including but not limited to:
an urban design masterplan (including general subdivision layout, recognition of the rural and residential interface along Batman and Allens Road, provision of an attractive entrance treatment to the town, ensuring residential development addresses Geelong – Portarlington Road, open space location and development staging);
a visual assessment showing how the ridgeline to the south of the subject land can be protected from visual intrusion of development and that the development would not have any greater visual impact than existing development on the foothills surrounding the town;
a road network and traffic management plan (providing, inter alia, full construction of Batman Road, Allens Road and Pigdon Street, upgrading of the three intersections with Geelong-Portarlington Road and investigation of potential construction of a 1.5m wide pedestrian pathway on one side of Geelong-Portarlington Road between Tower Road and Smythe Street);
physical infrastructure proposed in the urban design masterplan to meet Council standards or adopted guidelines;
site stormwater management plan;
staging plan; and
a report on possible measures to retain some of the existing olive trees on 185-235 Geelong-Portarlington Road within the proposed subdivision layout.
Strategic Planning Justification
As identified above, the subject land has been identified within a Settlement Boundary for Portarlington for over twenty years. Rezoning of the land to allow residential subdivision and development is consistent with both the recently adopted 2016 Portarlington Structure Plan and the 2008 Portarlington Structure Plan incorporated into the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.
The subject land is the last remaining Farming zoned land within the Settlement Boundary and the rezoning thus represents a logical rounding off of the Portarlington urban area.
The issue of land supply within Portarlington has been assessed and a strong case has been made that, after planning scheme amendment, development plan and subdivision processes are completed, land supply within Portarlington will have diminished to a point consistent with the threshold for further residential growth set out in the Portarlington Structure Plan 2008 and the Planning Scheme.
The amendment is well supported by state and local planning policy (see the “Policy/Legal/ Statutory Implications” section later in this report).
Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 14
The Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 14 (DDO 14) applies a planning permit trigger to dwellings over 7.5 metres in height in areas with access to views. The objective is to ensure that the siting, height and visual bulk of dwellings achieves a reasonable sharing of views between properties to significant landscape features such as the coast, Corio Bay and the You Yangs. DDO 14 is widely applied to coastal towns on the Bellarine Peninsula and applies to the residential area north of Tower Road, including the area that has been developed over the last decade.
In light of the elevated nature of much of the subject land and the views that it enjoys, it is appropriate to apply DDO 14 to the area to be rezoned by this Amendment.
Development Plan Overlay
A Development Plan Overlay (DPO) is proposed to be applied to the land. This is in order to ensure that the design of subdivision and development of the area occurs in an integrated manner, appropriately addresses the interfaces of the site with adjoining land and provides appropriate infrastructure.
While the precise wording of the Schedule to the Development Plan Overlay is still being finalised, the Schedule is likely to require the following components in the Development Plan:
urban design masterplan
landscaping masterplan
staging plan
road network and traffic management plan
stormwater management plan
native vegetation assessment
servicing report
site investigation report
Some of the matters to be addressed in the Development Plan are discussed below.
Stormwater Drainage
The site drains to sensitive wetlands in the Point Richards Fauna and Flora Reserve and west of Point Richards Road. Stormwater drainage has been the subject of considerable discussion between the proponent’s consultants, Council officers and authorities (including Corangamite Catchment Management Authority).
A Site Stormwater Management Plan has been submitted showing no increase in peak flows over pre-development. The key issue is the impact of additional total stormwater runoff (across the year, rather than in peak flows) on the hydrological balance and ecology of the wetland either side of Point Richards Road. Council officers are confident that provisions in the DPO Schedule can feasibly require demonstration of no unacceptable impact on the wetlands.
Visual impact and Open Space
The potential visual impact of residential development of the site on the landscape values of the Bellarine Hills, which form an attractive rural backdrop to Portarlington, was a key issue raised in submissions on the previous Amendment C121 for the subject land. A Development Plan requirement will be a visual assessment showing how the ridgeline to the south of the subject land can be protected from visual intrusion of development and that the development would not have any greater visual impact than existing development on the foothills surrounding the town.
An urban and landscape concept master plan has been prepared by Tract and submitted in support of this Amendment request. It contains a conceptual subdivision layout (see Appendix 5). It should be noted that this is conceptual only and the summary land budget referring to residential lot density and yield is not necessarily an indication of the likely eventual development outcome.
The masterplan seeks to maximise coastal views from the site while creating a new, community-focused environment that responds to the site’s character and context. Features of the concept masterplan include:
an area of public open space at the highest point of the subject land, the south-eastern corner at the intersection of Batman and Allens Roads, which would reduce visual impact by helping keep buildings from breaching the ridgeline as viewed from vantage points such as the coast near Point Richards;
an area of open space at the low point around the intersection of Geelong-Portarlington Road and Pigdon Street;
a boulevard between these two open spaces; and
exploration of opportunities to incorporate olive trees into streetscapes or open space.
Additionally, two visual impact impressions prepared by Orbit Solutions have been submitted showing how residential development of the site may appear from particular viewpoints. These are based on a typical development outcome rather than a specific exact proposal, but do indicate that development can occur without intruding on the ridgeline. More detailed visual assessment would still be required as part of a Development Plan.
Development Contributions and Section 173 Agreement
A draft Section 173 Agreement regarding development contributions will be prepared and exhibited alongside the Amendment. The development contributions would be payable as land is subdivided. They are proposed to be spent on community facilities within Portarlington or, if plans for those facilities in Portarlington are not sufficiently advanced by the relevant time, on nearby sub-regional facilities such as the Drysdale Library & Community Spaces redevelopment.
A contribution towards community facilities of $40,000 per developable hectare (ha) is proposed based on 15 dwellings per hectare. Council officers believe it would be appropriate to adjust the $40,000 per ha figure proportionally to reflect the actual density outcome. So, for example, should there be 12 dwellings per ha, a 20% reduction below the 15 dwellings per ha assumption, the contribution would also be reduced by 20% to $32,000 per ha.
The proposed contribution is in line with the new rates proposed by the State Government as part of its development contribution reforms which are yet to be implemented. Council has applied this rate recently with rezoning of two growth areas at St Leonards.
The S173 Agreement would also include any offsite works that may be required such as upgrades to existing roads and intersections.
The subject land is almost entirely cleared of native vegetation and has been used for rural and rural residential purposes for many decades; there is a small area of scattered native vegetation (sheoaks) on one of the lots. A native vegetation assessment will be required as part of the Development Plan.
A preliminary site investigation (soil contamination assessment) was undertaken for the site in 2005 as part of the previous Amendment C121. Its conclusions included the following:
photos and records suggest the site has been used for farming and agriculture since at least the 1950s;
the site is not registered with Victoria EPA as contaminated land;
soil was sampled at ten locations for this preliminary investigation; the results indicate the site is suitable for low density residential land use;
slightly elevated levels of barium, manganese, nickel and vanadium were identified in the southern and central portions of the site, but these concentrations are considered consistent with natural background concentrations are not significant for a low density residential land use.
More detailed assessment can be required at Development Plan stage if required.
Negotiating a Section 173 Agreement on development contributions will assist in the provision of community facilities within the catchment of the proposed development.
The Amendment is consistent with the State Planning Policy Framework as follows:
11.02-1 (Urban growth – supply of urban land): Plan to accommodate projected population growth over at least a 15 year period and provide clear direction on locations where growth should occur.
11.05-5 (Coastal settlement): Direct residential and other urban development and infrastructure within defined settlement boundaries of existing settlements that are capable of accommodating growth.
11.07 Geelong (G21) regional growth:
11.07-2: Provide a range of housing types with a mix of infill and greenfield options.
11.07-3: Provide for settlement breaks between towns to maintain their unique identities. Require a settlement boundary for all towns.
The following provisions in the Local Planning Policy Framework provide support for this proposal:
21.06-2 (Urban growth): Ensure development occurs within designated settlement boundaries.
21.14-2 (The Bellarine Peninsula): Ensure land use and development proceeds generally in accordance with the relevant Structure Plan maps included in this Clause.
The proposed Amendment C327 supports both the Growing our Economy and Sustainable Built and Natural Environment strategic directions of City Plan, particularly as it is facilitating sustainable development in accordance with an adopted township Structure Plan.
No Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have any direct or indirect interest in the matter to which this report relates, in accordance with Section 80 (c) of the Local Government Act.
There are no notable risks associated with implementing the recommendation contained in this report.
The Portarlington Structure Plan, upon which this Amendment is based, has addressed the social implications of identifying areas for future growth. The Amendment will generate positive social impacts by providing new housing in an orderly planned manner and levying developers for contributions to deliver community infrastructure.
The Amendment will not impact on any basic rights, freedoms and responsibilities as set out in the Charter. Planning legislation ensures an open community consultation process occurs, enabling people to freely express their views and if necessary obtain a fair hearing before an Independent Panel.
Nearby landowners and occupiers, prescribed Ministers and other relevant agencies will be directly notified during the statutory exhibition period. The broader community will be notified through notices in local newspapers and the City of Greater Geelong website.
Source: |
Planning & Development – Strategic Implementation |
General Manager: |
Peter Bettess |
Index Reference: |
Subject: Council Reports 2016 & Application C316 |
The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the Independent Panel report for Amendment C316 and to adopt the amendment.
Amendment C316 as exhibited sought to change the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme by applying the Heritage Overlay over 24 individually listed significant places in Anakie, Lara, Little River and Lovely Banks, together with 3 sites in Anakie and Lara which are recommended for inclusion on the Victorian Heritage Inventory.
Exhibition of the amendment between 11 June 2015 to 13 July 2015 resulted in the receipt of 6 submissions, five of which of which opposed or sought alterations to the amendment.
Matters raised in the majority of submissions were able to be resolved which resulted in two submissions being withdrawn.
Under delegated authority the submissions were considered on 23 December 2015 & all submissions were referred to an Independent Panel appointed by the Minister for Planning.
The Panel conducted a hearing in Geelong on 16 March 2016 and has recommended that:
the amendment be adopted subject to a number of modifications, for the most part as proposed by Council, as set out in this report; and
alterations be made to three citations forming part of the Lara Heritage Review Phase 2: 2012-13, consistent with the Panel recommendations relating to the modifications to the planning scheme amendment.
It is recommended that the amendment and the revised Lara Heritage Review be adopted and the Amendment forwarded to the Minister for approval.
P Dorling moved, L Gardner seconded -
That Council:
adopts the Lara Heritage Review, Phase 2 – Revised May 2016;
adopts Amendment C316 (Appendix 2 of this report); and
submits the adopted amendment and the prescribed information to the Minister for Planning requesting approval.
Carried.
Amendment C316 implements the recommendations of the Lara Heritage Review, which contains detailed heritage assessments of properties within the study area. The study recommended that heritage protection be applied to the identified sites and precincts in the form of a Heritage Overlay.
The amendment was exhibited between 11 June 2015 & 13 July 2015 which resulted in the receipt of six submissions, five of which opposed or sought alternations to the amendment.
The relatively small number of objecting submissions is consistent with the generally positive community response to the extensive public consultation prior to the adoption of the Lara Heritage Review.
The submissions were considered under delegated authority on 23 December 2015. This delegated authority report contained a detailed response to all the issues raised in the submissions with the majority of the issues being addressed by way of modifications to the amendment documentation and/or the citations for individual properties in the study report. As a result two of the objecting submissions were withdrawn.
All submissions were referred to an Independent Panel appointed by the Minister for Planning. A Directions Hearing was held in Geelong on 1 February 2016 and the Panel Hearing was held in Geelong on 16 March 2016. The Council and one objecting submitter appeared before the Panel.
The Independent Panel has now submitted its report to Council and, in summary, has recommended that the amendment be adopted subject to a number of changes to the amendment documentation and the Citation contained in the study report. A copy of the Executive Summary of the Panel Report is Appendix 1.
It should be noted that the Panel report and recommendation makes reference to a new draft Incorporated Document initiated by Council. This Incorporated Document has been produced in response to submissions to remove application of overlay controls from out buildings and other specified minor works which have no impact on the heritage values of the property.
The next section of this report briefly summarises the responses to the original 6 submissions.
Submission 1 – 85 Curletts Road, Lara
The owner of this property is the only submitter who appeared at the Panel. Main concerns expressed about the amendment were potential loss of property value, additional planning “red tape”, outbuildings need to be adaptable, external painting should not be controlled, provisions too onerous, property only has local heritage interest.
The Council and the Panel agree that the exhibited provisions should be modified to remove external paint controls, reduce the area of the property over which the H.O will apply and include the property in the Incorporated Document referred to above. The submitter agreed at the hearing that these changes would address the specific concerns he raised.
Submission 2 – 110 – 120 Forest Road South and 155 Forest Road South, Lara.
The submitter sought notification of any submissions received by Council relating to these properties.
No submissions where received by Council relating to these properties and no further action is required. The property at 155 Forest Road South will be included in the new Incorporated Document referred to above.
Submission 3 – 10 Windermere Road Lara
The submitter considered that the architectural character of the dwelling had been substantially altered and there was insufficient basis for its inclusion in restrictive overlay controls.
Following a review of this submission, Council has advised the submitter that this property would be deleted from the amendment.
The Panel supports this action and recommends the Citation for this property be amended accordingly.
Submission 4 – 75 Staceys Road, Lovely Banks.
The submitter sought a reduction in the area of the Overlay to be applied to this rural property and a correction to be made to the Citation.
Council Officers agreed with these changes and also inclusion of the property into the Incorporated Plan referred to above.
The submitter subsequently withdrew the submission. The Panel supports Council’s proposals outlined above.
Submission 5 – 51 Forest Road
The submitter advised the property address on the citation was incorrect and the overlay map also included the adjoining road reserve. The submitter also sought removal of the tree controls applying to this property.
Council agreed to make these changes and on this basis this submission was also withdrawn.
The Panel recommendation endorses Council’s action.
Submission 6 – 125 Buckingham Street, Lara
The submitter considered the extent of the exhibited H.O. applied to this property was excessive and requested removal of the tree controls because most trees were planted in the 1980’s. Additional information was also provided for inclusion in the Heritage Citation for this property.
Council and the Panel support these changes proposed by the submitter.
Amendment Recommended for Adoption
The revised amendment documentation recommended for adoption which includes all of the Panel’s recommendation is at Appendix 2.
In summary, the changes to the exhibited amendment are:
Removal of 10 Windermere Road, Lara from the H.O. map and a reduction of the extent of the H.O designations for 85 Curletts Road, 75 Staceys Road Lovely Banks, 51 Forest Road South Lara and 125 Buckingham Street, Lara.
Changes to the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay as per track changes as shown.
Introduction of a new Schedule to Clause 81.01 to include reference to the new Incorporated Document.
Preparation of the new Incorporated Document as referred to in this report. Part A of the Incorporated Document will apply to rural properties and Part B will apply to the Lara Uniting Church complex at 1B Flinders Avenue Lara. (The Council – owned property at 11 Waverley Road, Lara proposed to be included in the Incorporated Document in the exhibited amendment, has been removed because of the existing permit exemption contained in Clause 62.02-1)
It should be noted that the Panel recommended the new Incorporated Plan referred to throughout this report should be finalised in consultation with affected property owners. This action is considered unnecessary because the Incorporated Plan will significantly reduce the effect of the Overlay provisions on all properties and it has already been circulated to the affected submitters.
The new Incorporated Document to be referred to in the scheme is at Appendix 3.
The Panel also recommended that, citations contained in the The Lara Heritage Review Phase 2 be altered consistent with the Panel’s recommendations in relation to 85 Curletts Road, Lara, 75 Staceys Road, Lovely Banks, and 125 Buckingham Street, Lara. Copies of ‘tracked changes versions of these citations, which were included as Appendix b of the Panel Report, are at Appendix 4.
The proposed changes to the planning scheme will have no adverse environmental implications.
The proposed changes to the planning scheme will have no adverse financial implications for Council.
The amendment is considered to be consistent with State and Local planning policies as set out in the Explanatory Report which forms part of the amendment documentation.
The Panel has found that the amendment is:
Supported by the relevant sections of the State and Local Planning Policy Framework; and
Well founded and strategically justified.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the “Built and Natural Environment and Community Wellbeing” elements of City Plan.
No Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have a direct or indirect interest, in accordance with Section 80(c) of the Local Government Act, to the matters to which this amendment relates.
There are no risks to Council from the adoption of the amendment as recommended by an Independent Panel.
No adverse impacts on the community have been identified as arising from the adoption of this amendment.
The processing of this amendment has both recognised and respected the rights of those whose properties are affected by the amendment.
The Lara Heritage Review has been subject of an extensive community consultation process followed by the formal planning scheme amendment public exhibition process as required under the Planning and Environment Act.
All submitters were provided with an opportunity to appear before an Independent Panel appointed by the Minister for Planning.
Amendment C316 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme (the Scheme) seeks to apply the Heritage Overlay to 24 individual places at Lara, Little River, Lovely Banks and Anakie.
Of the six submissions lodged to the Amendment, one supported the Lara Heritage Review while three requested changes be made to the Amendment. These included reducing the area of land to which the Heritage Overlay would apply, and correcting the Statement of Significance Citations.
Two submitters opposed the application of the Heritage Overlay over their land. Following an inspection by Dr Rowe, it was agreed to delete 10 Windermere Road, Lara from the Amendment.
Mr Barber opposed another layer of control being applied to his property under this Amendment. He conceded that the changes Council had agreed to make to the Heritage Overlay address the specific concerns he raised in his submission. He supported the adoption of the draft Incorporated Plan which would exempt a number of works from having to obtain planning consent.
The Panel believes the Thematic Environmental History prepared for Lara and its environs was well researched and is comprehensive (as are the Citations prepared for each of the properties under the Amendment). The Panel notes the submitters did not dispute the research undertaken for the Lara Heritage Review which the Panel believes supports the Heritage Overlay as proposed by the Amendment. Some of the submitters provided additional information as part of their submissions and these are to be incorporated into the revised Citations for those properties.
The Lara Heritage Review 2013, Volumes 1, 2 and 3 are proposed to be included as Reference Documents in Clause 22.09.
The Panel supports the adoption of the Incorporated Plan as presented at the Hearing. The items contained in this document are exempt from public notification and third party review and applications would currently be assessed under the VicSmart provisions of the Scheme. This being the case, the Panel believes the adoption of the Incorporated Plan will not transform the Amendment. The Panel believes it would be appropriate however for Council to consult with the owners of properties it will apply to.
Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends:
Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C316 be adopted as exhibited subject to the following changes:
Apply the Heritage Overlay (HO1969) to 85 Curletts Road, Lara subject to:
Amending the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay to include the word ’No’ under the column ‘External Paint Controls Apply?’ as shown in Appendix A.
Reducing the area on Map 18HO in accordance with the description in the revised Citation for the land, included in Appendix B.
Remove 10 Windermere Road, Lara (HO1986) from the Heritage Overlay Schedule and Map 19HO and amend the Citation for this property to state it is of ‘historic interest’ and it is not recommended for inclusion on the Heritage Overlay
Apply the Heritage Overlay (HO1988) to 75 Staceys Road, Lovely Banks subject to the revisions set out in the Citation included in Appendix B.
Apply the Heritage Overlay (HO1974) to 51 Forest Road South, Lara subject to:
Amending the Map 18HO, to remove the land located in the adjoining road reserve.
Amending the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay by including the word ‘No’ under the Column ‘Tree Controls Apply?’ as shown in Appendix A.
Apply the Heritage Overlay (HO1966) to 125 Buckingham Street, Lara, subject to:
Amending the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay by including the word ‘No’ in the Column ‘Tree Controls Apply?’ as shown in Appendix A.
Amending the description of the land to which the Heritage Overlay will apply and including the additional historical information in the Citation as set out in Appendix B.
Council finalise the draft Incorporated Plan, in consultation with property owners, for adoption under Clause 81.01.
Include the words ‘Anakie, Lara & Lovely Banks Heritage Places’ in the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay under the Column ‘Name of Incorporated Plan under Clause 43.01-2’ for HO1964, HO1965, HO1969, HO1971, HO1972, HO1976, HO1979, HO1980, HO1985 and HO1988.
The planning authority for this amendment is the City of Greater Geelong.
The Greater Geelong Planning Scheme is amended as follows:
Planning Scheme Maps
The Planning Scheme Maps are amended by a total of sixteen (16) attached map sheets.
Overlay Maps
Amend Planning Scheme Map Nos. 13, 17 & 19 HO in the manner shown on the 7 attached maps marked “Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, Amendment C 316”.
Insert new Planning Scheme Map Nos.12 16, & 18 HO in the manner shown on the 9 attached maps marked “Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, Amendment C316”.
Planning Scheme Ordinance
The Planning Scheme Ordinance is amended as follows:
In Local Planning Policy Framework – replace Clause 22.09 with a new Clause 22.09 in the form of the attached document.
In Overlays – Clause 43.01 replace the Schedule with a new Schedule in the form of the attached document.
In General Provisions – Clause 61.03, replace the schedule with a new Schedule in the form of the attached document.
In Incorporated Documents – Clause 81.01, replace the Schedule with a new Schedule in the form of the attached document.
End of document
22.09 |
CULTURAL HERITAGE |
|
21/07/2011 |
This policy applies to all properties affected by a Heritage Overlay. This policy includes an overall Heritage Policy and 50 individual local planning policies that apply to particular heritage areas within the municipality. |
|
|
Policy BasisThe Municipal Strategic Statement identifies the need for a local policy to ensure the cultural heritage attributes and assets of the City of Greater Geelong are recognised and preserved. The City of Greater Geelong’s heritage, comprising individual buildings, precincts, structures, monuments, significant gardens and trees, natural environments and aboriginal sites, is a significant part of the City’s attraction as a place in which to live, visit, do business and invest. It is through this heritage diversity that the City’s community expresses its rich culture. The cultural heritage of the region brings economic and cultural benefits and improves the community’s quality of life. The diversity of heritage places allows for interpretation of the region’s development and the tastes and lifestyles from the past. It assists in understanding the City’s foundation and growth from wool sales and exports, to gold discovery, through to expansion in industry and manufacturing. It also enables appreciation of individual house design and neighbourhoods that contribute to the character, image and sense of place of each of the City’s heritage areas. The largest concentration of these heritage assets is found in the inner area of Geelong and broadly defines the character of the inner City area. Beyond, there are significant concentrations of heritage places, namely within the suburban areas of Belmont, Hamlyn Heights and North Geelong together with concentrations in the rural/coastal townships of Lara, Barwon Heads, Drysdale and Fyansford. These have largely shaped the character of the City of Greater Geelong as it is known today. The identification, assessment and protection of heritage places has occurred over a number of years as part of an on-going heritage study process. Recognition and protection of heritage places is seen as a crucial component of planning in the City of Greater Geelong. The development of good conservation practices will ensure the retention and viable re-use of the City’s significant and contributory heritage places. Objectives
PolicyExercising discretionWhere a permit is required for demolition, it is policy to:
Where a permit is required for subdivision, use or development, it is policy to:
ReferencesGeelong Region Historic Buildings and Objects Study Volumes 1-3, prepared by Allan Willingham for the Geelong Regional Commission, (1986). Geelong City Urban Conservation Study, Volume 1, prepared by Graeme Butler for the City of Geelong, (1993). Geelong City Urban Conservation Study, Volumes 2-5, prepared by Graeme Butler for the City of Geelong, (1991). Geelong City Urban Conservation Study, Volume 4(a), prepared by Helen Lardner for the City of Greater Geelong, (1995). City of Geelong West Urban Conservation Study, Volumes 1-2, prepared by Huddle, Aitken and Honman for the City of Geelong West, (1986). City of Newtown Urban Conservation Study, Volumes 1-4, prepared by Context Pty Ltd for the City of Newtown, (1991). City of Newtown Urban Conservation Study, Volumes 5(a) and 5(b), prepared by Richard Peterson for the City of Greater Geelong, (1997). Bellarine Heritage Study, Volumes 1-3, prepared by Huddle, Howe, Lewis and Francis for the City of Greater Geelong, (1996). City of Greater Geelong Heritage and Design Guidelines, (1997). The Australian ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (The Burra Charter), Australia ICOMOS (1988). Greater Geelong Outer Areas Heritage Study, Volume 1 (excluding Belmont precincts) and Volume 2, prepared by Authentic Heritage Services Pty Ltd (2000). Belmont Heritage Areas Report, Volume 1, prepared by Dr David Rowe, Authentic Heritage Services Pty Ltd (2007). Belmont Heritage Areas: Inventory of Places, Volume 2, prepared by Dr David Rowe, Authentic Heritage Services Pty Ltd (2007) & peer reviewed by Wendy Jacobs, Architect & Heritage Consultant. Belmont Heritage Report: Individual Citations, Volume 3, prepared by Dr David Rowe, Authentic Heritage Services Pty Ltd (2007). Statement of Significance for the former stables to Armytage House and classrooms 19-21 Hermitage Road, Newtown, prepared by Dr David Rowe and Kevin Krastins (2003). Geelong Sale Yards Conservation Management Plan, prepared by Dr David Rowe and Wendy Jacobs (September 2007). Newtown Heritage Study, Volumes 1-3, Adopted July 2009, prepared by the City of Greater Geelong (2008). Ashby Heritage Review, Stage 2, 2009, Adopted January 2010, prepared by Dr David Rowe and Wendy Jacobs. Lara Heritage Review, Volumes 1, & 2 (February 2013 Revised May 2016) & Volume 3 (August 2013 Revised May 2016), prepared by Dr David Rowe and Wendy Jacobs. |
|
20/08/2015 |
SCHEDULE TO CLAUSE 81.01 |
|
|
Name of document |
Introduced by: |
|
14 Shepherd Court, North Geelong, Cotton On Office Redevelopment, July 2011 |
C257 |
|
Adventure Park Comprehensive Development Plan May 2014 |
C288 |
|
Advertising Sign Guidelines, City of Greater Geelong, November 1997, Amended October 2014. |
C296 |
|
Anakie, Lara & Lovely Banks Heritage Places Incorporated Plan, May 2016 |
C316 |
|
Armstrong Creek East Native Vegetation Precinct Plan, May 2010 |
C206 |
|
Armstrong Creek East Precinct Structure Plan, May 2010 Amended November 2011. |
C214 |
|
Armstrong Creek East Precinct Development Contributions Plan, Version 4.1 Alternate Version November 2011. |
C214 |
|
Armstrong Creek Horseshoe Bend Precinct Structure Plan September 2014. |
C259 |
|
Armstrong Creek North East Industrial Precinct Development Contributions Plan, May 2010. |
C207 |
|
Armstrong Creek North East Industrial Precinct Growling Grass Frog Conservation Management Plan, May 2010. |
C207 |
|
Armstrong Creek North East Industrial Precinct Native Vegetation Precinct Plan, May 2010. |
C207 |
|
Armstrong Creek North East Industrial Precinct, Precinct Structure Plan, May 2010. |
C207 |
|
Armstrong Creek Town Centre Precinct Structure Plan, March 2014 |
C267 |
|
Armstrong Creek Town Centre Development Contributions Plan, March 2014 |
C267 |
|
Armstrong Creek Town Centre Native Vegetation Precinct Plan, March 2014 |
C267 |
|
Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan Framework Plan, November 2008, Updated September 2012 |
C240 |
|
Armstrong Creek West Precinct Development Contributions Plan, February 2013 |
C240 |
|
Armstrong Creek West Precinct Native Vegetation Precinct Plan, November 2012 |
C240 |
|
Armstrong Creek West Precinct Structure Plan, September 2012 |
C240 |
|
Australian Standard AS 2021-1994, Acoustics - Aircraft Noise Intrusion - Building Siting and Construction. Standards Association of Australia 1994. |
NPS1 |
|
Batman Park, Indented Head Incorporated Plan, June 2015 |
C274 |
|
Environmental Weeds, City of Greater Geelong, September 2008 |
C129 (Part 1) |
|
Geelong City Urban Conservation Study Vol. 1 Restoration and Infill Guidelines, Commercial and Civic Buildings, Graeme Butler for the City of Geelong, 1993 |
C258 |
|
Geelong Library and Heritage Centre Redevelopment, March 2013 |
C28/7 |
|
Geelong Ring Road – Section 4C Incorporated Document, June 2010. |
C232 |
|
Geelong TAC Office Development, October 2006. |
C142 |
Heritage and Design Guidelines, City of Greater Geelong, 1997. |
NPS1 |
|
Horseshoe Bend Precinct Development Contributions Plan September 2014. |
C259 |
|
Jetty Road Urban Growth Area Development Contributions Plan, September 2011 |
C230 |
|
Lara West Development Contributions Plan, Final Version – C246/C285, March 2014 |
C285 |
|
Lara West Growth Area, Lara, Native Vegetation Precinct Plan, September 2013 |
C246 |
|
Lara West Precinct Structure Plan, Revision J, 25 September 2013 |
C246 |
|
Melbourne Geelong Interconnection Project, June 2010. |
C229 |
|
Manzeene Village, Lara, Native Vegetation Precinct Plan, June 2014 |
C285 |
|
Native Vegetation Precinct Plan, Geelong Ring Road Employment Precinct, March 2013 |
C243 |
|
Native Vegetation Precinct Plan, Horseshoe Bend Precinct, Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area August 2014. |
C259 |
|
Newtown Heritage Study Review Report, Volume 3, City of Greater Geelong, 2008 |
C191 |
|
New Station Estate Restructure Plan, July 2010 |
C187 |
|
Rail Infrastructure Projects (comprising the Rail Gauge Standardisation Project, the Regional Fast Rail Project and the Fibre Optic Project), December 2002. |
VC17 |
|
|
Rail Upgrades at Geelong Port Project, May 2010. |
C211 |
|
Rippleside Comprehensive Development Plan, February 2000. |
C2 |
Rippleside Urban Design Guidelines, June 2000. |
C2 |
|
|
Small Lot Housing Code, December 2012 |
C267 |
|
Thirteenth Beach Golf Resort Barwon Heads, Barwon Heads Comprehensive Development Plan, Land Design Partnership, Anthony Cashmore & Associates and the Planning Group, May 2001 amended September 2006. |
C54 |
Waterfront Geelong Design and Development Code, Keys Young, July 1996 |
NPS1 |
|
West Fyans-Fyans Street Precinct Structure Plan, June 2009 |
C205 |
|
Source: |
Planning and Development - Strategic Implementation |
General Manager: |
Peter Bettess |
Index Reference: |
Project - Proposed Rezonings |
The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval to request the Minister for Planning to apply interim and permanent heritage controls to 9 Bridge Road, Barwon Heads (both building and cypress tree).
A planning permit application 1669/2015 for 9 Bridge Road, Barwon Heads was lodged with Council last year. The application seeks to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a 3 storey building with 3 shops on the ground floor, 3 dwellings at the first and second floors and a rooftop terrace.
The site is located on the south west corner of Bridge Road and Hitchcock Avenue immediately south of the main shopping strip and is zoned Residential Growth Zone (RGZ3).
The house at 9 Bridge Road is not currently subject to a heritage overlay. It was initially identified as a 1930’s interwar bungalow in the Stage 1 Assessment of the Outer Areas Heritage Study in 1998. It was proposed to be part of the Flinders Heritage Precinct. In Stage 2 the precinct was reduced in size and the property fell outside the precinct. Some individual properties had overlays applied but this one was not carried forward into the final study or the subsequent Amendment C49.
A local resident objector to the permit application undertook research on the history of the existing single storey weatherboard building and found photographs that appear to date the house to the 1890’s, much older than previously thought.
The Barwon Heads Association and the local resident commissioned RBA Architects and Conservation Consultants to review the site’s heritage values.
RBA’s report of May 2016 has found the subject house is likely to have been built circa 1890 during the first major wave of development in Barwon Heads and as such is amongst the earliest surviving houses in the town.
The Barwon Heads Association wrote to Council on 1 June 2016 to “urgently request the Council to acknowledge the historical and aesthetic values of this property and apply for interim heritage controls with a view to introducing an individual heritage overlay in the near future.”
Council officers engaged heritage consultants Context Pty Ltd to peer review the RBA report in June 2016.
The Context heritage assessment has established the threshold of ‘Local Significance’ for the house and cypress tree at 9 Bridge Road for their historic, architectural and aesthetic values. Context advise the site warrants the application of interim heritage controls.
Based on this new information it is recommended that Council seeks a Ministerial amendment for an interim heritage overlay and follows up with a planning scheme amendment for a permanent control subject to the normal public exhibition process which will allow the landowner and other parties to make submissions.
L Gardner moved, P Dorling seconded -
That Council
recognises the cultural and heritage significance of the building and cypress tree at 9 Bridge Road, Barwon Heads and its association with the early development of Barwon Heads.
requests the Minister for Planning to use his powers of intervention under section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1978 to prepare, adopt and approve an amendment to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme to apply an interim Heritage Overlay to 9 Bridge Road, Barwon Heads.
requests the Minister’s authorisation to prepare and exhibit a planning scheme amendment to apply a permanent Heritage Overlay to 9 Bridge Road, Barwon Heads.
Carried.
The subject land at 9 Bridge Road Barwon Heads is located on the south west corner of Bridge Road and Hitchcock Avenue immediately south of the main shopping strip. The house is located in a prominent, elevated location and overlooks one of the main intersections in the town and is on the main road to Ocean Grove.
The site is zoned Residential Growth Zone Schedule 3 (RGZ3) with existing zoning shown in the map in Appendix 1.
The site is not covered by a Heritage Overlay or any other overlays. The current extent of Heritage Overlays in this part of Barwon Heads is shown in the map in Appendix 2.
Greater Geelong Outer Areas Heritage Study 2000
The Greater Geelong Outer Areas Heritage Study was commissioned in two stages between 1998-2000 by the City of Greater Geelong. The study area covered a vast outer rural region together with two suburban areas (North Geelong and Belmont) and many townships (including Barwon Heads). The study was prepared by a team of consultants led by Dr David Rowe and Lorraine Huddle of Authentic Heritage Services.
Stage 1 was a 35 week program in 1998 to identify and record all post-contact places of cultural heritage significance in the study area, identify heritage precincts and undertake historical research. A total of 1285 potential heritage places were identified.
Stage 2 occurred in 1999-2000 and involved further assessment of the places identified and provided recommendations on a heritage conservation program for the area.
Extensive community consultation was undertaken including with the Barwon Heads community.
The house at 9 Bridge Road was initially identified as a 1930’s interwar bungalow in the Stage 1 assessment in 1998, due to the previously undocumented alterations that were made to the building between c. 1930 – 19 40. While the dwelling was proposed to be part of the Flinders Heritage Precinct, in Stage 2 the precinct was reduced in size and the property fell outside the precinct. Some individual properties had overlays applied but this one was not carried forward into the final study or the subsequent Amendment C49.
Current planning permit application
A planning permit application 1669/2015 for 9 Bridge Road, Barwon Heads was lodged with Council last year. The application seeks to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a 3 storey building with 3 shops on the ground floor, 3 dwellings at the first and second floors and a rooftop terrace. The permit application was advertised and numerous objections received.
A local resident objector to the permit application undertook research on the history of the existing single storey weatherboard building and found photographs that appear to date the house to the 1890’s, much older than previously thought.
After discussions with Council officers, the residents were advised that further documentation would be required for Council to consider heritage controls for the site.
At the time of writing this Council report, no decision had been made on planning permit application 1669/2015.
Heritage assessments
The Barwon Heads Association and the local resident commissioned RBA Architects and Conservation Consultants to review the site’s heritage values.
RBA’s report of May 2016 has found the subject house is likely to have been built circa 1890 during the first major wave of development in Barwon Heads and as such is amongst the earliest surviving houses in the town.
The Barwon Heads Association wrote to Council on 1 June 2016 forwarding a copy of the RBA Report and stating:
Council officers engaged heritage consultants Context Pty Ltd to peer review the RBA report in June 2016. Copies of the draft Context report and the RBA reports are in Appendix 3.“The advice we have received, and forwarded to CoGG has supported and strengthened our belief that the house has significant heritage value and is very important to the heritage of Barwon Heads.
We believe that the report from RBA Architects and Conservation Consultants “RBA” establishes beyond reasonable doubt the significance of the 19th century house situated at 9 Bridge Rd Barwon Heads.
The RBA report states that: “arguably the subject house is the most prominent 19th century house in the town, being located on a corner block at the southern end of the main street. It has landmark qualities particularly when considered together with the large cypress which is evocative of early beachside development. … Although the subject house has undergone alterations, it is considered that it has an integrity comparable with the group of 19th century houses currently protected by a Heritage Overlay.”
We urgently request the Council to acknowledge the historical and aesthetic values of this property and apply for interim heritage controls with a view to introducing an individual heritage overlay in the near future. Our Heritage expert RBA and the Barwon Heads community have clearly articulated our belief and proven that this is a very important landmark in our village and seek your urgent support to protect it.”
Context concurs with RBA findings that the house and cypress tree at 9 Bridge Road, Barwon Heads is of local historic, architectural and aesthetic significance to the City of Greater Geelong.
The Statement of Significance prepared by Context includes commentary that 9 Bridge Road is historically significant:
as a result of its early date of construction (c1890) and its association with the initial development of the township of Barwon Heads. It is one of a relatively small group of nineteenth century timber houses and public buildings that have survived to enable interpretation of the first settlement in the township.
for its association with Geelong architect A J Derrick who is credited with the design of the house; but also a prominent member of Wesley Church Geelong and the architect of Wesleyan churches in Barwon Heads, Wallington, Ocean Grove and Drysdale.
for its long association with the Thomas family who owned the property from 1901 to 1992 and used it for holiday purposes. William Charles Thomas was the founder of W C Thomas & Sons, a successful and highly regarded milling company
for the cypress tree (the remaining one of a pair planted in c1930s)
The statement indicates the single story house at 9 Bridge Road is:
architecturally significant as representative of late Victorian architecture in Barwon Heads;
aesthetically significant as part of the work of Geelong based architect A J Derrick whose Carpenter Gothic churches at Wallington, Ocean Grove, Barwon Heads and Drysdale are connected stylistically to the architecture of 9 Bridge Road;
the house and the cypress tree are aesthetically significant for their prominent raised siting and landmark qualities at the end of Hitchcock Avenue.
Context advises that the heritage assessment has established the threshold of ‘Local Significance’ for the house and cypress tree at 9 Bridge Road for their historic, architectural and aesthetic values. The site is therefore deemed to warrant the application of interim heritage controls to allow for its inclusion in the Heritage Overlay (with specific tree controls noted in the schedule) to the extent of the whole property as defined by the title boundaries.
The usual practice to apply heritage overlays is that sites are identified through heritage studies across precincts, suburbs or towns and exhibited through the normal amendment process. However, the planning system does allow for the Minister to intervene in special circumstances. Council officers consider the new information that has come to light (as clearly documented in the two heritage assessments) provides very strong evidence of the significance of 9 Bridge Road. It should be noted that requests to the City for interim heritage overlay controls are extremely rare. At the same time, the extent and quality of the research which has been provided in support of this application is also exceptional.
The Context Pty Ltd assessment of cultural heritage significance was undertaken in accordance with the VPP Practice Note Applying the Heritage Overlay. The values used in the identification and assessment of places are historic, scientific, aesthetic, social and spiritual values (as articulated in the Burra Charter). The Context assessment established the threshold of ‘Local Significance’ for the subject site. Local significance includes those places that are important to a particular community or locality.
Council officers consider it is therefore appropriate to seek the application of a heritage overlay.
The Minister for Planning (or his delegate) makes the final decision on the application of both interim and permanent heritage overlays. Council officers approached the State Government’s Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) for advice on it’s current position on interim heritage overlays. The DELWP Geelong office provided a copy of a 2013 letter from DELWP to the City of Yarra which gives a good explanation of how the Department treats these types of requests. A copy of the letter is in Appendix 4.
The following excerpt from the letter is particularly relevant to a proposed overlay for 9 Bridge Road:
“Councils are expected to be particularly discerning when seeking interim Heritage Overlays in instances where a planning scheme amendment has not been exhibited.
Given that the intervention to introduce an interim control is an extraordinary use of the Minister’s powers, the subject building/place should be of particular note. Because the imposition of interim controls also raises issues of fairness, a higher degree of justification is required. The sorts of tests which should be met include:
The significance of the building must be beyond reasonable doubt. There should be little doubt that the significance of the building/place will stand the scrutiny of a Panel.
The building will be of some degree of rarity and not well represented in council’s planning scheme. For example, a request involving an isolated late 19th century timber dwelling might not be supported where numerous examples exist within existing Heritage Overlays for the municipality.
The building must be of such significance that council or VCAT would be likely to refuse a planning permit to demolish the building. There is little point in pursuing an interim Heritage Overlay if it is highly likely that a planning permit will issue for demolition.
The significance of the building is such that its importance would be widely understood and acknowledged by council and the community.
The council must also demonstrate a commitment and sense of urgency and be willing to expedite a planning scheme amendment to introduce a permanent Heritage Overlay. The purpose of this is to balance the need for heritage protection with the requirement to afford natural justice to the owner of the property by ensuring that an amendment to introduce a permanent Heritage Overlay is prepared and exhibited as soon as possible.”
Given that two well regarded heritage experts – Context and RBA – have both assessed the site as being significant and given the strong community support, Council officers are confident the proposal meets the Department’s tests as outlined above. The matter is being treated urgently and authorisation to exhibit an amendment to introduce a permanent heritage overlay is being sought simultaneously with the interim overlay request.
The proposed amendments will not have any adverse effects on the environment.
There are no financial implications to Council beyond the cost associated with a planning scheme amendment.
The amendment will result in a good planning outcome ensuring the preservation of a locally significant heritage building. The amendment is consistent with both the State Planning Policy Framework and Local Planning Policy Framework, as outlined below:
Clause 43.01 Heritage Overlay of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme states that the purpose of the Heritage Overlay is:
To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.
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.
To ensure that development does not adversely affect the significance of heritage places.
To conserve specifically identified heritage places by allowing a use that would otherwise be prohibited if this will demonstrably
By applying the Heritage Overlay to 9 Bridge Road, Barwon Heads the heritage status of the property will be conserved under the provisions of the Planning Scheme.
The amendment will achieve the objectives of the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) Clause 15.03-1 Heritage Conservation- by ensuring the conservation of places of heritage significance.
The amendment will achieve the objectives of the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) Clause 21.06-5 Heritage and Identity- by conserving and enhancing individual places and areas of pre and post contact cultural significance.
The statutory planning decision making for the current planning permit application is independent of the planning scheme amendment and subject to a separate process which could involve an appeal at VCAT.
The weight given to a proposed heritage overlay in the planning permit decision making will depend on how far the heritage overlay has advanced through the planning scheme amendment process.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the “Built and Natural Environment and Community Wellbeing” elements of City Plan.
No Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have a direct or indirect interest, in accordance with Section 80(c) of the Local Government Act, to the matters to which this amendment relates.
There is the risk that unless Council takes this positive action the building is likely to be demolished.
Preparation of an amendment will have a positive social effect through the protection of this heritage place for the benefit of current and future generations. The protection of this place in the Planning Scheme will benefit the community by:
Adding to the understanding of Greater Geelong's rich cultural history;
Recognising and realising the positive contribution that culturally significant places make to the City of Greater Geelong;
Heritage buildings provide a link to the past and gives us a sense of place, who we are - our cultural identity. Protecting our heritage helps to ensure that this identity and sense of place may be appreciated for present and future generations.
The proposal does not impact on human rights and responsibilities set out in the Charter. Planning legislation ensures that the proposed amendment to introduce a permanent control will follow an open community consultation process enabling people to freely express their views and if necessary obtain a fair hearing before an Independent Panel.
Both the Barwon Heads Association and the owner of the site (through his lawyer) have been kept informed throughout this process and have copies of the two heritage assessment reports.
Ref: EDOCS 1562435
File No 13/008992
31 October 2013
Ms R Swarup
Acting Manager City Strategy
City of Yarra
PO Box 168
RICHMOND VIC 3121
Dear Ms Swarup
INTERIM HERITAGE OVERLAY CONTROLS
Thank you for your letter of 23 September 2013 requesting information about the department’s approach to requests for interim Heritage Overlay controls.
Many requests for interim Heritage Overlay controls are received each year. It is the practice of the department (acting under delegation) to limit the application of interim Heritage Overlays to:
instances where a council receives a request for report and consent to demolish a building of potential heritage significance under sections 29A and 29B of the Building Act 1993 (the Act)
instances where a planning permit application is received which involves the demolition or redevelopment of a building of potential heritage significance.
Sections 29A and 29B of the Act were introduced in 2000. These sections:
require a report and consent of the relevant responsible authority in relation to certain applications for a building permit for demolition
enable the suspension of certain applications for a building permit for demolition, pending amendment of planning schemes.
This legislation was introduced as a safety-net to ‘stop the clock’ on a building permit for demolition until an assessment could be made as to whether a Heritage Overlay should be introduced on an interim basis.
While it is not possible to set out all the circumstances in which the Minister for Planning will intervene, the following guidelines may prove useful. These have been prepared internally and applied since early 2013. Before submitting a request for an interim Heritage Overlay control, I recommend that you speak to your contact officer about the specific circumstances.
Requests for intervention where permanent Heritage Overlays have been exhibited as part of a current planning scheme amendment
In instances where a planning scheme amendment has been exhibited, a request to introduce an interim Heritage Overlay (following an application for demolition or redevelopment) is likely to be supported where the building is identified to be either individually significant, or contributory to a proposed heritage precinct, or where the proposed development will be prejudicial to the heritage significance of the place.
In this situation, the intervention to introduce an interim Heritage Overlay is to protect the integrity of the proposed amendment to a planning scheme until it can be dealt with by a Panel or council.
Requests for intervention where permanent Heritage Overlays have not been exhibited
Councils are expected to be particularly discerning when seeking interim Heritage Overlays in instances where a planning scheme amendment has not been exhibited.
Given that the intervention to introduce an interim control is an extraordinary use of the Minister’s powers, the subject building/place should be of particular note. Because the imposition of interim controls also raises issues of fairness, a higher degree of justification is required. The sorts of tests which should be met include:
The significance of the building must be beyond reasonable doubt. There should be little doubt that the significance of the building/place will stand the scrutiny of a Panel.
The building will be of some degree of rarity and not well represented in council’s planning scheme. For example, a request involving an isolated late 19th century timber dwelling might not be supported where numerous examples exist within existing Heritage Overlays for the municipality.
The building must be of such significance that council or VCAT would be likely to refuse a planning permit to demolish the building. There is little point in pursuing an interim Heritage Overlay if it is highly likely that a planning permit will issue for demolition.
The significance of the building is such that its importance would be widely understood and acknowledged by council and the community.
The council must also demonstrate a commitment and sense of urgency and be willing to expedite a planning scheme amendment to introduce a permanent Heritage Overlay. The purpose of this is to balance the need for heritage protection with the requirement to afford natural justice to the owner of the property by ensuring that an amendment to introduce a permanent Heritage Overlay is prepared and exhibited as soon as possible.
Other matters
The following types of requests will not normally be supported:
introducing blanket interim Heritage Overlays that mirror a proposed planning scheme amendment
introducing an interim Heritage Overlay where a planning permit has already been issued for redevelopment of the building or land
introducing an interim Heritage Overlay where consent under the Building Act 1993 to demolish the building has been given.
If you have any concerns or further enquiries about this approach or would like to provide feedback please contact Jason Close, Assistant Director, Planning Statutory Services on 9098 8938.
Yours sincerely
Jane Monk
Director, Planning Statutory Services
Source: |
Planning and Development - Planning Strategy and Urban Growth |
General Manager: |
Peter Bettess |
Index Reference: |
Moolap Costal Strategic Framework Plan |
The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of recent strategic planning activities relating to the Moolap – Point Henry area including the Moolap Coastal Strategic Framework Plan (DELWP) and Point Henry 575 Master Plan (Alcoa).
The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) have released for comment a Discussion Paper and Background Report which will ultimately inform the final Moolap Coastal Strategic Framework Plan to be completed in late 2016.
The DELWP project study area covers an area of approximately 1200ha between Corio Bay and Portarlington Road (extending south to include the Moolap Industrial Estate), east of the CSIRO’s Australian Animal Health Laboratories and west of Clifton Avenue, Leopold.
The City of Greater Geelong has representatives on the Project Steering Committee and Technical Reference Group. The draft documents have been informed through input from a range of Council departments.
The Discussion Paper identifies a draft vision and proposed principles and seven different land use scenarios for the study area to stimulate discussion. This report examines each of the scenarios and identifies where they are consistent or inconsistent with Council policy or raise particular issues or opportunities not readily reflected in the Discussion Paper. It is recommended that Council prepares a submission based on this analysis.
Submissions on the Discussion Paper close on 22 July 2016.
Alcoa as the major land holder in the DELWP project study area is currently undertaking the development of its own Master Plan (Point Henry 575) for its extensive land holdings. Alcoa recently completed its initial round of community consultation on its Shared Vision and Principles for the site to which Council provided input. Alcoa aim to release their Master Plan in October. It is anticipated this document will inform DELWP’s Framework Plan.
P Dorling moved, L Gardner seconded -
That Council officers prepare a submission to the Moolap Coastal Strategic Framework Plan Discussion Paper based on the comments identified in this report.
Carried.
The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) are preparing the Moolap Coastal Strategic Framework Plan to provide future strategic policy guidance to land use outcomes over an extensive precinct comprising a former saltworks, Alcoa land holdings (including former smelter and rolling mill), crown land, and industrial activities within the Moolap Industrial Estate and Moolap industrial precinct and rural activities.
The project is being led by DELWP, with the Ministers for Environment and Planning to approve the final plan in late 2016. The project governance structure includes a Project Steering Committee and Technical Reference Group on which Council is represented.
Study Area
The study area is within the suburb of Moolap on the eastern edge of Geelong. Located approximately 5km east of central Geelong’s business district, the study area includes over 1,200 hectares of land and 10km of coastline.
The study area is complex with considerations including:
Significant landscape, environmental, biodiversity and habitat values;
Coastal inundation and drainage infrastructure challenges;
Potential contamination from land fills, industrial activities, potential Coastal Acid Sulfate Soils, failed effluent systems etc;
Existing established industries including Dow Chemicals and Winchester;
Lack of reticulated sewerage;
Areas of cultural heritage significance;
Port assets;
Mix of industrial, special use and farming zones; and
Public access for recreational activities.
Council has informed the DELWP’s analysis of a number of these considerations through the provision of data, studies and strategies.
The project to date has been informed by one stage of community consultation which explored current issues and future possibilities. The project is currently at stage 3 culminating with the release of a Discussion Paper for community engagement. A draft Plan is to be released in late 2016. Final approval of the Plan rests with the Ministers for Environment and Planning. The project timeline is shown below.
Alcoa project
Alcoa as the major land holder in the DELWP project study area is currently undertaking the development of its own Master Plan (Point Henry 575) for its extensive land holdings (575ha). Alcoa recently completed its initial round of community consultation on its Shared Vision and Principles for the site to which Council provided input. Alcoa plan to release their Master Plan in October 2016. It is anticipated this document will inform DELWP’s Framework Plan.
The shared vision is:
The Point Henry 575 site will be a diverse and inclusive place that celebrates its coastal location and supports the prosperity of the Geelong region, whilst recognising and honouring the site’s natural landscape and history.
This is underpinned by five themes each with guiding principles:
Support and build on the prosperity of the Geelong region:
Create opportunities for jobs
Outcomes are economically sustainable
Embrace and celebrate the coastal landscape:
Retain public access to the coast
Integrate existing landscape attributes and landformse
Create a diverse and inclusive place:
Offer a range of lifestyle and economic opportunities
Provide for a variety of connected public open spaces and environmental outcomese
Honour the various histories of the site:
Recognise the significance of the Indigenous, Settler and Alcoa histories
Explore existing built form and infrastructure for adaptation and reusee
Complement the Geelong region:
Complement Geelong’s broader planning and strategic direction
Create a place that’s valued by the communitye
The DELWP has released for comment the Discussion Paper and Background Report which will ultimately inform the final Moolap Coastal Strategic Framework Plan. The Discussion Paper identifies a draft vision and proposed principles and seven different land use scenarios for the study area to stimulate discussion. The Discussion Paper is supported by a research document prepared by CERRF which provides a series of Australian and International case studies of brownfield redevelopments that have relevancy to potential future outcomes for this precinct. DELWP has also engaged consultants to prepare a Feasibility and Scenario Assessment which will inform the draft Framework Plan. The draft vision, supporting principles and seven scenarios are discussed below.
Draft Vision
To transition to sustainable land-uses for this significant site, in order to benefit the Geelong economy, environment and community, which responds to future change and is informed by the study area’s history, constraints and opportunities.
Comment:
It is considered that the draft vision is both lengthy, non-specific and a little generic. It is considered however that the current vision reflects the fact that a single picture of how the area might be best developed has not been settled on and will evolve with the final Framework Plan. The significant elements of economy, environment and community are however reflected in it.
Draft Supporting Principles
The Discussion paper identifies a series of vision supporting principles:
Environment:
Sustainably enhances significant environmental assets and values
Ensures land-use and development is informed by environmental constraints and risks
Recognises the potential economic value of environmental assets
Acknowledges limitations and opportunities including as a result of climate change
Provides landscapes that contribute to the unique character and attraction of the study area
Community:
Creates a unique place with great spaces
Connects and integrates with the surrounding community and wider Geelong
Provides public access to the water and foreshore
Creates a place that contributes to a healthy, prosperous and safe community
Provides services and facilities for visitors and the local community, now and into the future
Retains and enhances key vistas
Provides public recreation opportunity
Economy:
Complements central Geelong and the role of Geelong as Victoria’s second city
Enables opportunities for economic growth and jobs for the future in the context of industry in transition, market demand and a low carbon future
Recognises existing businesses and their contribution to the Geelong economy
Builds on the area’s economic strengths and existing infrastructure
Facilitates opportunities for businesses which are locationally dependent on the study area
Facilitates opportunities that are economically feasible
Heritage:
Respects and acknowledges the Indigenous, maritime and industrial heritage values for present and future generations
Provides opportunities for people to remember, learn and interpret
Considers opportunities to re-use heritage places and attract visitors
Infrastructure and Services:
Considers the re-use, improvement and adaption of existing assets and infrastructure
Improves connectivity and accessibility through the study area to surrounding areas and to the wider region
Facilitates economic opportunities
Supports land-uses
Responds to environmental conditions, risks and assets
Additional/Supplementary:
Is feasible and deliverable
Considers impacts on and complements areas adjacent to the study area and beyond
Considers relevant legislation, policy and strategies
Enables staged delivery/realisation of the Moolap Plan over the long term
Responds and takes advantage of the unique location and attributes
Enables the opportunity to deliver something unique and innovative to Geelong
Fosters innovation and creativity.
Comment:
While it is considered that a number of these principles could be consolidated they generally cover the more significant economic, social and environmental challenges and opportunities presented by the precinct. The vision and principles identified broadly align with those developed by Alcoa.
Scenarios
The Discussion Paper includes seven land use scenarios which explore a range of different lead and associated land use activities and advantages/disadvantages associated with each. The scenarios are not options but have been developed to respond to the various opportunities flagged through community consultation and research/constraint analysis to encourage feedback from the community on preferred scenarios or elements of scenarios. The final draft Plan will likely be a blend of scenarios.
Comment:
The identified scenarios provide a balanced mix of the potential land use outcomes for the area and the relative advantages and disadvantages reasonably captured. Officers have had the opportunity to provide preliminary advice to DELWP on the initial draft scenarios which has largely been reflected in the final Discussion Paper.
Each of these scenarios (refer Attachment 1 for scenario mapping/description) are responded to below in terms of policy consistency and identification of key scenario opportunities/disadvantages to inform a submission. It is considered that as a project participant it is more appropriate at this stage to comment on the relative merits of each scenario rather than identify a preferred scenario particularly given that a number of scenarios have local policy/strategy linkages. It is also important that Council consider the communities views before determining a view on a single preferred scenario. Council will be in a position to provide a further submission to the draft Framework Plan when it is released and inform the project outcomes through its participation in the Project Steering Committee.
The key local policies relied on to inform commentary on the scenarios include:
Municipal Strategic Statement and Local Planning Policy Framework within the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme. The key policy areas relate to: clause 21.06 – Settlement and Housing, clause 21.07 - Economic Development and Employment, clause 21.05 – Natural Environmental, 21.14 – Bellarine Peninsula and clause 22.06 Tourism development in rural areas.
Some of the critical elements of these policies include application of settlement boundaries and urban breaks, maintaining productive rural landscapes, retail centre hierarchy, industry buffers and protection of environmental including wetland values and climate change.
Environmental Management Strategy;
Low Carbon Growth Plan for Geelong;
Climate Change Adaptation Strategy;
Geelong Port-City 2050
While non-compliance with the above policy/strategy platforms should not prejudice the consideration of strategic opportunities but rather flag matters for consideration to inform a balanced outcome. The following summary comment table should be read in conjunction with Attachment 1.
Scenario |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
Business as usual |
|
|
Port in Moolap |
|
|
Comment: This scenario could allow use of coastal retreat area for conservation purposes. |
||
Marine Industry in Moolap |
|
|
Comment: This scenario could allow public park to be used for conservation purposes without impacting industry activity. Considered that residential use is not consistent with this scenario and creates amenity/reverse amenity conflict. |
||
Production in Moolap |
|
|
Comment: This scenario need not remove all potential conservation area opportunities or restrict more extensive crown land provision along the coast to provide for public access. |
||
Tourism in Moolap |
|
|
Comment: This scenario would be more appropriate with removal of eastern residential node and more limited retail node and eastern public park being used in part for conservation purposes. |
||
Living in Moolap |
|
|
| Comment: The tourism and conservation elements are potential components of this scenario. It is considered the residential components are too extensive. |
||
Conserving Moolap |
|
|
Comment: This scenario could accommodate an expanded eco-tourism node and retain existing industry. |
||
The Discussion Paper and Background Paper identify a range of environmental challenges for the site including sea level rise, habitat and biodiversity values, contamination including landfills, potential coastal acid sulfate soils etc. Council strategies including the draft Greenhouse Strategy, Environmental Management Strategy, Low Carbon Growth Plan, Climate Change Adaption Strategy etc, have informed comments in this report. The Environment is a key project principle in DELWP’s project.
This project has no immediate financial implications for Council. The final Framework Plans land-use mix and infrastructure outcomes may have longer term financial implications i.e. new assets to manage, new infrastructure provision requirements.
Comments in this report have been based on consistency with key Council strategies and policies including housing and settlement strategies, included in the Planning Scheme.
The project is consistent with:
Growing our Economy by responding to the challenges associated with the closure of Alcoa and supporting existing businesses and encouraging new and emerging growth sectors;
Community Wellbeing by providing opportunities to integrate the precinct with existing communities through linkages and providing access to recreation opportunities;
Sustainable Built and Natural Environment by providing opportunities to protect and enhance important habitat values.
Officers involved in preparing this report have no direct or indirect interest in the study area.
The DELWP Discussion Paper provides low levels of work to Council. Longer term works include impacts on assets impacted by sea level rise or the management and maintenance of new assets.
The community is a key project principle. Issues of community infrastructure facilities, access to reserves, engaging business etc have been considered in the report.
The project provides for extensive community consultation and engagement opportunities to understand impacts on individuals and the broader community.
The Discussion Paper and Background Paper have been informed through an existing community engagement phase and been informed by reports from a range of Council Departments. Council has worked with DELWP to shape the Departments community engagement process.
Source: |
Strategy and Performance – Property and Procurement |
General Manager: |
Dean Frost |
Index Reference: |
SUB-16-1065 Council |
The purpose of this report is to recommend that the Council enter into an option agreement with Barwon Health for the sale of the Old Geelong Gaol.
In 1994 the Council took ownership of the Old Geelong Gaol (OGG) from the State Government and soon after installed Geelong Rotary as the head tenant. Geelong Rotary has been operating the main cell block as a museum tourist attraction and sub leasing other buildings and the courtyard areas for offices and car parking.
Over the last 3 years the Council has firstly indicated that it wants to sell the OGG and, following advertising of its intention to do so, decided to retain ownership and examine ways of maximising its tourism potential.
As a result of advertising for proposals in late 2015, 4 proposals were received from Barwon Health Future Fund Foundation (BHFFF), head tenant Rotary, Geelong branch of the National Trust and Katherine Elizabeth Events.
Two of the submissions, Barwon Health and Rotary, in contrast to the Council’s last stated position on ownership, propose that ownership be transferred. Proposals by the National Trust and KEE propose that Council retain ownership of the property.
The BHFFF proposal is to have Barwon Health purchase the property and use it as part of a longer term strategy to develop properties south of Myers Street. An option agreement is sought allowing a due diligence to be carried out.
Subject to acquiring the OGG, BHFFF has undertaken to lease the cell block to Rotary for a minimum of 10 years and, subject to any specific needs of BHFFF, Rotary could continue to sublet other buildings. The land used for parking by Barwon Health would be excluded from a future lease. Refer to Attachment 1.
Rotary proposes that the OGG be transferred to a community trust and, over time, be developed for offices, café, parking and a child care centre. The main cell block is to be used as a museum and commercial kitchen.
The other submissions propose that Council retain ownership and use the OGG for a museum and events facility.
The OGG generated a net income in 2015 of $111,000 inclusive of rents and fee paying visits.
There is an identified need for immediate expenditure of $1.559m on maintenance backlog and compliance works with the actual amount likely to be closer to $3m. The full development of the Rotary proposal has a capital cost estimate of $34.6m.
While no comprehensive business plan has been prepared for the Rotary development proposal, it is unlikely that the revenue generated by the total project will justify the capital and operating costs required.
As a tourist attraction the OGG is expected to attract modest visitors levels as the facility is not significant at a national level and it is noted that the Adelaide Gaol, being the most comparable, only attracts 15,000 visitors pa.
The OGG does not qualify for any of the current Commonwealth grants and if successful for State programs any funding is likely to be insignificant in terms of the overall requirements.
Of the proposals received it is recommended that the Council enter into an option agreement for Barwon Health to purchase the OGG subject to completion of due diligence by the purchaser. A sale to Barwon Health recognises the future growth in the provision of health services and allows the OGG to remain in public ownership.
P Dorling moved, L Gardner seconded -
That Council in relation to the Old Geelong Gaol (“the Gaol”) at 202 Myers Street Geelong:
enters into an option agreement for the sale of the Gaol to Barwon Health on terms to be agreed;
gives notice under section 189 of the Local Government Act 1989 (“the Act”) of its intention to sell the Gaol and that public notice of and the right of a person to make a submission be given in the Geelong Advertiser and the Geelong Independent;
appoints the Submissions Review Panel to hear any submissions, and;
that a report be put to Council on the outcome of the submissions process and any potential terms of the sale.
Carried.
In 1994 the Council took ownership of the Old Geelong Gaol (OGG) from the State Government and soon after installed Geelong Rotary as the head tenant. Geelong Rotary has been operating the main cell block as a museum tourist attraction and sub leasing other buildings and the courtyard areas for offices and car parking.
Over the last seven financial years the average annual rent to Council from Rotary has been $35,700 and the average annual maintenance expenditure for the same period has been $30,700. Apart from replacement of the main gates, maintenance expenditure has been minimal and no improvements of any significance have been implemented since the OGG was decommissioned.
At present the income from sub tenancies to Rotary is approximately $117,000 per year, down from rent income in 2015, and under the lease Rotary is responsible for operating and utility costs. See Attachment 1 for a summary of income and expenditure for Rotary at the OGG.
Parts of the complex have been shut down due to structural deterioration, non compliance with building regulations and safety risks. The built infrastructure continues to deteriorate, mainly in the non masonry elements.
In recent years the Council has been considering the future of the property and has made various resolutions as follows:
On 25 June 2013 the Council resolved to:
Note the cost projections for the continued ownership of the Gaol:
Note that the projections will fund some outstanding maintenance and achieve a modest level of compliance without providing any improvements that will allow the property to be used for alternative uses;
(Recognise) that the preferred option is that Council does not wish to retain ownership of the subject property;
Establish the Old Geelong Gaol reference group for the purposes of receiving a report on potential future uses by a third party, prior to proceeding with the sale or transfer of ownership.
Having considered the findings of the Reference Group, on 10 June 2014 the Council resolved to:
Commence the procedures to sell the Gaol by expressions of interest;
Give notice under section 189 of the Local Government Act 1989 (“the Act”) of its intention to sell the Gaol and that public notice of and the right of a person to make a submission be given in the Geelong Advertiser and the Geelong Independent;
Appoint the Submissions Review Panel to hear any submissions and report to the Council on any submissions received;
Make the Conservation Management Plan review publically available when the property goes on the market.
Having considered submissions received to the notice of intention to sell the property on 28 April 2015 the Council resolved:
That:
Council, over a 6 month period, investigate alternative ways of retaining ownership while funding the maintenance program and achieving its tourism potential including partnerships with other groups and entities;
A report to be brought back to Council with recommendations in November (2015).
This section of the report details submissions received, financial impacts and conclusions supporting the recommendation to sell the Gaol.
In October 2015 an invitation for proposals was placed in City News advising that Council was investigating ways of retaining ownership of the OGG and is interested in hearing from groups and entities about potential uses that can fund maintenance requirements and realise the tourism potential of the complex. A total of 4 proposals were received by the due date of 1 December 2015.
Barwon Health Foundation Future Fund
The Barwon Health Foundation Future Fund Limited (BHFFF) is an independent charitable body established by Barwon Health to act as an advisory body to establish strategies to position Barwon Health over the next 5 to 40 years.
BHFFF has recommended to the Barwon Health Board that consideration be given to acquiring the Gaol and the adjacent Australian Defence Force (ADF) land for the future development of the hospital.
It is proposed that the Council disclose the commercial terms on which it is prepared to sell the property, and if acceptable to BHFFF, an option agreement would be entered into for a 6 month period during which:
Due diligence would be undertaken.
Negotiations would be undertaken for purchase of the ADF site.
Subject to agreement by Barwon Health, the purchasing entity would be Barwon Health.
BHFFF intends that funding would be sourced for the maintenance works, and Barwon Health would continue its occupancy for parking.
In the longer term it is intended that both sites would be developed with the bulk of the development occurring on the ADF site.
Subject to acquiring the OGG, BHFFF has undertaken to lease the cell block to Rotary for a minimum of 10 years and, subject to any specific needs of BHFFF, Rotary could continue to sublet other buildings. The land used for parking by Barwon Health would be excluded from a future lease. Refer to Attachment 1.
Geelong Rotary
Geelong Rotary is the head tenant at the OGG and has been since 1994. Rotary has made submission in relation to both the future ownership of the OGG and its future use and development.
In relation to ownership, Rotary proposes that a special purpose vehicle (SPV) be established consisting of a trust and trustee for the purpose of holding the title to the OGG.
It is intended that the SPV will be a charitable organisation and a corporate trustee be established to both hold the OGG title and the income derived from the asset, with the income being paid or applied by the trustee in accordance with the charitable objectives of the trust. The holders of offices and shares in the corporate trustee would be people who hold particular positions within particular organisations (eg Rotary and Council).
Rotary would hold a lease or management arrangement with the registered proprietor (the SPV) and would be responsible for the day to day operations and commercial activities at the OGG.
Rotary has also made submissions on potential future uses of the OGG which will be implemented by the proposed trust arrangement. Select Group architects and Access Economics were used for this purpose.
Access Economics has provided recommended uses as follows:
Short term temporary uses Car parking |
Long term permanent uses Café restaurant |
Uses requiring further assessment Student accommodation |
Select Group architects propose the following uses and structures in various sectors of the property.
Zone 1. Governor’s Residence (2 storey building fronting Myers Street)
Residential or office use with parking and access to the north west courtyard from Myers Street. New 2 storey structures.
Zone 2. Myers Street entrance courtyard
Information centre and access point to adjacent zones.
Zone 3. Warden’s Residence (single storey building fronting Myers Street)
Café, function spaces, offices with outdoor dining and car parking. New 2-3 storey buildings.
Zone 4. North East Courtyard
Demolish old laundry building. New mini cinema and auditorium with parking under. Presentations related to history of Geelong and the OGG.
Zone 5. Northern section main cell block
Retain for tourist experience (museum).
Zone 6. North west courtyard
Demolish existing building and build new building of 2 storeys for commercial floor space or OGG related museum. Parking with vehicular access from Myers Street via Zone 1, requiring a breach of the wall.
Zone 7. South east courtyard
Multi level car park for Barwon Health and other users. Rotary has been in communication with International Parking Group which provides parking at hospitals in other States.
Zone 8. Southern section main cell block
Up grade to provide a workable commercial kitchen for internal and external use.
Zone 9. South west courtyard
Child care facility retaining the diagonal wall.
National Trust
The National Trust has provided a submission with information relating the heritage citation for the property, other National Trust Geelong properties and National Trust aims. The submission proposes that buildings should be restored and conserved for heritage interpretation, and functions, hire and exhibitions could take place but no permanent alternative use which detracts from the original history.
The submission points out that those operating tours at the Gaol should be properly trained in the accurate interpretation of the Gaol’s history, and there remains a role for ghost tours etc. Museum Victoria provides free advice in museum management.
The submission proposes continued public ownership citing successful public ownership of the Old Melbourne and Bendigo Gaols and the unsuccessful private ownership of Pentridge and Beechworth Gaols (it is noted that in November 2015 Beechworth Gaol sold after being passed in at auction for $1.75m however the sale did not proceed).
The National Trust supports:
Continued management by Geelong Rotary.
Development of shared management arrangements with other community groups.
Formation of Old Geelong Gaol Association modelled on Osborne House.
Use by not for profit groups.
Formation of a friends group.
Katherine Elizabeth Events (KEE)
This submission proposes that KEE would take over the everyday management with Council retaining ownership. KEE is experienced in tourism and events and has a vision to use the cell block for tourism, markets and events, retain existing tenants and open up the main cell block to new uses.
KEE proposes that 80% of the existing profit will be used for maintenance with the remainder being used for administration and marketing.
Uses proposed for the main cell block are:
Ground floor: Exhibitions and a market.
Second floor: Dedicated to Gaol history.
Third floor: Training and paranormal tours.
Repairs and restoration costs not funded from rent income will be funded from grants offered by Victoria Heritage Restoration Fund, state and federal governments.
KEE proposes opening the Gaol for longer hours and targeting student tours with potential income of $120,000 pa.
The invitation for proposals process has resulted in four separate proposals of varying detail and intent. Two of the submissions, Barwon Health and Rotary, in contrast to the Council’s last stated position on ownership, propose that ownership be transferred. Proposals by the National Trust and KEE propose that Council retain ownership of the property.
Maintenance and Capital Cost Projections
Technical reports commissioned indicate that known maintenance backlogs and compliance works are expected to cost $1,559,000. The actual maintenance cost will exceed that amount as the estimates were obtained using non invasive walk through techniques and do not account for contingencies relating to lack of documentation and conservation restrictions. It is possible that a fully documented maintenance and compliance program will cost at least $3m or double the current estimate.
If the maintenance works were implemented much of the deteriorating elements of the complex will be stabilised and increased allocations for recurrent maintenance will be required to ensure that maintenance backlogs do not re-accumulate.
These works will only stabilise the existing infrastructure and will not upgrade the complex to allow any new or innovative uses.
The capital works elements of the Rotary submission have been costed by a quantity surveyor at $34.6m. This estimate does not include the above maintenance and compliance costs, or any allowance for conservation works.
Revenue and Funding
Gross income to Rotary in 2015 was $159,000 including rents and fees against operating costs including rent to Council of $48,000.
None of the submissions received included demand or financial revenue projections, although Access Economics provided an indication of potential uses as part of the Rotary submission.
Commonwealth funding schemes include programs administered through the Commonwealth Department of the Environment.
Community Heritage and Icons Grants
Protecting National Historic Sites
National Trusts Partnership Programs
The first two programs only allocate funding to buildings and sites on Australia’s National Heritage List. The third program provides funding directly to State based National Trust organisations.
The OGG is not eligible for funding from any of the Commonwealth’s funding sources.
At the State level there is the Victorian Heritage Register Places and Objects Fund providing grants of between $20,000 and $200,000 for places listed on the Victorian Heritage Register (which includes the OGG – H991).
Any plans to develop the Gaol as a significant tourist attraction, in addition to the cost, introduces business risks evidenced by comparison with other successful Australian tourism based gaols which have either national or international recognition of their heritage fabric.
The Old Geelong Gaol is not significant at this level and is not unique within Victoria. Without this basic criteria of significance or uniqueness there is doubt that the Gaol will, even with the considerable investment in staffing, marketing, maintenance and capital, achieve a level of visitation and income to justify the application of resources.
The Adelaide goal, being the most comparable to the OGG, has modest but professional management and achieves annual visitor numbers of 15,000pa. It is however acknowledged that visits to the OGG could experience a modest increase through improved marketing and professional tours.
Research concludes cell block gaol buildings (as opposed to land and other associated buildings) in general are not generating positive returns for owners and any adaptive use of goal buildings is difficult and limited. The financial difficulties the private owners of the remaining cell block parts of Pentridge have experienced over a lengthy period support this conclusion. No successful adaptive use of these elements has occurred since disposal in 1999 despite the efforts of the owners and significant concessions made in the planning permits for the sites.
One exception is the Bendigo Gaol which has been redeveloped in part for use as a community theatre which was built on vacant land within the complex with the cell bolck being adapted for associated services and entry. The project cost $25m and with the Council contributing $3m.
Conclusion
Council is free to consider its options for future ownership of the OGG including on-going ownership or sale.
Should Council continue to own the complex and neither fund the works backlog nor implement a preventative maintenance program, access to various parts of the complex over time will be further prevented including the main cell block where the central wooden skylight structure continues to deteriorate. At a minimum it is likely that unsupervised public access to the main cell block will be restricted. This option does not present a sustainable approach to the ownership of the OGG.
The option of on going arms length management of the Gaol by Council through a head and sub lease structure, while convenient, is neither generating sufficient funds to meet maintenance and compliance requirements, nor does it represent a sustainable model for long term management.
On going ownership of similar disused prisons in Victoria has not been supported either by the State or Councils, with the State Government having sold many to private owners and the Mt Alexander Shire Council having disposed of the Castlemaine Gaol in 2012. It is difficult to reconcile ownership of a disused Gaol with Council’s primary role as a local government authority.
If Council continues to own the property and wants to develop it into a fully adapted use similar to that proposed by Rotary, it will need to budget for a project with an ultimate estimated capital cost of $34.6m and provide for increased operating costs for the on-going maintenance of the property along with resourcing the management of the museum functions to be located in the main cell block. While a detailed business case for such a project has not been completed it is unlikely that financial returns will justify the costs.
Due to the cost exposures of on going ownership and the limited public benefit to be gained though ownership, it is recommended that Council divest itself of ownership. In doing so Council has the option of either dealing directly with either Barwon Health or Rotary, or taking the property to the market to see what interest there is from a wider audience.
Placing the property on the market in the hope of finding potential buyers with the skills and resources to successfully develop the property is unlikely to achieve the desired outcome.
The Rotary proposal represents an innovative and responsive adaptive use plan that respects most of the elements of the CMP and recognises the potential demand for services and floorspace in this inner urban location. However there remain some issues with the proposal.
There is no comprehensive business plan setting out costs and revenues for the Rotary proposal. The capital cost of $34.6m has been prepared by Council’s quantity surveyor to which has to be added the substantial known and unknown maintenance backlog costs. Even if the potentially higher revenue parts of the plan where implemented first, it is difficult to see that cash flows would be sufficient to repay capital and generate the cash flow required to support the less viable elements of the plan.
The proposed community trust structure, while separating ownership of the title from Council, appears to include Council in the future management arrangements as a potential corporate trustee. Any form of community ownership will inevitably leave Council exposed to demands for future funding.
The community trust, while achieving some defined objectives, is complex and may not provide a sound management basis for the decisions required to bring together all the commercial and non commercial interests to make the proposal work.
The Barwon Health proposal, which is subject to a due diligence process, can provide an outcome of a preferred and natural use of the complex. A sale of the property to Barwon Health:
Recognises that the health industry is one of the strongest growing sectors of the economy and will remain so into the future. Barwon Health is already the main tenant on the site and is the dominant land user in this sector of the city. Most other OGG tenants are or have been providers of human services of one kind or another.
Retains the property with its community interest elements in public ownership.
Allows an owner with resources and expertise to invest in and use the property to advance its service objectives.
While no environmental site assessment has been implemented, there are no known site contamination issues on the site.
The Minister for Planning in June 2013 advised the Council that the interest free Government loan of $360,000 taken out by the Council in 1996 for the purchase of the OGG shall be repayable in full upon sale of the asset.
However the Minister also advised that upon repayment of the loan consideration will be given to establishing a Geelong Heritage Restoration Fund for the conservation of heritage places in the City of Greater Geelong.
In providing an option to Barwon Health to purchase the OGG it is recommended that Council advertise the proposed sale under s189 of the Local Government Act 1989. If submissions are received they are required to be heard and a further report will be put to Council prior to executing the option agreement.
If no submissions are received and the option is exercised by the purchaser, the property will be sold on the settlement date should the option be taken up.
Two recent valuations of the property have been obtained and will assist in defining the terms of the proposed option agreement.
The recommendation supports the action priority relating to Responsible and Sustainable Financial Management by avoiding significant maintenance and capital costs through the continuing ownership of the Old Geelong Gaol.
No officers or contractors involved in the preparation of this report have a direct or indirect interest in matters to which this report relates.
On going ownership and arms length management of the property by Council in the absence of a commitment to fund maintenance and improvements represents an unacceptable risk.
Should Council continue to own the property it will be accepting risk relating to the use of buildings for which they were not designed along with growing and unavoidable cost of maintenance and capital improvements.
The risks associated with the sale of the complex can be managed by obtaining appropriate advice and following normal management procedures.
There are no social considerations relating to the recommendation of this report.
The recommendations of this report and the subsequent sale process have no implications relating to the Human Rights Charter
All persons including tenants will be provided an opportunity to make a submission following the giving of notice of intention to sell the property under s189 of the Local Government Act. Anyone making a submission will have the opportunity to be heard.
Source: |
City Services |
General Manager: |
William Tieppo |
Index Reference: |
Future Proofing Geelong |
This report outlines the Environmental Upgrade Agreement (EUA) process as recently established under the Local Government Act, and recommends the Council offers EUAs in Greater Geelong, to encourage upgrades which achieve energy efficiency savings and reduce carbon emissions.
EUAs may be used for the upgrade of existing non-residential buildings on rateable land across Victoria.
Prior to 3 September 2015, Environmental Upgrade Agreements (EUA) were only available in the City of Melbourne.
The Local Government Act 1989 (LGA) was amended on 3 September 2015 to enable all Victorian councils to offer EUAs.
Through an EUA, lenders provide finance to a building owner for environmental upgrades, with the relevant council then collecting the repayments through its rate system and passing them on to the lender.
EUAs may be used for works that improve the energy, water or environmental efficiency or sustainability of the building. This could include, for example, improving water or energy efficiency, installing on-site energy generation, reducing pollution or waste, or improving the efficiency of materials use.
EUAs allow tenants to contribute financially to a project when permission is sought by the landlord to support the investment. Importantly, Both Landlords and tenants then benefit from the shared investment to achieve energy efficiency savings and carbon emissions reductions.
L Gardner moved, P Dorling seconded -
That Council:
agrees to offer Environmental Upgrade Agreements for buildings in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1989; and
by instrument of delegation, delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the following powers –
The power to enter into an environmental upgrade agreement on behalf of Council
The power to declare and levy an environmental upgrade charge.
Carried.
EUAs are a council based funding mechanism to help businesses access funding for building works to improve energy efficiency, reduce waste and cut water use.
An EUA is an agreement between a property owner, a bank and local government that facilitates a building upgrade to improve efficiency.
EUAs allow for the tenants and building owners of commercial and industrial property to collaborate on energy, water and waste projects that will reduce the impact to the environment and reduce operating costs. Unlike other alternative finance options, EUAs allow tenants to contribute financially to the project when permission is sought by the landlord to support the investment. Importantly, EUA finance also offers 100% project finance, very competitive interest rates and long term finance.
For further information please see Appendix 1 - EUA Council FAQs.
Under Section 181A to 181J of the Local Government Act 1989, primary parties (the Commercial Building owner/tenant, the lender and the local council) may enter into an EUA in respect of rateable land, with an existing building on it that is entirely or predominantly used for non-residential purposes.
Some of the key provisions for establishing EUAs include:
The legislation does not prescribe a maximum or minimum loan. This will be determined by the lending body.
Tenants may contribute to an EUA charge if they are formally notified and give their consent to pay the charge. If not all tenants agree to the charge, the EUA charge will only be passed onto those who have consented.
A statutory declaration from the owner of the rateable land must be received by council at least 28 days before the agreement is entered into.
The amount of the EUA cannot exceed the capital improved value of the land prior to any works that would be undertaken as part of the agreement.
The owner who intends to be a primary party to the EUA must advise in writing any existing mortgagee in respect of the rateable land to which the agreement will apply.
Council must levy an EUA charge by sending a notice to the person liable to pay it. This is payable by a date not less than 28 days after the date of issue of the notice.
The total amount of an EUA charge received by council must be used to make repayments to the lending body in accordance with the EUA but does not include the proportion of the charge that accounts for the administrative costs of the council or any penalty interest imposed by a council for non payment.
If the land ceases to be rateable land, the owner must despite the land no longer being rateable, continue to pay the charge in accordance with the schedule of repayments specified in the EUA agreement.
A council is not liable for any failure by an owner to pay an environmental upgrade charge to the lending body.
If an EUA is terminated before all the funds are advanced to an owner, council must adjust the charge to the lower amount advanced to the owner by written notice.
If, as a consequence of an adjustment being made to an EUA the owner has made excess payments, council must refund the excess amount paid to the owner. The lending body must reimburse council the amount refunded.
Council must use its best endeavours to recover an EUA in accordance with the LGA and the agreement.
A quarterly report is to be prepared under Section 138 of the LGA detailing each EUA.
Administering an EUA
The benefits of offering EUA’s within the City of Greater Geelong, has been considered and is supported by Cleantech Innovations Geelong, who have agreed to fund the administrative set up of the EUA process, subject to Council approval. A project within future Proofing Geelong, Cleantech Innovations Geelong is a partnership between City of Greater Geelong, Geelong Manufacturing Council and State government which seeks to develop markets for cleantech goods and services, by stimulated demand for those goods and services, while assisting local suppliers to respond to this increased demand.
Currently, in Geelong, there are at least three commercial building owners interested in pursuing an EUA should they become available. These building owners are looking to initiate upgrades to improve energy efficiency and install solar panels on their buildings.
The organisation which has administered EUAs for the City of Melbourne over the past five years is the Sustainable Melbourne Fund (SMF). This organisation has secured federal government funding to subsidise the cost to Councils of procuring their services to set up EUA systems within Councils. They are also stimulating demand for EUAs with commercial buildings. The cost to Councils for commissioning SMF to set up and administer an EUA is $5,000 per year for two years (minimum two year commission).
To date Bendigo, Hobsons Bay, Wyndham and Shepparton have received Council sign-off to engage SMF to establish EUAs in those municipalities.
Future Proofing Geelong facilitates the achievement of positive environmental outcomes through education and assistance to businesses and the wider community to improve energy, water and waste efficiency, thereby reducing carbon emissions, these outcomes also contribute to with positive economic growth.
The Environment Management Strategy 2014-2017, the key document for guiding Council planning, decision making and activities that impact on the Greater Geelong environment, provides a framework to build healthy, connected communities, which are able to live in a clean environment that is respected and cared for. The implementation of the EMS has considerable environmental and sustainability benefits for the community as well as natural and built environments.
Future Proofing Geelong is listed in the Strategy as a strategic player in the creation of the Low Carbon Growth Plan for Geelong, and as a key delivery mechanism for a number of actions including those related to sustainable urban & rural development, green economy and sustainable living.
Future Proofing Geelong is funded for the Council Budget for the 2016/17 financial year, to continue implementation of the MOU (dated 2014-2017) and implement the recommendations of the Low Carbon Growth Plan for Geelong.
The contribution to cover the cost of the EUA support ($10,000 over two years) provided by the Sustainable Melbourne Fund (SMF) will be covered in the existing budget of Cleantech Innovations Geelong, which is administered by the Geelong Manufacturing Council. The arrangement is summarised in the following diagram.
Current approved budget.
No impacts on existing budget.
Section 181A to 181J of the LGA directs Victorian councils to offer EUAs via Local Government Legislation Amendment (Environmental Upgrade Agreements) Act 2015.
Future Proofing Geelong is a key program in delivering the outcomes of the recently adopted Environmental Management Strategy (EMS) for the City of Greater Geelong. Future Proofing Geelong is directly responsible for the implementation of seven actions in the EMS.
Supporting EUAs in the City responds to the City Plan under the Growing Our Economy strategic direction, the priorities of supporting existing business and encouraging new and emerging growth sectors refers to the “support and encouragement of new and emerging low carbon industries and sectors” and “link local businesses with growth opportunities and government funding”.
No Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have a direct or indirect interest in any matters to which this report relates.
There are no risks associated with this report.
Upgrading buildings for greater energy, water and waste efficiency is a cost-effective way for businesses to cut energy bills, improve building value and reduce greenhouse emissions.
The availability of EUAs can help businesses reduce costs and improve building performance by improving building efficiency.
There are no known positive or negative effects.
Once the set up of the EUA administration system is completed, communications will occur through Future Proofing Geelong and Cleantech Innovations Geelong.
A communications plan exists for key deliverables within Future Proofing Geelong and Cleantech Innovations Geelong.
Source: |
Strategy and Performance - Capital Projects |
General Manager: |
Dean Frost |
Index Reference: |
SUB-16-10787 Council Briefing |
The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council sell land of area 4,000m2 to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), located at Waterworld on the corner of Cox Road and the Princes Highway, Norlane. DHHS proposes to construct a health facility to be operated by Barwon Health.
DHHS has approached Council to purchase 4,000m2 of land at Waterworld, corner of Cox Road and the Princes Highway, Norlane, and intends to construct a health facility on the land to be operated by Barwon Health.
The Northern ARC Health and Wellbeing Hub Master Plan (Attachment 1), considered by Council in June 2015, covers the entire 4.492ha Council owned site and proposes a total redevelopment over a 5-15 year period. In addition to the health facility, the Plan shows the redevelopment of the existing Council pool and leisure centre (Waterworld), library and hall and proposes additional arts and culture facilities.
There is no provision for funding the redevelopment of Council’s facilities proposed in the Plan which is estimated to be $80.7m in today’s costs. $2.75m has been allocated over the next 3 years for the upgrade of the existing Waterworld facilities.
The proposed health facility will provide services to the northern suburbs including outpatient treatment, consulting rooms, medical imaging, medical services, pathology and pharmacy.
DHHS originally proposed a lease of Council’s land which was approved by Council in June 2015 and notice of the lease was given under s190 of the Local Government Act. DHHS now proposes to purchase the land.
Following a conference of valuers the price of $1,300,000 plus GST has been endorsed by the Council’s valuer and accepted by DHHS. A licence agreement will be entered into with DHHS for the areas of Council land required for parking and access.
Council assets including the waterslide, toddler’s pool and a building formerly tenanted will be demolished to make way for the health facility. There are no proposals to replace these assets.
It is recommended that the sale of land to DHHS proceeds under s191 of the Local Government Act 1989 and that public notice of the proposed sale will not be given. Public notice of the former proposed lease was published in July 2015 and no submissions were received, and the proposed health facility has been widely publicised.
P Dorling moved, L Gardner -
That Council:
approves the sale of 4,000m2 of land at Waterworld to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) on the following terms:
Price $1,300,000 plus GST;
DHHS being responsible for all Council’s reasonable costs and the costs associated with creating the lot to be sold;
DHHS will apply for a planning permit for the use and development of the land as a health facility;
Other appropriate terms and conditions;
notes that the sale will occur under s191 of the Local Government Act 1989 and that public notice of its intention to sell the land will not be given;
enters into a licence agreement with DHHS for those parts of Council land to be occupied by car parking and access for the proposed health facility.
Carried.
At its meeting on 9 June 2015, Council considered a report on the Northern ARC Health and Wellbeing Hub Master Plan (‘the Plan”). Refer to Attachment 1. The Plan is an initiative jointly funded by Council and the State Government (Department of Health and Human Services DHHS) relating to the use over the next 5-15 years of Council land at Waterworld on the corner of Cox Road and the Princes Highway, Norlane.
The need for the Plan was initiated by DHHS’s intention to construct a $33m health facility on Council’s land to be operated by Barwon Health.
The Council land is a strategic parcel consisting of 4.692ha. This site was identified as a key development opportunity in the Corio-Norlane Structure Plan (2012) and currently provides Council services of Waterworld Leisure Centre, Centenary Hall and Corio Library within the precinct.
These Council facilities will require substantial asset renewal/replacement funding over the next 15 years to remain fit for purpose. The Plan reviews the development of these current services and has also considered the inclusion of health, arts and culture infrastructure.
The proposed health facility requires a site of 4,000m2, and previous discussions were based on a requirement for a long term lease of Council’s land. At its meeting on 9 June 2015 Council resolved to advertise its intention to enter into a lease for this purpose and notice of the proposed lease was published under of s190 of the Local Government Act 1989 (“LG Act”) in July 2015. No submissions were received following giving of the notice.
Subsequent to the proposal by DHHS to lease land from Council, DHHS now seeks to purchase 4,000m2 of land from Council as indicated in red in Attachment 2, being land intended to house the proposed health facility building.
The proposed health facility has a budget of $33m and is intended for construction in 2016. The building will have 2 levels and a gross floor area of over 4,000m2 with its entrance and front of house facing west into the Waterworld car park.
Vehicular access to the health facility will be both from within the existing par park (via Moa Street) and from a new driveway from the Princes Highway service road.
The health facility will be operated by Barwon Health and provide the following ambulatory health services:
Enhanced range of specialist outpatient clinics and treatment areas.
Co-located consulting rooms.
Medical imaging.
Same day medical services.
Pathology collection.
Pharmacy.
Plans indicate that the proposed building will be located on the northern and southern boundaries of the land to be purchased and much of the associated curtilage will be located on Council’s land.
DHHS proposes to construct 122 car parking spaces on land owned by Council as indicated by the yellow shading on Attachment 2. It is intended that these new spaces will be shared spaces between Council customers and customers of the proposed health facility. DHHS will be responsible for the construction of the new parking areas and Council will be responsible for maintenance.
The land to be purchased and land used for car parking land impact on existing Council assets being the water slide, outdoor children’s pool and a former dwelling which has previously been occupied by a tenant. DHHS proposes to demolish these assets and there are no plans for their replacement.
There are no known environmental implications associated with the construction of the health facility.
The price of $1,300,000 has been agreed following a conference of valuers to reconcile the differences between the parties’ initial valuations. The price is accepted by DHHS and supported by the Council’s contract valuer, VRC.
A minor loss of revenue for Council will occur due to the demolition of the waterslides, outdoor toddlers pool and building located in the car park. The net loss of revenue to Council is projected to be $5,000 once staffing, operating and maintenance costs are accounted for.
A licence agreement will be entered into with DHHS for its occupancy of Council land for parking and access to the proposed health facility. The licence will authorise a non exclusive occupancy of Council land for an appropriate fee.
DHHS will pay Council’s expenses being valuation costs.
Section 189 of LG Act requires Council to give public notice of its intention to sell land and consider any submissions received. However when selling land to the Crown or a public body, Section 191 of the LG Act provides that the provisions of s189, including the giving of public notice, do not apply.
Selling the land to DHHS without giving public notice is considered reasonable as notice has been given of the former lease proposal and the proposed health facility in the northern suburbs has been widely communicated to the community via local media, Barwon Health and the State Government.
DHHS intends to apply for a planning permit for the use and development of the land for a health facility.
The sale of the land for the construction of a health facility in the northern parts of the City is consistent with the Community Wellbeing strategic direction of City Plan. The Northern ARC feasibility study and business case is mentioned under the Connected, Creative and Strong Communities priority.
No officers or contractors involved in the preparation of this report have a direct or indirect interest in matters to which this report relates.
The risks associated with the subdivision and sale of this land are able to be managed following normal management procedures and processes.
The provision of health services is expected to continue to grow in future and that growth, if accommodated on Council’s land at Waterworld, may require changes to the Northern Arc Plan.
A health facility in the northern suburbs of Geelong has significant social and health benefits as detailed in the Barwon Health Service Plan.
The development of a health facility in the northern suburbs of Geelong recognises the Human Rights Charter with the inherent value of each person regardless of where they live, background or what they think or believe.
The Northern ARC Master Plan has included considerable community engagement opportunities. This includes development of a Northern ARC website, Waterworld user survey, community survey, Corio Village Listening Post, stakeholder scenario workshops and individual stakeholder meetings.
A high level cost estimate for the Northern ARC facilities, is as follows:
Facility Building Costs |
Cost estimate |
Funding position |
New Waterworld |
$39M |
$2.75M committed |
New Library |
$6M |
|
New Community Hall |
$4.2M |
|
External works |
$14.6M |
|
Nett Construction costs |
$63.8M |
|
ESD provision/design and construct contingency |
$8.9M |
|
Detailed design/Consultants/FFE |
$8M |
|
Total project costs – Current rates |
$80.7M |
|
Source: |
Strategy and Performance - Financial Services |
General Manager: |
Dean Frost |
Index Reference: |
SUB-16-2089 Financial Reporting - Fin Yr 2015/2016 |
To seek approval to rename Dog Leg Lane, Geelong West to Timms Lane, Geelong West.
A public petition from 43 community members was tabled at the Council Meeting of 15 March 2016 requesting a renaming of Dog Leg Lane, Geelong West.
Dog Leg Lane, a recently named laneway, runs east between Pakington and Emerald Streets, Geelong West (Attachment A).
The new name chosen is named after an historical land owner.
The proposed renaming was advertised in the Independent newspaper on 15 April 2016 and the Geelong Advertiser newspaper on 16 April 2016.
Council received five submissions regarding the proposal.
L Gardner moved, P Dorling seconded -
That consideration of the report be deferred.
Carried.
Source: |
Investment & Attraction / Events, Central Geelong & Waterfront |
General Manager: |
Brett Luxford |
Index Reference: |
SUB-16-321: Central Geelong Marketing (CGM) |
To seek Council endorsement of the amended Central Geelong Marketing Committee (CGMC) Instrument of Delegation and Terms of Reference.
Central Geelong Marketing (CGM) is a Section 86 Committee of Council and has been in place for 15 years.
The Committee exists to market, promote and activate Central Geelong via a Special Rate. The next five-year term of the Special Rate commences on 1 July 2016 and was declared by Council on 16 February 2016.
The current Terms of Reference (ToR) require amendment as the Committee membership provisions provide for 1 Councillor impacting on the ability for meetings to be conducted with quorums.
The report recommends that a revised ToR (as per Appendix 1) is approved which allows for the requirement for one Councillor on the Committee to now become ‘one Councillor or delegate nominated by Council’.
The revised ToR also recommends that the Councillor or nominated delegate of Council is appointed to the role of Chairperson.
The Instrument of Delegation has been amended to reflect the correct Committee name.
A full list of the Central Geelong Marketing Committee Members as at 1 July 2016 is attached (Attachment 1)
P Dorling moved, L Gardner seconded -
That Council:
endorse the revised Terms of Reference for the Central Geelong Marketing Committee as shown in Appendix 1;
nominate the General Manager Investment & Attraction as the Council delegate to the Central Geelong Marketing Committee; and
sign and seal the revised Instrument of Delegation to Central Geelong Marketing Committee for the upcoming five year term as shown in Appendix 2.
Carried.
The operations of the (CGM) Committee are guided by a Terms of Reference (ToR) Appendix 1 which was created in 2001 following the establishment of the Committee.
The CGM Committee is made of 13 members of whom the ToR state that one member must be a Councillor. It is considered beneficial to have Council representation at the Committee meetings so it is recommended to retain the one Council position.
The revised ToR also recommends that the Councillor or nominated delegate of Council is appointed to the role of Chairperson.
A full list of the Central Geelong Marketing Committee Members as at 1 July 2016 is attached (Attachment 1)
There are no environmental implications linked with this report.
The operations of the Committee are within the current CGM program budget. The recommended changes to the existing ToR have no financial implications.
The CGM Committee as a Section 86 Committee of Council has delegated authority and decision making within its allocated budget, Terms of Reference and agreed Strategic Plan.
The operations of CGM have alignment with ‘Growing our Economy’ through ‘Securing Geelong’s economic future’ priorities of: support existing business and encourage new and emerging growth sectors and a successful and vibrant City centre.
Officers involved in preparing this report have no direct or indirect interest in the matters addressed in the report.
There are no risks associated with amending the current ToR as proposed in this report.
The proposed recommendations in this report have no social implications.
There are no impacts on human rights as identified in the Human Rights Charter as a result of the proposed changes to the Committee ToR.
The CGM Committee members have been advised of the proposal to review the current ToR and amend the Instrument of Delegation to correct the Committee name.
Source: |
Investment & Attraction / Events, Central Geelong & Waterfront |
General Manager: |
Brett Luxford |
Index Reference: |
SUB-16-458: Community Relations / GME 2016 |
For Council to endorse the recommendation of Julie Maxwell, Dean Anglin, Brian Cook and Mark Stone to be appointed as External Representatives on the Geelong Major Events Committee for the period 2016 - 2020.
Geelong Major Events (GME) Committee was established as a Council Advisory Committee in 1998, and formalised under Section 86 of the Local Government Act 1989 in October 1999.
The GME Committee allocates Council funding to support approximately 20-30 major events annually, which stimulates substantial economic activity within the municipality (estimated on average to be between $30M and $50M each year) and also provides social, tourism, cultural, brand and reputation benefits to our community..
The Committee constituency of GME is a maximum of twelve persons. External members may comprise up to six of those positions, where suitable candidates offering considerable value are identified.
The current terms of incumbent External Representatives Julie Maxwell and Dean Anglin will expire in 2016.
Following public advertisements, 9 applications were received. A selection panel (comprising the GME Chair, the General Manager for Investment & Attraction, the GME Executive Officer and an incumbent External committee member) reviewed applications against the selection criteria.
A shortlist of candidates was selected and the section panel interviewed the shortlisted candidates resulting in this recommendation to Council regarding the appointment of four External committee members for the period 2016 to 2020.
L Gardner moved, P Dorling seconded -
That Council:
appoint Julie Maxwell, Dean Anglin, Brian Cook and Mark Stone as external representatives to the Geelong Major Events Committee for the four-year term 2016 – 2020;
thank the other applicants for their interest in participating on the Geelong Major Events Committee.
Carried.
Geelong Major Events (GME) Committee was established as a Council Advisory Committee in 1998, and formalised under Section 86 of the Local Government Act 1989 in October 1999.
Following a review of GME Committee and a report to Council, the Committee’s Terms of Reference was altered on 10 May 2016 to provide for the appointment of up to six External representatives from the business/media/arts or events community for a term of up to four years.
External representation on GME Committee is considered to be essential as it enables the GME Committee to draw upon expertise and networks beyond Council. Specifically, experience relevant to the business, arts, events or media communities are seen as important.
The GME Committee allocates Council funding to support approximately 20-30 major events annually, which stimulate substantial economic activity within the municipality (estimated on average to be between $30M and $50M each year) and also provide social, tourism, cultural, brand and reputation benefits for our community.
The Committee constituency of GME is a maximum of twelve persons. External members may comprise up to six of those positions, where suitable candidates offering considerable value are identified.
The current terms of incumbent External Representatives Julie Maxwell and Dean Anglin will expire in 2016.
Following the advertisements communicating the requirement to fill the vacant external representative positions on GME Committee, 9 applications were received.
A selection panel (comprising the GME Chair, the General Manager for Investment & Attraction, the GME Executive Officer and an incumbent External committee member) reviewed applications against the selection criteria.
A shortlist of candidates was selected and the section panel interviewed the shortlisted candidates resulting in this recommendation to Council regarding the appointment of four External committee members for the period 2016 to 2020.
After careful consideration, the panel determined that the experience and event knowledge that Julie Maxwell and Dean Anglin contribute to the Committee is ideally retained for the next four year period particularly as the existing GME portfolio is under review for ongoing event funding and the ability to free up funding for new and developing major event opportunities.
In addition, it was identified that the two candidates, Brian Cook and Mark Stone, would bring significant event experience, industry networks and knowledge along with strong business and tourism sector experience at a national and international level to the Geelong Major Events committee.
All four recommended nominees will bring a diversity of skills, experience and strategic networks to support the objectives of GME. A full list of the GME is contained in Attachment 1.
There are no environmental implications arising from this report.
There are no financial implications arising from this report as no remuneration is paid to External representative positions on GME Committee.
There is no policy, legal or statutory implications arising from this report. The appointment process is within the framework of the GME Terms of Reference and the Council Instrument of Delegation to GME.
In the City Plan 2013-2017, Council has identified Growing Our Economy as one of its four key strategic objectives. City Plan tells us that one of the important priorities in this area is to see Greater Geelong as a leading city for tourism, arts, culture and events. The GME Strategy is identified in City Plan as being a key strategy that will assist Council in delivering Growing Our Economy priorities.
In addition, City Plan identifies its key partnerships in this area as including events related groups such as Victorian Major Events Company, Victorian Events Industry Council, along with event owners and operators. These key relationships are maintained and enhanced through the actions of the GME committee.
No officer involved in the preparation of this report has any direct or indirect interest.
External representatives are fully briefed on their role on GME Committee thereby ensuring that they each understand their roles and responsibilities. Information is also provided to external representatives regarding their obligations regarding declarations of Direct or Indirect Interest.
The inclusion of external representatives on GME Committee supports and enhances the social benefit that events bring to the community.
There are no human rights implications arising from this report.
The appointment of four new external representatives to the GME Committee will be communicated to key stakeholders and the media. The unsuccessful candidates are notified in writing, thanking them for their application and interest in the GME committee.
REPRESENTATION |
NAME |
COGG Representative |
Kelvin Spiller |
COGG Representative |
Roger Grant |
External Representative |
Russell Morris |
External Representative |
Leigh McClusky |
External Representative |
Julie Maxwell (term due to expire in 2016) |
External Representative |
Dean Anglin (term due to expire in 2016) |
External Representative |
Brian Cook (yet to be endorsed by Council) |
External Representative |
Mark Stone (to be endorsed by Council) |
Also in attendance at meetings for advisory purposes are:
Brett Luxford |
Sharon Cockerell |
Steve Bentley |
Kaz Paton |
Paul Jane |
Helen O’Beirne |
GME Committee – Maximum 12 persons
External Members may comprise of up to six of the 12 positions for a four year term.
|
Source |
City Services – Engineering Services |
|
General Manager: |
William Tieppo |
|
Index Reference |
Subject: Drainage – Floods |
The purpose of this report is to present a revision to the flood mapping for existing conditions produced within the stages of the development of Armstrong Waters, Stages 1a, 1b and 1c.
The flood mapping is subject to a revision due to the subdivision and development at 291 – 411 Charlemont Road, Armstrong Creek. Prior to subdivision the parent lot was considered to be liable to flooding. This development site, which is also known as Armstrong Waters, Stages 1a, 1b and 1c, achieves flood immunity for newly created lots for flood events up to and including the 100 year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) event due to approved internal earthworks.
The earthworks undertaken have resulted in the floodwaters from the 100 year ARI event being contained within the boundaries of the road network.
Council has a statutory obligation under the Building Regulations 2006 to designate land as liable to flooding where it reasonably knows it to be prone to flooding. Conversely, there is an obligation to remove the encumbrance of designation from land that is no longer considered to be flood-prone.
It should be noted that designation is separate to the creation of flood overlays within the Planning Scheme, which generally follows designation. In the case of this development, the planning scheme amendment to create post-development flood zones or overlays is proposed after the design of the proposed precincts.
The current designated flood mapping (refer to Attachment 1) was designated by Council at its meeting of 12 December 2006, under the provisions of the Building Regulations 2006. Designation of land as liable to flooding enables the control of floor levels for acceptable building permit applications, or refusal of consent to building applications where there is likely to be a danger to life, health or safety due to flooding. Designation also enables disclosure of flood status within statutory information certificates.
P Dorling moved, L Gardner seconded -
That Council revoke the Council designation of 12 December 2006 of flood affected land Armstrong Waters, Stages 1a, 1b and 1c as liable to flooding pursuant to Regulation 802(2) of the Building Regulations 2006.
Carried.
Designation of land as liable to flooding under Regulation 802 of the Building Regulations 2006 enables the control of floor levels for acceptable building permit applications, or refusal of consent to building applications where there is likely to be a danger to life, health or safety due to flooding. Designation also enables disclosure of flood status on the Building Information Request Form.
The subject of this report is the residential land at Armstrong Waters, fronting 291 – 411 Charlemont Road, Armstrong Creek. Prior to subdivision the parent lot was used primarily as farmland.
The subdivision at 291 – 411 Charlemont Road, Armstrong Creek was named Armstrong Waters by the developer. The current designated flood extent affects multiple residential lots within the Estate Stages 1a, 1b and 1c.
Overland flows that may occur within the subdivision during the 100 year ARI flood event are now contained within road and drainage reserves in accordance with accepted best practice for development within flood-prone areas. Best practice requires that any overland flows within residential areas satisfy public safety criteria with respect to velocity and depth of flow.
Council has a statutory obligation under the Building Regulations 2006 to designate land as liable to flooding where it reasonably knows it to be prone to flooding. Conversely, there is an obligation to remove the encumbrance of designation from land that is no longer considered to be flood-prone.
Attachment 1 shows the existing flood designation. Attachment 2 shows the change in flood mapping at 291 – 411 Charlemont Road, Armstrong Creek after construction of the subdivision.
The revocation of flood-prone areas designation and designation of revised flood data does not result in any known adverse environmental impacts.
The removal of a minimum floor level requirement for new dwellings may result in a minor reduction in energy and material usage during construction. In addition, concrete slab-on-ground construction, which is normally used for a non-elevated floor, achieves the minimum energy rating more readily than a timber floor on stumps.
The costs of proceeding to revoke the existing designation and to designate the revised flood mapping at 291 – 411 Charlemont Road, Armstrong Creek, in accordance with the requirements of the Building Regulations 2006, are provided for within the annual recurrent budget.
The City has various statutory responsibilities for drainage management and flood management (prevention, response and recovery) as set out in the Local Government Act 1989, Local Government Regulations 1990, Planning and Environment Act 1987, Building Regulations 2006, Water Act 1989, Subdivision Act 1988 and Emergency Management Act 1986.
Regulation 802(2) of the Building Regulations 2006 provides Council with the powers to ‘designate’ land liable to flooding. Regulation 802(3) provides that consent must be obtained from Council for an application to build on land liable to flooding.
Section 27 of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 provides the power for Councils to ‘repeal or amend a subordinate instrument made in the exercise of that power’.
Section 807 of the Building Regulations 2006 requires Council to update the municipality’s designated special area maps at the Building Control Commission in the event of alterations to a designated special area. Designated special areas include areas designated as being liable to flooding.
Regulation 326 of the Building Regulations provides for the issue of an information certificate containing prescribed information, including the flood status of properties.
The revised flood data for 291 – 411 Charlemont Road, Armstrong Creek will assist the City in meeting its statutory obligations with regard to flood data.
The revised flood data will also assist in fulfilling the recommendations of the Municipal Emergency Management Committee adopted by Council in November 1998 (i.e. mapping of 1 in 100 year flood levels)
The recommendations of this report are consistent with City Plan, in relation to Growing our Economy and promoting a sustainable built environment, sustainable land use and development.
There are no officer direct or indirect interests with respect to this report.
Council also has some risk exposure with any failure to disclose the flood-prone status of a property in a Land Information Certificate.
The designation of the flood data produced by the flood study is a key step toward minimising Council’s exposure to these risks.
Council has a risk exposure through its statutory obligations under the Building Regulations 2006 to:
designate land as liable to flooding where it reasonably knows it to be prone to flooding;
specify minimum floor levels in consultation with the relevant floodplain management authority (CCMA); and
refuse consent to building applications where there is likely to be a danger to life, health or safety due to flooding.
Council also has some risk exposure with any failure to disclose the flood-prone status of a property in a Land Information Certificate.
The designation of the flood data produced by the flood study Armstrong Creek UGP project is a key step toward minimising Council’s exposure to these risks.
Conversely, there is an obligation to remove the encumbrance of designation from land that is no longer considered to be flood-prone. Designation of land as being liable to flooding can result in extra construction costs and concerns regarding saleability, in some cases.
Council has a responsibility to the community to provide the best possible information on areas that are flood-prone.
Human Rights Charter
We have taken into consideration the human rights relative to the subject matter of this report, which improves protection of private property.
A revocation of designation does not warrant public consultation as it constitutes the removal of an encumbrance on land.
Relevant Council databases and flood maps will be revised and updates sent to the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority and Building Control Commission.
Source: |
City Services – Engineering Services |
General Manager: |
William Tieppo |
|
Index Reference: |
Subject: Drainage - Floods |
The purpose of this report is to present a revision to the flood mapping for existing conditions produced within the stages of the development of Warralily, Stage 65.
The flood mapping is subject to a revision due to the subdivision and development at 82 – 110 Stewarts Road, Armstrong Creek. Prior to subdivision the parent lot was considered to be liable to flooding. This development site, which is also known as Warralily, Stage 65, achieves flood immunity for newly created lots for flood events up to and including the 100 year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) event due to approved internal earthworks.
The earthworks undertaken have resulted in the floodwaters from the 100 year ARI event being contained within the boundaries of the road network.
Council has a statutory obligation under the Building Regulations 2006 to designate land as liable to flooding where it reasonably knows it to be prone to flooding. Conversely, there is an obligation to remove the encumbrance of designation from land that is no longer considered to be flood-prone.
It should be noted that designation is separate to the creation of flood overlays within the Planning Scheme, which generally follows designation. In the case of this development, the planning scheme amendment to create post-development flood zones or overlays is proposed after the design of the proposed precincts.
The current designated flood mapping (refer to Attachment 1) was designated by Council at its meeting of 12 December 2006, under the provisions of the Building Regulations 2006. Designation of land as liable to flooding enables the control of floor levels for acceptable building permit applications, or refusal of consent to building applications where there is likely to be a danger to life, health or safety due to flooding. Designation also enables disclosure of flood status within statutory information certificates.
P Dorling moved, L Gardner seconded -
That Council revoke the Council designation of 12 December 2006 of flood affected land Warralily, Stage 65 as liable to flooding pursuant to Regulation 802(2) of the Building Regulations 2006.
Carried.
Designation of land as liable to flooding under Regulation 802 of the Building Regulations 2006 enables the control of floor levels for acceptable building permit applications, or refusal of consent to building applications where there is likely to be a danger to life, health or safety due to flooding. Designation also enables disclosure of flood status on the Building Information Request Form.
The subject of this report is the residential land at Warralily, fronting 82 – 110 Stewarts Road, Armstrong Creek. Prior to subdivision the parent lot was used primarily as farmland.
The subdivision at 82 – 110 Stewarts Road, Armstrong Creek was named Warralily by the developer. The current designated flood extent affects multiple residential lots within the Estate Stage 65.
Overland flows that may occur within the subdivision during the 100 year ARI flood event are now contained within road and drainage reserves in accordance with accepted best practice for development within flood-prone areas. Best practice requires that any overland flows within residential and commercial areas satisfy public safety criteria with respect to velocity and depth of flow.
Council has a statutory obligation under the Building Regulations 2006 to designate land as liable to flooding where it reasonably knows it to be prone to flooding. Conversely, there is an obligation to remove the encumbrance of designation from land that is no longer considered to be flood-prone.
Attachment 1 shows the existing flood designation. Attachment 2 shows the change in flood mapping at 82 – 110 Stewarts Road, Armstrong Creek after construction of the subdivision.
The revocation of flood-prone areas designation and designation of revised flood data does not result in any known adverse environmental impacts.
The removal of a minimum floor level requirement for new dwellings may result in a minor reduction in energy and material usage during construction. In addition, concrete slab-on-ground construction, which is normally used for a non-elevated floor, achieves the minimum energy rating more readily than a timber floor on stumps.
The costs of proceeding to revoke the existing designation and to designate the revised flood mapping at 82 – 110 Stewarts Road, Armstrong Creek, in accordance with the requirements of the Building Regulations 2006, are provided for within the annual recurrent budget.
The City has various statutory responsibilities for drainage management and flood management (prevention, response and recovery) as set out in the Local Government Act 1989, Local Government Regulations 1990, Planning and Environment Act 1987, Building Regulations 2006, Water Act 1989, Subdivision Act 1988 and Emergency Management Act 1986.
Regulation 802(2) of the Building Regulations 2006 provides Council with the powers to ‘designate’ land liable to flooding. Regulation 802(3) provides that consent must be obtained from Council for an application to build on land liable to flooding.
Section 27 of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 provides the power for Councils to ‘repeal or amend a subordinate instrument made in the exercise of that power’.
Section 807 of the Building Regulations 2006 requires Council to update the municipality’s designated special area maps at the Building Control Commission in the event of alterations to a designated special area. Designated special areas include areas designated as being liable to flooding.
Regulation 326 of the Building Regulations provides for the issue of an information certificate containing prescribed information, including the flood status of properties.
The revised flood data for 82 – 110 Stewarts Road, Armstrong Creek will assist the City in meeting its statutory obligations with regard to flood data.
The revised flood data will also assist in fulfilling the recommendations of the Municipal Emergency Management Committee adopted by Council in November 1998 (i.e. mapping of 1 in 100 year flood levels)
There are no officer direct or indirect interests with respect to this report.
Council also has some risk exposure with any failure to disclose the flood-prone status of a property in a Land Information Certificate.
The designation of the flood data produced by the flood study is a key step toward minimising Council’s exposure to these risks.
Council has a risk exposure through its statutory obligations under the Building Regulations 2006 to:
designate land as liable to flooding where it reasonably knows it to be prone to flooding;
specify minimum floor levels in consultation with the relevant floodplain management authority (CCMA); and
refuse consent to building applications where there is likely to be a danger to life, health or safety due to flooding.
Council also has some risk exposure with any failure to disclose the flood-prone status of a property in a Land Information Certificate.
The designation of the flood data produced by the flood study Armstrong Creek UGP project is a key step toward minimising Council’s exposure to these risks.
Conversely, there is an obligation to remove the encumbrance of designation from land that is no longer considered to be flood-prone. Designation of land as being liable to flooding can result in extra construction costs and concerns regarding saleability, in some cases.
Council has a responsibility to the community to provide the best possible information on areas that are flood-prone.
Human Rights Charter
We have taken into consideration the human rights relative to the subject matter of this report, which improves protection of private property.
A revocation of designation does not warrant public consultation as it constitutes the removal of an encumbrance on land.
Relevant Council databases and flood maps will be revised and updates sent to the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority and Building Control Commission.
Source: |
City Services – Engineering Services |
General Manager: |
William Tieppo |
|
Index Reference: |
Council Reports 2016, Special Rates and Charges |
The purpose of this report is to seek a resolution by Council to give notice of its ‘Intention to Declare’ a special charge to property owners for road construction in Station Street, Bridge Street and Crimea Street, Drysdale.
Complaints have come in over a considerable period of time about the state of the unsealed roads of Station, Crimea and Bridge Streets, Drysdale. There is also a desire to have Station Street closed at the western end near High Street.
Council officers developed two options as a Special Charge Scheme proposal to fund the project. The two options included a full standard of road construction including kerb and channel and a simpler rural road standard without kerb and channel.
Feedback to the proposal was sought via a survey. The survey indicated that a majority of property owners prefer the simple road construction option.
A developer of the property at 4-6 De Burgh Road is also contributing to the project but is external to the scheme. Negotiations have taken place and the developer will be responsible for the construction of the Bridge Street section. This has presented itself as a mutually beneficial arrangement and has reduced the scope of work required by Council for this project.
Considerable support was also shown for the discontinuance of Station Street. It is anticipated that the discontinuance will reduce through traffic in the area.
The proposed scope of works includes sealing all unsealed portions of roads including Station, Crimea and Bridge Streets. (See Plan Appendix 4).
There is 685 metres of roads to be sealed as part of the scheme and there are 51 individual properties benefiting from the scheme.
It is proposed that Station Street will be formally discontinued under Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1989.
The total cost of the project is estimated to be $466,257. A developer contribution reduces the project cost to Council to an estimated $313,186 (Refer to Financial Implications)
The scheme has been prepared in accordance with the special rate and charge provisions of the Local Government Act 1989, along with Council’s Special Rates and Charges Policy and community engagement guidelines.
L Gardner moved, P Dorling seconded -
That Council:
Gives notice of its intention to declare a Special Charge Scheme in accordance with Section 163 (1A) of the Local Government Act 1989 (‘the Act’), as follows:
The Special Charge is declared for a period of five (5) years commencing upon commencement of the works.
The special charge be declared for the purposes of defraying expenses incurred by Council in relation to the construction of roads including Station Street, Crimea Street and Bridge Street, Drysdale which:
will provide proper sealed road access, improved street drainage and enhancement to the general amenity for each of the properties included in the scheme;
Council considers is or will be a special benefit to those persons required to pay the special charge (and who are described in succeeding parts of this Resolution); and
arises out of Council’s function of planning for and providing infrastructure for property owners.
it be recorded that, for the purposes of Section 163 (2A) of the Act, the special charge proceeds will not exceed the amount calculated in accordance with the prescribed formula (R x C = S), the:
‘benefit ratio’ (R) being calculated at 0.8 represents the special benefits to all persons liable to pay the special charge; and
‘total cost’ (C) of performing the function described in Part b of this Resolution based on estimated cost be recorded as $313,186.
‘maximum levy’ (S) total amount of the special charge be levied and recorded as $250,549.
the following be specified as the area for which the special rate is so declared:
the area within municipal district of Council highlighted in the plan attached to this Resolution (“the area”).
the following be specified as the land in relation to which the special charge so declared:
All land within the area shown on the plan.
the following be specified as the criteria which form the basis of the special charge so declared:
Ownership of any land described in Part 1(e) of this Resolution.
the following be specified as the manner in which the special charge so declared will be assessed and levied:
The costs to be apportioned based on access and amenity benefits.
The special charge will be levied by sending a notice to the person who is liable to pay, pursuant to section 163(4) of the Act.
having regard to the preceding parts of this Resolution but subject to Section 166 (1) of the Act, it be recorded that:
the owners of the land described in column 1 of Schedule C to the Resolution are estimated liable for the respective amounts set out in column 7 of Schedule C; and
such owners may, subject to any further resolution of Council pay the special charge in the following manner:
the charge will become due and payable within one month of the issue of the notice requesting payment pursuant to Section 167 (3) of the Act;
interest will not be charged for six months after the issue of the notice provided the person liable makes timely payment in accordance with any repayment arrangements that may be agreed on by Council; and
in accordance with Section 172 of the Act, the rate of interest which is payable on the special charge which has not been paid by the specified date is set at Council’s overdraft rate, reviewed every three months (provided that it shall not exceed the rate fixed by the Governor in Council by Order for the purposes of Section 172 (2A) in which case the rate of interest shall be the maximum rate fixed by the Governor in Council by Order for the purposes of this section).
Consider any submissions made under Section 223 of the Act and the proposed declaration via Council’s Submissions Review Panel, and then by Council at a subsequent meeting, at which time Council will consider whether to make a declaration in the form proposed.
Authorise Council’s Chief Executive Officer to give public notice of the proposed declaration in accordance with sections 163 (1A) and (1B) of the Act and send a copy of the public notice to each person who is liable to pay the special rate in accordance with Section 163 (1C) of the Act.
Authorise the discontinuance of Station Street at the western end near the High Street intersection under Schedule 10 of the Act.
Carried.
Many of the affected property owners want solutions to the ongoing problems inherent with unsealed roads in residential areas; these being mud in the wet, dust in the dry, potholes and corrugations and the related problems associated with dust, and car and home maintenance concerns associated with dust and mud.
The concept of an up front agreement for the sealing of Station Street, Drysdale was attempted back in 2007 with agreement from a majority of property owners at the time. This proposal would have provided a seal over the road without any road base upgrade at a reduced cost to property owners. This idea was abandoned due to the anticipated extra wear on the road caused by development and it was decided that the road must be constructed to a higher standard.
Further attempts at Special Charge Schemes were made in 2010 and 2012 but circumstances at the time prevented the schemes from being presented to Council.
The latest round of consultation between Council and the Station Street property owners culminated in a public meeting held at the Springdale Centre, Drysdale on 28 March 2015.
Two scheme options were shown to approximately 30 affected property owners in attendance including the estimated charges and the Benefit Ratio Calculations. All questions in relation to the proposed scheme were answered in a transparent manner.
As a follow up to this meeting, an informal survey and information sheet were sent out to the affected property owners. 35 responses to the survey were received representing a 69% response. Of the responses, there were 21 ‘Yes’ votes to the proposed road construction and 13 ‘No’ votes. One property owner did not register an opinion on road construction. The most preferred option was the rural road seal at a reduced cost.
A second question posed on the survey form was whether or not property owners wanted a closure of Station Street near High Street. A clear majority of property owners were in favour of this.
An application for residential development has been made for the property at 4-6 De Burgh Road, Drysdale which fronts Bridge Street. Negotiations with the developer have taken place and an agreement has been struck to include the developer in the project as a mutually beneficial arrangement. The resultant agreement will see the developer construct Bridge Street to full standard between De Burgh Road and the rail line. This will include kerb and channel and underground drainage.
A detailed design and cost estimate for the project has been prepared. The charge to each property is shown at Schedule C.
Although the preferred option was the rural road style of construction, the scope of work will include additional depth of road pavement rather than simply sealing over the top of the existing road.
The development application mentioned above was submitted under Permit No PP677/2015. With an agreement in place, Council’s construction costs for the project is reduced, property owners will benefit from a higher standard of work at lower cost and the developers costs are reduced due to the scheme works.
To protect Council from any risk associated with the agreement, Condition 17 at PP677/2015 includes that the road must be constructed in accordance with negotiations and agreements with Council’s Design Unit.
The allocation of costs was determined by allocating a Benefit Unit (BU) to all affected properties. In general, all properties are considered to receive access and amenity benefits.
The access benefit is obvious in that all properties with a new or partially sealed road abutting the property will receive an improved access, either in full or in part. The amenity benefit includes things like improved nature strips, improved appearance to property frontages, property value, resident comfort and safety, and reduced levels of dust and mud.
For a standard property fronting an existing unsealed road, one (1) access Benefit Unit (BU) has been assigned for each property. Properties with sealed frontages but gaining access from the new roads have a reduced access benefit (0.5 BU). The amenity benefit is generally based on the property frontage to the new roads but there are some variations to this model which are summarised as follows:
Corner properties with both frontages currently unsealed
These properties receive a standard access benefit and the amenity benefit is based on the long frontage only.
Properties with existing sealed frontages.
These properties are considered to receive half an access benefit as they need to drive over a new road in order to gain access. The amenity benefit is based on any part of the property that fronts an existing unsealed portion or is zero if the property has a fully sealed frontage.
The road infrastructure proposal provides proper sealed access, improved drainage and a generally safer environment for pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Dust is eliminated.
Storm water runoff will be less contaminated with silt prior to discharge as the bulk of the storm water will be cleaner coming off a sealed road environment.
It is anticipated that no vegetation removal will be required to complete the project.
During the course of construction and the manufacture and procurement of materials, there is expenditure of energy and greenhouse gas emissions. This does cease, however, when construction is complete.
The project does not create waste with the exception of some excess spoil. The proposal does not affect any natural habitats.
The project has a one off capital cost and there will be minimal ongoing maintenance costs. The scheme is funded via the core program C02301 and can proceed in the 2016/17 financial year.
Since Bridge Street in being constructed by a developer, this reduces the funding commitment by Council. A breakdown of costs is as follows:
Total project cost estimate |
$466,257.00 |
Developer contribution to project (income) |
-$153,071.00 |
Total revised scheme cost |
$313,186.00 |
From a scheme perspective due to the developer at 4-6 De Burgh Road constructing the Bridge Street works, they are not required to make a Special Charge payment. Scheme costs can be summarised as follows:
Scheme cost to property owners |
$250,548.80 |
Scheme cost to council |
$62,637.20 |
Total revised scheme cost |
$313,186.00 |
The net cost to Council for this project is $62,637.20.
The scheme has been prepared in accordance with the Special Rate and Charge provisions of the Local Government Act 1989 along with Council’s Special Rates and Charges Policy and community engagement guidelines.
This report aligns with the City Plan as follows:
Community Wellbeing:
Healthy Lifestyles – Facilitating and promoting physical activity.
Healthy Environments – Safe, hazard and nuisance free environments.
Sustainably Built and Natural Environment
Enhance and protect natural areas and ecosystem health.
Support our Community to live – Encourage increased use of alternatives to car transport.
Advocate for and promote sustainable design and development – Promoting sustainable design and retrofitting and acknowledging the communities desire to have their say.
No Council Officer involved with this process has any direct or indirect interest in the properties.
Provision of sealed roads will provide safer driving conditions for motorists with a defined and more standard road profile. Walking conditions for pedestrians will also be enhanced by minimising the risk of personal injuries through conflict with vehicles. The improved drainage will reduce the hazards associated with water over roads and the affects of nuisance flooding. There are no identified risks for Council in making its intention to declare the scheme.
The provision of properly sealed and drained roadways is aligned to Council’s City Plan as described above and provides improved connectivity and safety for motorists and pedestrians.
In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered to determine if it raises any human rights issues. In particular, whether the scope of any human right established by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities is in any way limited, restricted or interfered with by the recommendations contained in this report. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any adverse human rights issues.
It is further considered that the construction of these roads upholds the right to freedom of movement (Section 12 of the Human rights Charter) by enhancing a person’s ability to move freely within the area they choose to live.
Community consultation of the road construction Special Charge Scheme has been carried out as follows:
January 2015 – Update letter to property owners reintroducing the scheme proposal.
March 2015 – Invitation letter to public meeting.
28 March 2015 - Public meeting (open forum with approximately 30 attendees) held at the Springdale House, Drysdale. This meeting disclosed all information in relation to the proposed scheme including scope of work, cost apportionment and Benefit Ratio Calculation.
May 2015 – Update letter, information sheet and property owner survey.
10 September 2015 – Update letter to property owners disclosing results of the survey and advising of the consultation with the developer of the land at 4-6 De Burgh Road and process from here.
24 March 2016 – Update letter to property owners advising of pending Council meeting.
Many phone calls, emails and letters have been received and responded to during the consultation process.
Further correspondence will be sent to all affected property owners should Council resolve to make its Intention to Declare the scheme.
The works for the construction of roads in Station Street, Crimea Street and Bridge Street which consist of excavation, drainage improvements, reinstatement of nature strips, legal advice and professional services associated with survey, engineering design, supervision and administration of the project as included in the cost estimate as shown below.
ITEM |
DESCRIPTION |
QUANTITY |
UNIT |
RATE |
AMOUNT |
1.00 |
GENERAL |
|
|
|
|
1.01 |
Initial site establishment and set up, decamping and site cleanup and other fixed costs up to time of completion of works. |
|
ITEM |
|
$15,000.00 |
1.02 |
Traffic management costs. |
|
ITEM |
|
$10,000.00 |
1.03 |
Setting out of works. |
|
ITEM |
|
$1,000.00 |
|
STATION AND CRIMEA STREET |
|
|
|
|
2.00 |
PAVEMENT WORKS |
|
|
|
|
2.01 |
Trimming for new road pavement and excavation of soft spots |
|
ITEM |
|
$5,000.00 |
2.02 |
150mm compacted depth Class 2 20mm crushed rock, supplied, spread and compacted. |
611 |
m3 |
$118.00 |
$72,098.00 |
2.03 |
7mm Primer Seal, supplied and placed. |
4076 |
m2 |
$8.00 |
$32,608.00 |
3.00 |
DRAINAGE |
|
|
|
|
3.01 |
Rural vehicle crossing 300mm diam. RC pipe, 20m wide with VicRoads driveable endwalls as per SD00603, supplied, laid and jointed including excavation, placement of approved FCR bedding and backfill. |
1 |
No. |
$9,000.00 |
$9,000.00 |
3.02 |
Rural vehicle crossing 300mm diam. RC pipe, 3.6m wide with VicRoads driveable endwalls as per SD00603, supplied, laid and jointed including excavation, placement of approved FCR bedding and backfill. |
17 |
No. |
$2,800.00 |
$47,600.00 |
4.00 |
CONCRETE WORKS |
|
|
|
|
|
KERBING |
|
|
|
|
4.01 |
B2 Barrier kerb and channel 450mm wide, including fine crushed rock bedding. |
45 |
m |
$120.00 |
$5,400.00 |
4.03 |
Concrete pram crossing 1.5m wide, including fine crushed rock bedding. |
2 |
No. |
$250.00 |
$500.00 |
|
PAVING |
|
|
|
|
4.02 |
100mm pattern concrete paving with SL72 mesh including crushed rock bedding and reinstate nature strip. |
236 |
m2 |
$120.00 |
$28,320.00 |
|
BRIDGE STREET |
|
|
|
|
5.00 |
PAVEMENT WORKS |
|
|
|
|
5.01 |
Trimming for new road pavement and excavation of soft spots |
|
ITEM |
|
$2,000.00 |
5.02 |
Sawcut and remove existing asphalt to create overlap onto existing pavement |
88 |
m |
$12.00 |
$1,056.00 |
5.03 |
310mm compacted depth Class 3 20mm crushed rock, supplied, spread and compacted. |
591 |
m3 |
$80.00 |
$47,280.00 |
5.04 |
150mm compacted depth Class 2 20mm crushed rock, supplied, spread and compacted. |
275 |
m3 |
$118.00 |
$32,450.00 |
5.05 |
Bituminous Prime Coat |
1816 |
m2 |
$3.03 |
$5,493.40 |
5.06 |
30mm compacted depth, 10mm nominal size type N asphalt |
1816 |
m2 |
$17.00 |
$30,872.00 |
6.00 |
CONCRETE WORKS |
|
|
|
|
6.01 |
B2 Barrier kerb and channel 450mm wide, including fine crushed rock bedding. |
316 |
m |
$120.00 |
$37,920.00 |
6.02 |
Edge Strips |
|
|
|
|
7.00 |
PROVISIONAL WORKS |
10 |
m |
$40.00 |
$400.00 |
7.01 |
Regrade table drains |
910 |
m |
$5.00 |
$4,550.00 |
SUB-TOTAL |
$388,547 |
||||
Survey and Design |
$19,427 |
||||
Administration |
$19,427 |
||||
10% CONTINGENCY : D |
$38,855 |
||||
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE |
$466,257 |
||||
A |
Purpose |
|
|
|
|
|
| <
To construct Station Street, Crimea Street between High Street and Station Street and the unsealed sections of Bridge Street between De Burgh Road and Station Street, Drysdale. |
|
||||
B |
Coherence |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The works will provide a physical connection between High Street, Bridge Road and De Burgh Street, Drysdale and will provide a special benefit to adjoining and adjacent properties. |
|
||||
C |
Total Cost C |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Estimated cost of works - rural road construction |
|
|
|
|
$466,257 |
|
Developer contribution towards Bridge Street construction |
|
|
|
|
$153,071 |
|
|
|
TOTAL COST |
|
|
$313,186.00 |
D |
Identify Special Beneficiaries |
|
|
|
|
|
|
46 properties are considered to receive a combination of access and amenity benefits. 1 Property receives a benefit from the scheme but is not included in the scheme. |
|
||||
E |
Properties to include |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The 46 properties receive a combination of access and amenity benefits. Therefore: |
|
||||
|
Total Special Benefits out of the scheme |
TSB (out) |
= |
1 |
|
|
| F | Estimate of Total Special Benefits | |||||
| For this scheme it is considered that an equal portion of access and amenity benefits apply to an individual property. We shall assume that each property is made up of 1 access benefit unit (BU) and one amenity BU. For the large property out of the scheme, this is under development and will ultimately consist of 10 allotments fronting Bridge Street. Benefit Units are assigned to each property accordingly. For properties in and out of the scheme, a summary of special benefits can be shown in the following table: |
|
|||||
46 private properties TSB (in) |
1 property out TSB (out) |
|
||||
| Access | 46 |
10 |
|
|||
| Amenity | 46 |
10 |
|
|||
| Total Special Benefits | 92 |
20 |
|
|||
| G | Estimate of Total Community Benefit -TCB |
|
||||
| It is considered that people in the community will receive an access benefit from the works as the roadways are used to access other areas considering potential destinations such as the primary and secondary schools to the south and shopping centre to the north. Based on traffic data, estimated use of the road is 15% for the wider community and 85% for the properties in and out of the scheme. If 85% of the total access benefits is equal to 46BU, 15% would equate to 8. There are no amenity benefits associated with the wider community. |
|
|||||
| TCB = | 8.0 |
|
||||
H |
Calculate "Benefit Ratio" - R |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefits Ratio = |
TSB (in) |
= |
92 |
0.8 |
|
|
|
TSB (in) + TSB (out) + TCB |
|
92 + 20 + 8 |
|
|
I |
Maximum Total Levy (S) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maximum Total Levy S = R X C |
|
|
|
|
$250,548.80 |
|
Council Contribution to Special Charge Scheme |
|
|
|
|
$62,637.20 |
Column 1 |
Column 2 |
Column 3 |
Column 4 |
Column 5 |
Column 6 |
Column 7 |
Address |
Frontage (metres) |
Apportionable Frontage (metres) |
Access Benefit |
Access Benefit |
Amenity Benefit |
Total Estimated Cost |
97-99 High Street, DRYSDALE |
114.71 |
51.00 |
0.25 |
$829.63 |
$6,045.25 |
$6,874.88 |
119 High Street, DRYSDALE |
47.88 |
33.00 |
0.5 |
$1,659.26 |
$3,911.63 |
$5,570.89 |
121 High Street, DRYSDALE |
28.00 |
|
0.5 |
$1,659.26 |
$3,318.96 |
$4,978.22 |
121 High Street, DRYSDALE |
42.47 |
|
|
|
|
|
123 High Street, DRYSDALE |
25.15 |
25.15 |
1 |
$3,318.53 |
$2,980.66 |
$6,299.19 |
Rear 123 High Street Facing Station St |
|
|
|
|
|
|
125 High Street, DRYSDALE |
36.27 |
36.27 |
1 |
$3,318.53 |
$4,299.24 |
$7,617.76 |
127 High Street, DRYSDALE |
26.41 |
26.41 |
1 |
$3,318.53 |
$3,130.84 |
$6,449.37 |
1 Madison Court, DRYSDALE |
20.85 |
0.00 |
0.5 |
$1,659.26 |
$0.00 |
$1,659.26 |
2 Madison Court, DRYSDALE |
0.00 |
0.5 |
$1,659.26 |
$0.00 |
$1,659.26 |
|
3 Madison Court, DRYSDALE |
0.00 |
0.5 |
$1,659.26 |
$0.00 |
$1,659.26 |
|
1 Ryder Court, DRYSDALE |
25.00 |
0.00 |
0.5 |
$1,659.26 |
$0.00 |
$1,659.26 |
2 Ryder Court, DRYSDALE |
0.00 |
0.5 |
$1,659.26 |
$0.00 |
$1,659.26 |
|
3 Ryder Court, DRYSDALE |
0.00 |
0.5 |
$1,659.26 |
$0.00 |
$1,659.26 |
|
4 Ryder Court, DRYSDALE |
0.00 |
0.5 |
$1,659.26 |
$0.00 |
$1,659.26 |
|
5 Ryder Court, DRYSDALE VIC 3222 |
0.00 |
0.5 |
$1,659.26 |
$0.00 |
$1,659.26 |
|
6 Ryder Court, DRYSDALE |
0.00 |
0.5 |
$1,659.26 |
$0.00 |
$1,659.26 |
|
18 Bridge Street, DRYSDALE |
20.00 |
0.00 |
0.5 |
$1,659.26 |
$0.00 |
$1,659.26 |
24 Bridge Street, DRYSDALE |
58.77 |
58.77 |
1 |
$3,318.53 |
$6,966.26 |
$10,284.78 |
24 Bridge Street, DRYSDALE |
45.39 |
|
|
$0.00 |
$0.00 |
$0.00 |
30 Bridge Street, DRYSDALE |
|
0.00 |
0.5 |
$1,659.26 |
$0.00 |
$1,659.26 |
32A Bridge Street, DRYSDALE |
14.75 |
0.00 |
0.5 |
$1,659.26 |
$0.00 |
$1,659.26 |
32B Bridge Street, DRYSDALE |
10.96 |
0.00 |
0.5 |
$1,659.26 |
$0.00 |
$1,659.26 |
9 Station Street, DRYSDALE |
25.15 |
42.47 |
1 |
$3,318.53 |
$5,034.15 |
$8,352.68 |
42.47 |
||||||
2-10 Station Street, DRYSDALE |
|
136.00 |
1 |
$3,318.53 |
$16,120.66 |
$19,439.18 |
11 Station Street, DRYSDALE |
30.18 |
43.73 |
1 |
$3,318.53 |
$5,183.50 |
$8,502.03 |
11 Station Street, DRYSDALE |
43.73 |
|||||
12 Station Street, DRYSDALE |
28.97 |
28.97 |
1 |
$3,318.53 |
$3,433.94 |
$6,752.46 |
13 Station Street, DRYSDALE |
30.18 |
30.18 |
1 |
$3,318.53 |
$3,577.36 |
$6,895.89 |
14 Station Street, DRYSDALE |
28.97 |
28.97 |
1 |
$3,318.53 |
$3,433.94 |
$6,752.46 |
15-19 Station Street, DRYSDALE |
60.35 |
60.35 |
2 |
$6,637.05 |
$7,153.54 |
$13,790.60 |
16 Station Street, DRYSDALE |
30.18 |
30.18 |
1 |
$3,318.53 |
$3,577.36 |
$6,895.89 |
1/18 Station Street, DRYSDALE |
15.09 |
30.18 |
1 |
$3,318.53 |
$3,577.36 |
$6,895.89 |
2/18 Station Street, DRYSDALE |
15.09 |
|
|
|
$0.00 |
$0.00 |
20 Station Street, DRYSDALE |
30.18 |
30.18 |
1 |
$3,318.53 |
$3,577.36 |
$6,895.89 |
21-23 Station Street, DRYSDALE |
40.23 |
40.23 |
1 |
$3,318.53 |
$4,768.63 |
$8,087.16 |
22 Station Street, DRYSDALE |
30.18 |
30.18 |
1 |
$3,318.53 |
$3,577.36 |
$6,895.89 |
24 Station Street, DRYSDALE |
30.18 |
30.18 |
1 |
$3,318.53 |
$3,577.36 |
$6,895.89 |
25-27 Station Street, DRYSDALE |
40.23 |
40.23 |
1 |
$3,318.53 |
$4,769.06 |
$8,087.59 |
26 Station Street, DRYSDALE |
30.18 |
30.18 |
1 |
$3,318.53 |
$3,577.36 |
$6,895.89 |
28 Station Street, DRYSDALE |
35.13 |
35.13 |
1 |
$3,318.53 |
$4,164.11 |
$7,482.63 |
29 Station Street, DRYSDALE |
4.14 |
4.14 |
1 |
$3,318.53 |
$490.73 |
$3,809.26 |
30 Station Street, DRYSDALE |
35.13 |
35.13 |
1 |
$3,318.53 |
$4,164.11 |
$7,482.63 |
31 Station Street, DRYSDALE |
4.00 |
4.00 |
1 |
$3,318.53 |
$474.14 |
$3,792.66 |
32 Station Street, DRYSDALE |
15.00 |
0.00 |
0.5 |
$1,659.26 |
$0.00 |
$1,659.26 |
33 Station Street, DRYSDALE |
16.00 |
16.00 |
1 |
$3,318.53 |
$1,896.55 |
$5,215.07 |
34 Station Street, DRYSDALE |
15.72 |
0.00 |
0.5 |
$1,659.26 |
$0.00 |
$1,659.26 |
35 Station Street, DRYSDALE |
16.00 |
16.00 |
1 |
$3,318.53 |
$1,896.55 |
$5,215.07 |
37 Station Street, DRYSDALE |
20.00 |
20.00 |
1 |
$3,318.53 |
$2,370.68 |
$5,689.21 |
39 Station Street, DRYSDALE |
17.65 |
17.65 |
1 |
$3,318.53 |
$2,092.13 |
$5,410.66 |
41 Station Street, DRYSDALE |
18.00 |
18.00 |
1 |
$3,318.53 |
$2,133.62 |
$5,452.14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$250,548.80 |
Stage |
Status |
Description |
Approval to prepare scheme |
✓ |
Decision made to prepare scheme following consideration of surveys of property owners and feed back from the community. Council may then place the project in the budget system or proceed immediately to prepare a scheme. Scheme preparation involves survey, design and preparation of an apportionment of costs. January 2015. |
Intention to Declare Scheme |
✓ |
Report to Council providing information on scheme including advice of impending advertising of scheme and declaration of charge. Seeks Council approval by resolution to proceed with process. |
Advertisement |
|
The scheme is advertised in the local newspaper and all allotted property owners are notified by mail. This advertisement indicates Council’s intention and notification to ‘declare’ a scheme in a month’s time. |
Submissions |
|
From the time of advertising property owners have 28 days (as set down by the Local Government Act) to lodge submissions, either in support or opposition to the scheme. |
Submissions Review Panel Hearing |
|
A Submissions Review Panel is convened (quorum of three Councillors) and meets to consider submissions. Some submissions are written only, and other submitters may wish to be heard before the Panel. The Panel makes a recommendation to Council regarding the scheme. |
Declaration Report |
|
Any time 28 days after advertising the scheme and after the Submissions Review Panel has met and considered submissions, Council considers a report and may proceed to “declare” the charges in accordance with its advertised intent. Subsequent to this the Finance Manager issues the levy notices and there is a formal charge placed on the property. This is the final step in the process for Council to make a decision on the scheme. |
Appeal |
|
Property owners may lodge an application for review with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) within one month of issue of the levy notice. An appeal is listed, heard and determined by the Tribunal and this process generally takes three to four months. Decisions made by VCAT are binding on all parties. |
Construction |
|
Council may then proceed to construct the works. Invoices are issued seeking payment of the estimated cost within one month of commencement. |
Final Cost Report |
|
At the completion of the works the scheme is “finalised” taking into account actual costs incurred and payments are adjusted accordingly. |
Source: |
Corporate Internal Auditor |
Chief Executive: |
William Tieppo |
|
Index Reference: |
Audit CG - Internal |
L Gardner moved, P Dorling seconded -
That in accordance with Section 89 (2) (h) of the Local Government Act 1989, this matter, which the Council considers would prejudice the Council or any person, be considered at the conclusion of all other business at which time the meeting be closed to members of the public.
Carried.
Contents | Previous Page: Section A - Procedural Matters | Next Page: Section C - Assembly of Councillors
