Council Minutes - Section B: Reports - 27 September 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 C328 (Part 1) – Barwon Water Surplus Property – Adoption
Amendment C345 – 530 Bacchus Marsh Road, Lara – Adoption of Amendment
Amendment C348 1-5 Ballarat Road, North Geelong – Adoption of Amendment
Amendment C321 & Permit 1234/2014 Geelong Road, Portarlington – Consideration of Panel Report
Section 173 Agreement – Anco Seed and Turf P/L and City of Greater Geelong
Community Grants Program 2015/2016 – Summary of Allocations – 1 January to 30 June 2016
Delegations and Authorisation from Council to Chief Executive Officer and Staff
Sale and Purchase of Land – Use of Chief Executive Officer Delegation
Tender and Award of: Hendy Street Children and Family Centre
Tender and Award of: Barwon Heads Main Drainage Outfall, Ozone Road, Barwon Heads
Tender and Award of: Elcho Channel Main Drainage Infrastructure, Lara
Tender and Award of: Portarlington North East Group of Roads, Portarlington
Thompson Road, North Geelong – Proposed Footpath Construction SRC350 – Intention to Declare
(previously agenda item 11)
Source: |
City Services - Engineering Services |
Acting General Manager: |
Vicki Shelton |
Index Reference: |
Saleyards |
To consider the future of the Geelong Saleyards site at Weddell Road North Geelong.
Livestock throughput at the Geelong Saleyards has declined over the past 10 years and has a direct impact on income.
The saleyards industry in Victoria is declining overall as alternative selling methods replace the traditional auction market.
Operational costs have remained consistent over time but with reduced income has lead to declining financial performance of the site.
A loss of $245,380 was recorded for the 2015/2016 financial year
A recent structural engineering report has identified significant safety concerns. Due to these concerns the Geelong Saleyards were temporarily closed on 22 August 2016 to the sale of sheep and cattle whilst further investigation is undertaken in regard to the safety concerns.
A heritage overlay requires any development of the site to consider the heritage significance of the saleyards.
Loss of the main office building due to fire in June 2013 has diminished the heritage and social value of the site. The temporary replacement facilities do not provide the same level of service to staff and users.
The current location is not suited to a saleyards facility.
The total cost to reopen the saleyards with all rectification works is estimated to be around $916,000.
If rectification works are to commence it would be April 2017 before the saleyards could be operational again.
K Alexander moved, L Gardner seconded -
That Council:
reiterates the resolution of the previous Council, to pursue a staged withdrawal of operations at the Geelong Saleyards;
notes the extensive consultation undertaken by Council Officers, which included producers, agents, regional saleyard operators and officers of the Surf Coast Shire, Borough of Queenscliffe, Golden Plains Shire and Colac Otway Shire;
notes that it was unforeseen that the Saleyards would close due to safety concerns before a transition plan was developed for staged withdrawal;
requests Officers to undertake additional consultation for further consideration at the 22 November 2016 Council meeting.
Carried.
A number of reports and audits have been conducted since 1998 into the operations of the Geelong Saleyards. In 2014 an external consultant was engaged to conduct a thorough investigation including extensive consultation. In their report the consultant’s recommended approach in regard to the future of the saleyards is to “facilitate a transition to a regional saleyards facility.
This will require a step by step approach and various actions in order to generate a successful outcome for Council, users and agents”.
A report to Council on 9 June 2015 the following recommendations were adopted;
That Council:
seek opportunities for savings in operation of the saleyards;
actively identify potential uses of existing land and facilities outside normal saleyards operations;
work with neighbouring Councils to identify and develop a suitable regional solution with the view to initiating a future staged withdrawal from saleyards operation.
Actions Undertaken:
Council has replaced the coin operated truck wash system with an electronic key fob system which is administrated by Avdata. This system contributes between $4000 and $7500 in income per month which is up from the previous $1200 per month.
A number of proposals and concepts for additional uses such as markets, of the saleyards property to ensure its use on non sale days have been put forward however there has been little interest from the community.
A new regional facility is being built at Ballarat and another has been proposed for Mortlake.
A structural assessment conducted in July 2016 lead to the subsequent temporary closure of the saleyards for the sale of sheep and cattle.
Economic Issues
The number of stock being sold at the Geelong Saleyards has been declining over the past 10 years. In 2005 18,675 head of cattle were sold compared to 8839 in the 2015/16 financial year. The number of sheep sold in 2012 was 65,383 down to 45,092 in the 2015/16 financial year. Figure 1 shows the throughput figures for the 2015/2016 financial year.
Figure 1
An analysis of the throughput figures indicates that a large proportion of the sales at the Geelong saleyards are in small lots. As is evident in figure 2 below 78% of transactions of the stock sold comes from the immediate area but this only equates to 41% of the total head of stock. Alternatively 21% of the transactions come from the Colac Otway and Wyndham Shire areas but they contribute 58% of the total head of stock sold.
Figure 2
Figure 3 shows the break down of sales from within the City of Greater Geelong and the immediate neighbouring Council areas. 26% of all transactions are coming from the Surf Coast Shire area which equates to 15% of all stock sold. In contrast 14% of total transactions come from the Bellarine Peninsula which equates to 5% of total head sold at our saleyards. By this we see that a significant proportion of stock is bought and sold from outside of the City of Greater Geelong.
Figure 3
Figure 4 demonstrates how the cattle throughput numbers from the 2015/2016 financial year compare to nearby saleyards. As is evident in the graph the numbers at Geelong are significantly lower than other saleyards.
Figure 4
The decline in throughput is not unique to Geelong, with the Victorian average showing a cattle throughput decrease of -11.37% per annum over the past 10 years and a decrease in sheep throughput of -7.36% per annum over the past 4 years. However, the Geelong throughput decline is even greater than the Victorian average for both cattle and sheep. Overall Victorian trends suggest that it is unlikely that the Saleyards would be able to increase throughput or significantly improve financial performance under current conditions. The Saleyards industry is declining overall, as alternative selling methods replace part of the traditional auction market.
The saleyards are performing poorly financially. The saleyards accounts have recorded a loss in each of the past eight financial years with a loss of $245,380 for the 2015/2016 financial year, $206,532 for the 2014/2015 financial year and $194,458 for the 2013/2014 financial year. The long term income trend has been declining, generally in line with a reduction in throughput. Expenditure has remained relatively consistent over time.
Since 2007/08 Council has invested over $1.7 million to subsidise the operation of the Saleyards including capital improvements. In addition to the significant operating losses, significant capital investment has been made over the past 7 years to improve the facilities and buildings at the site. Despite this investment, the facility still requires significant investment to improve the overall standard and safety of facilities for employees and users.
At present a number of sheep ramps have been fenced off as they were deemed unsafe for use. It has been estimated that repairs to the associated retaining wall and the sheep loading ramps will be well over $100,000. The sheep yards also have access issues with users often having to climb over fences due to the lack of access gates.
In the cattle yards significant improvements have been made to the footing by concreting the yards last year. The yards themselves however are 150 years old and are getting to the point where they cannot be repaired, they will need to be replaced. There are issues with deterioration of the rails and the upright poles. There are also concerns about access and egress at the yards with many areas being impossible for someone to climb up and over if needed in an emergency.
It has just been announced that as of January 2017 all sheep will now need to be tagged and scanned like the cattle. This will require a new facility to be built for the scanning of sheep. Our scanning operator believes that the costs to establish new infrastructure could be up to $50,000.
It has been suggested that the current saleyards site could be sold and a new facility be build elsewhere close to Geelong. The cost to build a new facility that would need to meet all the guidelines for the operation of saleyards, including roofing, soft floor, waste management to name just a few would be prohibitive especially given the low throughput numbers over many years at Geelong.
A subsidy program for 2 years has been suggested for consideration to acknowledge the increase in transport costs should the Geelong Saleyards be closed. Stock agents have suggested $1 per sheep and $10 per cow sold from the City of Greater Geelong area could be applied. In the 2015/16 financial year 45,092 sheep and 8,839 cows were sold through the Geelong Saleyards. Based on these figures the cost to offer a subsidy for one year would be $133,482.
Safety Issues
Engineer and construction reports and quotes
Structural Engineer report – July 2016
Elevated Cattle Yard Platforms
“The elevated platforms to the cattle yards were installed approximately 10-15 years ago. They are a steel structure with handrails angled outwards. The platforms typically attach to the top of the timber posts to the pens below. The timber posts are in very poor condition where visible and likely to be worse below the concrete level where no ventilation is present. Another consideration is the likelihood that the columns will be impacted by an animal in one of the pens. If an animal runs into one of the columns, this has the potential to cause a column to break.
There is a high risk that failure of one of the timber posts will cause associated failure of the elevated platforms to the cattle yards.”
It is the engineer’s belief that the risk of failure is not acceptable and the elevated steel platforms to the cattle yards should no longer be in use.
Temporary propping could be used to improve stability or the walkway platforms. This would involve diagonal props from the top of all the cantilever columns to ground. This would need to be done to all of the columns if the platforms are to be used.
Pedestrian Walkway Platforms
“The pedestrian walkway platforms are slightly elevated and are made up of timber planks. The top of the timber planks has been covered with a timber board. This is somewhat visible from underneath the walkway, but the top has been covered with asphalt. It is likely there is also decay to the top of the planks as no ventilation is provided due to the boarding and asphalt surfacing”.
Sheep Pen Elevated Platforms
“The elevated auction platforms for the sheep pens are a steel structure similar to the cattle yards. The northern most platform is in good condition and appears in working order with low risk of failure”.
“The remainder of the platforms are similar to the cattle yards in that they rely on either the decaying timber posts or the un-galvanised steel rail section. Both of these elements are likely to be in very poor condition just below the ground level where the highest amount of corrosion or decay occurs. The risk of failure of the elevated platforms supported by the decaying timber or corroding steel rails is high”.
The engineer’s report recommends that these platforms should not be used for sales.
Options
Full structural repair to the overhead walkways in the cattle pens, the sheep pens and the pedestrian walkways. The estimated cost for full structural repairs is $226,000 (include GST). This will take 3 months to complete.
Repair to one of the overhead walkways in the cattle pens, one walkway in the sheep pens and the pedestrian walkways. The estimated cost for a partial repair is approximately $40,000. This work will take 3 months to complete and will allow partial reopening of the saleyards for a temporary period.
Full permanent closure of the Geelong Saleyards.
It is to be noted that if the costs to do the rectification works at the saleyards exceed $200,000 the City of Greater Geelong Procurement Policy states that a tender process must be undertaken. The will see the process take up to 6 months to complete. Therefore the saleyards would not be operational until March 2017.
If the rectification works are to be completed to ensure the overhead walkways can be used again there will be some other associated works that will also need to be completed for the saleyards to continue to operate for a longer period of time. These include improvement of the staff and public amenities as well as some additional maintenance and structural works. Please refer to Table 1.
Activity |
Estimated Cost |
Structural repairs to overhead walkways to cattle pens, sheep pens and pedestrian walkways |
$226,000.00 |
Restoration works on the sheep ramps that are currently closed |
$100,000.00 |
Amenities such as staff room, toilets, canteen and meeting rooms to be reinstated |
$500,000.00 |
New facilities required to administer the change to scanning sheep to be implemented 1st January 2017 |
$50,000.00 |
Replacement of rails on all external fencing of the yards to reduce the risk of stock being able to get loose on the road. |
$40,000.00 |
Total Estimate Cost |
$916,000.00 |
Council currently has a trade waste agreement with Barwon Water to discharge liquid waste into the sewerage system. This is not the preferred method of livestock effluent management. Significant investment, in the order of $1 Million, would be required to bring this system to a standard supported by Barwon Water.
A stormwater harvesting facility has been recently installed on the Saleyards land. This facility currently supports saleyards operation by providing reused water from upstream catchments. This facility provides water for other Council functions external to the site.
EPA has previously recommended that the Saleyards and residences should not coexist within 500 metres of each other. At present, this distance is 50 metres.
Should the facility be decommissioned, the land would need to be tested for contaminants prior to establishing other uses.
In the 2015/2016 financial year the saleyards site generated a net financial loss of $245,380.
The option to do full rectification works on the overhead walkways in the Cattle and Sheep pens and reinstatement of amenities would cost approximately $916,000
The option to do only rectification works to one of the overhead walkways in the Cattle and one in Sheep pens with no improvements to amenities would cost approximately $40,000. However this does not address all the concerns so would still be considered a temporary solution.
The option to relocate would require securing a new site and replacing infrastructure and plant and would be cost prohibitive.
Council has been paid out by its insurer in relation to the main office building fire. Money from the insurance would be used to retain staff and rebuild community facilities if the Saleyard are to be retained.
A subsidy program for 2 years has been suggested for consideration to acknowledge the increase in transport costs should the Geelong Saleyards be closed. Based on the throughput figures from 2015/16 the cost to offer a subsidy for one year would be $133,482. It is to be noted that this figure does include people live outside the City of Greater Geelong.
If we were to work on the percentages of the sales as per Figure 3 earlier in this report, 34% of the total sales at Geelong come from within the City of Greater Geelong. If this is the case 34% of the $133,482 estimated as the required amount to pay a subsidy would be $45,384.
It has just been announced that as of January 2017 all sheep will now need to be tagged and scanned like the cattle. This will require a new facility to be built for the scanning of sheep. Our scanning operator believes that the costs to establish new infrastructure could be up to $50,000
It is to be noted that if works are completed which allows the resumption of sales of livestock at the Geelong Saleyards there will be additional associated costs that will need to be met as per Table 1 on page 8.
Council currently has lease agreements in place that would need to be addressed should the site significantly change from its current situation.
The site provides some land to Target to allow parking for some of their staff under a lease arrangement. It is to be noted that Target is likely to vacate their site within the next few years.
Additionally, a lease exists with a private agricultural business and preliminary discussions with the business owner indicate a preference by the business to extend and even expand the lease arrangements.
The southern portion of the saleyards site is Crown Land zoned Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ).
This report aligns to City Plan through the strategic direction of ‘How We Do Business’.
The Feasibility Study into the Geelong Saleyards and all subsequent studies reviewed how the service meets the requirements of a growing population through responsible and sustainable financial management as well as ensuring safety to City of Greater Geelong staff and members of the public.
No council officer involved in this report has a direct or indirect conflict of interest.
A decision was made before the 8th of August sale to temporarily close the Geelong Saleyards to sheep and cattle sales due to safety concerns as outlined earlier. Without rectification works to the overhead walkways in the sheep and cattle pens there is no option to safely sell livestock at the Geelong Saleyards.
The saleyards act partly as a social club for members of the rural communities, providing a valued meeting place and opportunity to socialise.
With reduced numbers of stock coming through the sales and many farmers not attending to view the sale of their stock there has been an obvious decrease in numbers attending the fortnightly sales. This together with the loss of the market office building has seen the social nature of the site has recently decline.
There are no human rights charter issues resulting from the recommendation in this report.
As part of our consultation process to determine the feasibility of the saleyards we have spoken to all the users and stakeholders.
The agents indicated that they understood that the life of the Geelong Saleyards was coming to an end. Both agents advised that they currently sell stock at other yards including Colac and Ballarat. They also suggested that the sellers would adapt to the change albeit reluctantly by some.
The Buyers already buy from the other yards and they reported that it can be difficult to get to the Geelong Saleyards due to timing with other bigger sales. They felt that as the sale price is not always competitive due to fewer buyers that sellers were selling at the other yards to secure the higher sale prices.
The local transporters have indicated that there could be an impact on their businesses if the saleyard were to shut but conceded that they would now be doing more trips to the other yards.
The representative from the Livestock Saleyards Association of Victoria has supported the suggestions that the Geelong Saleyards move to cease operating as an auction venue and possibly considering being a transfer hub for local farmers.
The onsite staff at the saleyards have expressed their concerns over their ability to continue to maintain the site due to its age and level of deterioration.
Scanclear are our onsite stock movement contractors. They initially indicated they might be interested in taking over the use of the saleyards as an ongoing auction venue however during our discussions they conceded that this was unlikely to be a viable option due to the condition of the infrastructure and the risk that that poses. They operate at many sites within Victoria and NSW and reported that all similar types of saleyards have long ceased operation and that there was a move to bigger more centralised selling facilities as that attracts more buyers therefore more sellers.
A heritage overlay requires any development of the site to consider heritage significance of the saleyards. Council’s Heritage Officer has indicated there would be no problem with the site being sold as the planning approval would require a plan to retain any key heritage components of the site.
Representatives of the VFF and the 2 local Stock agents met recently to discuss the temporary closure of the Geelong Site and to determine if there were any other alternative methods of selling whilst the overhead walkways were out of action. No alternative methods that met OH&S guidelines were put forwards at this time.
Survey
Recently 1500 surveys were sent out to local producers with the cooperation of HF Richardson and Charles Stewart stock agents.
A total of 463 surveys were returned which is a 30% return rate. 86% of responders reported that they currently sell stock at the Geelong Saleyards with 42.5% advising that over the past 2 years they had sold 1-3 times per year. 58.7% of those selling at the Geelong Saleyards are selling sheep and 69.3% selling cattle.
When asked if they sold stock at other saleyards 42.7% responded yes and 57.3 responded No. Of those who indicated they sell at other saleyards 68% were selling at Ballarat and 55.7% at Colac. 47.9% of responders reported that they transport their own stock with 52.1% using a transporter. When asked about their future usage of the saleyards 79.1% indicated their usage would remain the same and only 14.4% thought their usage would increase.
(previously agenda item 1)
Source: |
Planning and Development – Strategic Implementation |
General Manager: |
Peter Bettess |
Index Reference: |
Application: Amendment C328 (Part 1) |
This report considers submissions on Amendment C328 (Part 1) and on Planning Permit 959/2015, relating to the subdivision of Barwon Water land at 600 and 602 Anakie Road, Lovely Banks. This report recommends adoption of this part of the Amendment and support for the granting of the Planning Permit.
Amendment C328 seeks to rezone four sites in Staughton Vale, Anakie, Lovely Banks and St Leonards to facilitate their disposal by Barwon Water.
The Amendment is combined with draft Planning Permits for subdivision pursuant to Section 96A of the Act. These relate to 600 and 602 Anakie Road, Lovely Banks and 38-42 Mainsail Drive, St Leonards.
Amendment C328 was placed on public exhibition between 10 March and 11 April 2016. A total of eight submissions were received. The five objecting submissions all related to 38-42 Mainsail Drive, St Leonards.
Barwon Water requested Amendment C328 be split into two parts, with the site at 38-42 Mainsail Drive processed separately. This was supported. Amendment C328 (Part 1) comprises:
45 Staughton Vale Road, Staughton Vale;
2395 Ballan Road, Anakie; and
600 Anakie Road, Lovely Banks.
On 29 June 2016 Council, under delegated authority, referred submissions on 38-42 Mainsail Drive, now known as Amendment C328 (Part 2), to a Panel. The Panel Hearing is to take place on 11 August 2016.
The proposed rezonings in Part 1 of the Amendment are to the underlying zoning of the land in each case (Farming Zone in Staughton Vale and Anakie; Rural Living Zone in Lovely Banks).
No objections were received regarding the sites in Amendment C328 (Part 1).
A submission on 45 Staughton Vale Road advised that ongoing use of an approximately 1000 m2 portion of that lot is required for car parking and a gas tank for the adjoining Anakie Hall. At the time of writing, measures to secure the ongoing use of the land are under investigation. Rezoning 45 Staughton Vale Road from Public Use Zone to Farming Zone will not preclude a boundary rationalisation with the Anakie Hall site, should this be required, as this site is also within the Farming Zone.
It is recommended that Part 1 of the Amendment be adopted as exhibited and that Council recommends to the Minister for Planning that Planning Permit 959/2015 be granted.
P Dorling moved, L Gardner seconded -
That Council:
Adopts Amendment C328 (Part 1) in the form outlined in Appendix 4 of this report;
Recommends to the Minister for Planning that Planning Permit 959/2015 be granted pursuant to Section 96G of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Planning Permit is in Appendix 6 of this report);
Submits the adopted Amendment with the prescribed information to the Minister for Planning requesting approval; and
Notes that a separate report will be prepared and submitted to Council to consider the Panel Report on Amendment C328 (Part 2) for 38-42 Mainsail Drive St Leonards, when the Panel Report is received.
Carried.
In July 2015 Council received a Planning Scheme Amendment request from SMEC Urban and St Quentin Consulting Pty Ltd, acting on behalf of Barwon Water, to rezone four sites to facilitate their disposal. This is part of a wider property realisation program Barwon Water is carrying out for its surplus land.
Amendment C328 was prepared and rezones:
45 Staughton Vale Road, Staughton Vale – from Public Use Zone 1 (Service & Utility) to Farming Zone;
2395 Ballan Road, Anakie – from Public Use Zone 1 (Service & Utility) to Farming Zone;
a portion of 600 Anakie Road, Lovely Banks – from Public Use Zone 1 (Service & Utility) to Rural Living Zone.
The Amendment also:
applies Schedule 5 to the Significant Landscape Overlay to 45 Staughton Vale Road, Staughton Vale; and
deletes Heritage Overlay 1721 from a portion of 600 Anakie Road, Lovely Banks.
Pursuant to Section 96A of the Act, a draft Planning Permit (959/2015) for subdivision of 600 and 602 Anakie Road, Lovely Banks was exhibited concurrently with the Amendment. The draft Permit is to re-subdivide existing lots to create one rural living lot, already used for rural residential purposes, and a Barwon Water reserve.
In addition, the Amendment proposed zone and overlay changes to 38-42 Mainsail Drive, St Leonards and an adjacent Reserve. Planning Permit 762/205, proposing subdivision of 38-42 Mainsail Drive, was also exhibited concurrently with the Amendment.
On 11 January 2016, Council’s delegate resolved to support the preparation and exhibition of Amendment C328 and the associated planning permits.
Amendment C328 was placed on public exhibition between 10 March and 11 April 2016. Notices were placed in local newspapers and the Government Gazette and letters sent to adjoining landowners, government authorities and service authorities.
Eight submissions were received during exhibition. Of these, five objected to the Amendment, while three only made comment. The five objecting submissions all related to the proposed rezoning and subdivision of 38-42 Mainsail Drive, St Leonards.
Barwon Water requested that Amendment C328 be split into two parts, with the site at 38-42 Mainsail Drive to be processed separately. This was supported. Amendment C328 (Part 1) comprises the Staughton Vale, Anakie and Lovely Banks sites, while Part 2 comprises 38-42 Mainsail Drive, St Leonards.
On 29 June 2016 Council, under delegated authority, referred submissions on 38-42 Mainsail Drive, to be known as Amendment C328 (Part 2) to a Panel. The Panel Hearing is to take place on 11 August 2016. Once the Panel Report is received, a report will be prepared and submitted to Council to consider this report.
Subject land
45 Staughton Vale Road is an 8.678 ha lot, created by a recent consolidation of Barwon Water lots that also created a 4620 m2 Reserve for Barwon Water purposes. The lot is around 3 km north of the Anakie townsite (location plan is at Appendix 1). It contains two decommissioned water reservoirs and a dwelling previously used as a caretaker’s dwelling. The majority of the lot is cleared.
2395 Ballan Road is a 5.14 ha property around 2 km north of the Anakie townsite (location plan is at Appendix 2). The lot contains a building constructed but never used for water treatment purposes. The majority of the lot is leased and farmed in conjunction with adjacent land. Environmental Significance Overlay ESO 4 (Grasslands within the Werribee Plains Hinterland) applies to the land and is unchanged by the Amendment.
600 and 602 Anakie Road, Lovely Banks is a 13.543 property, comprising three lots on two Titles (location plan is at Appendix 3). The site contains three water reservoirs and a settling pond, various ancillary buildings and a former caretaker’s dwelling. The dwelling and its driveway are divided from the balance of the site by a security fence and separately rented for residential use. Environmental Significance Overlay ESO 4 (Grasslands within the Werribee Plains Hinterland) applies to a portion of the site and is unchanged by the Amendment.
The Amendment proposes to zone a 1.133 ha portion of the site, including the former caretaker’s dwelling, Rural Living Zone. Planning Permit 959/2015 proposes to create it as a separate lot.
Proposals
The land being rezoned in each of the three sites is surplus to Barwon Water requirements. The proposed rezonings are to the logical underlying zoning of the land in each case – Farming Zone in Staughton Vale and Anakie; and Rural Living Zone in Lovely Banks.
Private land adjacent to 45 Staughton Vale Road is subject of Significant Landscape Overlay SLO 5 (Edges of the Brisbane Ranges and Anakie). 45 Staughton Vale Road has similar landscape characteristics and, for consistency, this Amendment applies SLO 5 to the site.
Before exhibition, vehicular access to 2395 Ballan Road was identified as inadequate as there was no deceleration lane and insufficient space for a rigid truck to prop between Ballan Road and the gate in the security fence. Barwon Water has now adequately addressed this by indenting the entry gate to the site.
Heritage Overlay 1721 (Barwon Water Lovely Banks Basin) applies to all of 600 Anakie Road. This Amendment deletes the Overlay from the 1.133 ha portion of the site being rezoned to Rural Living Zone and created as a separate lot by the Planning Permit. The City’s Heritage Advisor supported this proposal.
The proposed 1.133 ha lot, while irregular in shape, excludes all areas required for Barwon Water operations and all fabric of heritage significance. The plan of subdivision for the Planning Permit is at Appendix 5. The exhibited Planning Permit is at
Appendix 6.
Submissions
A summary of the submissions that related to any of the three sites in Part 1 of the Amendment is at Appendix 7.
A submission from the Anakie & District Community Group Inc notes that an approximately 1000 m2 portion of 45 Staughton Vale Road, directly adjacent to the Anakie Hall, has been used by the hall management committee for car parking for hall users since a lease agreement between the Shire of Corio and Barwon Water’s predecessor. A gas tank is also located on this land. The submission notes that the portion of the land is vital to provide safe parking for the use of the Anakie Hall.
Discussion with the submitter confirmed that the submission constitutes comment only and not an objection to the Amendment.
It is clear from investigation that ongoing use of the portion of 45 Staughton Vale Road for car parking and a gas tank is required to enable ongoing practical use of the Anakie Hall.
A lease agreement existed between the former Shire of Corio and the then Geelong Waterworks and Sewerage Trust, but has now been terminated. The City’s Property & Procurement Department has been in discussion with Barwon Water regarding the potential long term lease or purchase of the portion of land. At the time of writing, investigation of this matter is ongoing.
Should the City decide to purchase the subject portion of 45 Staughton Vale Road, a boundary rationalisation with the adjoining Anakie Hall site will be required. The rezoning of 45 Staughton Vale Road from Public Use Zone to Farming Zone will not preclude such boundary rationalisation as the Anakie Hall site (55 Staughton Vale Road) is also within the Farming Zone.
Conclusion
As no objections have been raised with respect to the three sites in Part 1 of the Amendment, these components of the Amendment should be adopted as exhibited and Planning Permit 959/2015 granted.
No adverse environmental consequences have been identified with respect to these proposals.
It is not anticipated that these proposals will result in any financial implications for Council.
The Amendment is consistent with State Planning Policy in:
Clause 11.07-5 (Geelong (G21) Regional Growth – Agricultural productivity), by zoning new land Farming Zone and making it available for sale.
Clause 15.03-1 (Heritage conservation), by refining the extent of heritage controls over the Barwon Water Lovely Banks Basin.
Clause 16.02-1 (Rural residential development), by appropriately zoning existing rural residential use within the Lovely Banks rural residential area.
The amendment is consistent with the Local Planning Policy Framework in:
Clause 21.06-4 (Neighbourhood character), by appropriately zoning existing rural residential use in Lovely Banks to protect and maintain the character of this Rural Living area.
Clause 21.07-5 (Rural areas), by zoning new land Farming Zone to provide for agricultural use.
Clause 22.09 (Cultural Heritage), by refining the extent of heritage controls over the Barwon Water Lovely Banks Basin.
The Amendment is consistent with City Plan’s Growing our Economy priority as it provides additional Farming zoned and facilitates it being made available for purchase.
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 Amendment will have minimal social impacts. The Amendment will not preclude the boundary realignment and purchase of a small portion of 45 Staughton Vale Road, should this be necessary for ongoing practical use of the Anakie Hall by the community.
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. Submitters had that opportunity in this case.
The Amendment has been exhibited in accordance with the provisions of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to provide for full public comment.
The planning authority for this amendment is Greater Geelong Planning Scheme
The Greater Geelong Planning Scheme is amended as follows:
The Planning Scheme Maps are amended by a total of 4 attached maps.
Amend Planning Scheme Map Nos. 5 and 25 in the manner shown on the 2 attached maps marked “Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, Amendment C328”.
Amend Planning Scheme Map Nos. 5slo and 25ho in the manner shown on the 2 attached maps marked “Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, Amendment C328”.
The Planning Scheme Ordinance is amended as follows:
.In Overlays – Clause 43.01, replace the Schedule with a new Schedule in the form of the attached document.
End of document
No |
Name |
Address |
Type |
Summary of Submission |
Officer Response |
1 |
Anakie & District Community Group Inc. |
Ballan Road, Anakie |
Comment |
Land on 45 Staughton Vale Road, Staughton Vale, attached to Anakie Hall, has been used by the hall management committee since agreement of a lease agreement with the Shire of Corio and Geelong Water Works and Sewerage Trust to provide car parking for hall users [attached plan shows an 87.8 m x 11.3 m area of 45 Staughton Vale Road, abutting 55 Staughton Vale Road, site of Anakie Hall]. In 1983 the Shire of Corio placed a large gas tank on this area. Later, the City of Greater Geelong placed a bitumen surface to the car park. The building and land is leased from the City of Greater Geelong by a committee of management of Anakie Hall, under management of Anakie & District Community Group Inc. The car park area under question is vital for users of Anakie Hall as without it there is limited car parking availability on-site. Roadside parking is too dangerous due to narrow verges.
|
Discussion with the submitter has confirmed that this submission constitutes comment only and not an objection to the Amendment. A lease agreement existed between the former Shire of Corio and the then Geelong Waterworks and Sewerage Trust regarding the use of a portion of 45 Staughton Vale Road; this lease has now been terminated. It is clear that the ongoing use of that land for car parking and a gas tank is required to enable ongoing practical use of the Anakie Hall. The City’s Property & Procurement Department has been in discussion with Barwon Water regarding the potential long term lease or purchase of the portion of land. At the time of writing, investigation of this matter is ongoing. Should the City decide to purchase the subject portion of 45 Staughton Vale Road, a boundary rationalisation with the adjoining Anakie Hall site will be required. The rezoning of 45 Staughton Vale Road from Public Use Zone to Farming Zone will not preclude such boundary rationalisation as the Anakie Hall site (55 Staughton Vale Road) is also within the Farming Zone. |
2 |
AusNet Services |
Southbank Boulevard, Southbank |
Comment |
None of the Amendment sites are in the vicinity of high voltage electricity assets. No submission is required from AusNet Transmission Group. |
Noted. |
3 |
|
Barwon Water |
PO Box 659, Geelong |
Support Barwon Water responded to this Amendment and Planning Permit application in September 2015. Barwon Water’s comments are unchanged. Support this Amendment proceeding. |
All permit conditions requested by Barwon Water in its correspondence of 17 September 2015 have been incorporated in the exhibited draft Planning Permits 762/2015 and 959/2015. Noted. |
(previously agenda item 2)
Source: |
Planning & Development - Strategic Implementation |
General Manager: |
Peter Bettess |
Index Reference: |
Application: Amendment C345 |
The purpose of this report is for Council to consider Amendment C345 for adoption and referral to the Minister for Planning for approval.
Amendment C345 was prepared as a result of the Environment Protection Authority Victoria (EPA) recommending Council amend the Planning Scheme to apply an Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) to 530 Bacchus Marsh Road Lara.
The subject land, which has an area of 2.82 ha, is occupied by a detached house and various outbuildings. The EPA’s concern arises from its prior use as a truck repair business which resulted in contaminated soil from discarded industrial waste.
The EPA believes that whilst the owner has made some attempts to clean up the polluted soil, there would be legacy pollution on the premises. It is concerned that any future sensitive use could be affected by this contamination and application of an EAO will ensure such issues are addressed in the future.
Amendment C345 was exhibited between 16 June 2016 and 18 July 2016. The only submission received was from the EPA which supports the Amendment.
Application of the EAO will result in no immediate imposition on the existing owners and will trigger the need for a planning permit for future sensitive uses as set out in this report. Most importantly, it will alert any future owners to the existing contamination.
It is recommended the amendment now be adopted and sent to the Minister for approval.
P Dorling moved, L Gardner seconded –
That Council:
adopts Amendment C345 (Appendix 4 of this report); and
submits the adopted Amendment and the prescribed information to the Minister for Planning requesting approval.
Carried.
Amendment C345 resulted from the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) recommending to Council it amend the Planning Scheme to apply an Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) to 530 Bacchus Marsh Road, Lara. A copy of the EPA’s letter is Appendix 1. The EPA advises it has issued an Official Warning to the owners of the property for their failure to clean up contamination resulting from its previous use as a truck repair business.
It believes that, whilst some attempts have been made to clean up the pollution, the likelihood is that legacy pollution of the soil and potentially the groundwater would remain.
The subject land has an area of 2.82 ha and is currently occupied by a detached house and various outbuildings as shown in the aerial photograph at Appendix 2. Visual evidence of the previous use also exists.
The land falls within a Rural Living zone as shown in Appendix 3.
The EPA’s concern is that the contamination issues need to be adequately addressed in the event the site is developed for a sensitive use in the future.
In the Rural Living zone, there are a number of discretionary sensitive uses for which a permit could be sought in the future e.g dwellings, education centre, childcare, hospital.
Application of an Environmental Audit Overlay to the land in the Planning Scheme would mean that before any new sensitive use could commence or any buildings or works in association with a sensitive use commences either:
A certificate of environmental audit must be issued for the land in accordance with Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970, or
An environmental auditor appointed under the Environment Protection Act 1970 must make a statement in accordance with Part IXD of that Act that the environmental conditions of the land are suitable for the sensitive use.
Amendment C345 was exhibited between 16 June 2016 and 18 July 2016. The owner of the subject land and the EPA received direct notification of the Amendment. The Council sought and received exemption from the Minister for Planning from other notification requirements (other than specified Ministers and the Gazette Notice) pursuant to Section 20 (2) of the Act because no other owners or authorities are affected by the Amendment.
The only submission received as a result of the exhibition of the Amendment was from the EPA which supports the Amendment. As no objecting submissions were received the Amendment can now proceed for adoption.
This Amendment is supported as the most prudent course of action to alert any future owners about the potential contamination issue. It would be most unfortunate if the subject land was offered for sale and a new owner decided to construct a dwelling on the land without even being aware of the potential contamination issue.
The general area is expected to see very considerable urban growth both in the short term (Lara West) and potentially in the longer term if the development at Lovely Banks proceeds.
Application of the EAO will result in no immediate imposition on the existing owners and will only trigger the need for a planning permit for any proposed sensitive use as described in the previous section of this report. Appendix 4 is a copy of the Amendment recommended for adoption.
The Amendment will produce a positive environmental outcome in that any residual contamination from the previous industrial use will need to be adequately addressed and if necessary remedial action taken prior to the land being used for a sensitive use.
The proposal has no financial implication for Council other than the costs associated with the processing of this Amendment.
The Amendment is consistent with Clause 13.03-1 Use of contaminated and potentially contaminated land and Clause 21.02 CoGG Sustainable Growth Framework which refers to restoring Geelong’s natural systems and the need to “dispose of waste responsibly”. It is also consistent with the purpose of the Environmental Audit Overlay at Clause 45.03 of the Planning Scheme.
The Amendment supports the overall thrust of the Sustainable Built and Natural Environment strategic direction of City Plan.
No Council Officers have a direct or indirect interest, in accordance with the Section 80 (c) of the Local Government Act, to which this Amendment relates.
There are no risks to Council associated with this Amendment. Failure to act on the EPA recommendation could expose Council and a future owner to legal and cost implications if the land is developed for a sensitive use without contamination issues being addressed.
The Amendment has no social implications.
The Amendment will not impact on basic human rights, freedoms and responsibilities as set out in the Charter.
The owners of the land affected by the Amendment have been made aware of the EPA recommendations. A copy of Council’s Delegated Authority Report and Amendment notification including a copy of all Amendment documents were sent to them.
The owners have not made a submission about the Amendment.
The planning authority for this amendment is Greater Geelong City Council.
The Greater Geelong Planning Scheme is amended as follows:
The Planning Scheme Maps are amended by a total of one attached map sheet.
Amend Planning Scheme Map No 18 EAO in the manner shown on the one attached map marked Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, Amendment C345.
Insert Planning Scheme Map No 17 EAO in the manner shown on the one attached map marked Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, Amendment C345.
The Planning Scheme Ordinance is amended as follows:
In General Provisions – Clause 61.03, replace the schedule with a new Schedule in the form of the attached document.
End of document
SCHEDULE TO CLAUSE 61.03 |
|
| 17/03/2016 | Maps comprising part of this scheme:
|
Source: |
Planning & Development - Strategic Implementation |
General Manager: |
Peter Bettess |
Index Reference: |
Application C348 |
The purpose of this report is for Council to consider Amendment C348 for adoption and referral to the Minister for Planning for approval.
Amendment C348 resulted from an application made by Planning & Property Partners on behalf of Links Investco No 1 P/L to rezone part of the land situated at 1 – 5 Ballarat Road, North Geelong from Special Use Zone Schedule 3 (SUZ3) to General Residential Zone 1 (GRZ1)
The Amendment also proposes to apply Environment Audit Overlay (EAO) and remove Development Plan Overlay – Schedule 9 (DPO9) and Land Subject to Inundation Overlay from the subject land.
The subject land (Lot S31 on P.S. 647500V) which was created as part of the redevelopment of the former Geelong Golf Course has a total area of 6277 sq m. and falls within 2 zones (GRZ1 and SUZ3).
It is intended to develop the subject land for residential aged care. However, any residential use of the land will need to obtain access to Ballarat Road over the SUZ3 portion of the land which would be prohibited by the Planning Scheme, hence requiring an Amendment to realign the zone and title boundaries. The Overlay Amendments are simply consequential to the zone change.
Any future development of the subject land will require a subsequent planning permit application.
Amendment C348 was exhibited between 16 June 2016 and 18 July 2016. Two submissions were received which offered no objection to the Amendment.
Adoption of the Amendment is supported as it will facilitate the long-intended development of the subject land in accordance with residential zoning provisions.
P Dorling moved, L Gardner seconded –
That Council:
adopts Amendment C348 (Appendix 5 of this report); and
submits the adopted Amendment and the prescribed information to the Minister for Planning requesting approval.
Carried.
Amendment C348 resulted from an application made by Planning and Property Partners on behalf of Links Investco No 1 P/L to rezone part of land situated at 1 – 5 Ballarat Road North Geelong from SUZ3 to GRZ1. It also sought to both apply an EAO and remove DPO9 from the land being rezoned.
The subject land is lot S31 on Plan of Subdivision 647500V as shown on the title at Appendix 1 with an area of 6277 sq metres.
The subject land falls within 2 zones, GRZ1 and SUZ3 which were applied in Amendment C110 gazetted on 1 March 2007 as part of the redevelopment of the former Geelong Golf Course. This Amendment provided for residential subdivision and a redeveloped 9 hole golf course which is now substantially completed. The existing zoning plan is at Appendix 2.
The subject land is affected by 4 overlays as follows:
DPO9 which was applied as part of Amendment C110 to the SUZ3 portion of the subject land.
EAO which was applied as part of Amendment C110 to that part of the site currently zoned GRZ1.
LSIO which was applied as part of Amendment C110 to that part of the site currently zoned GRZ1.
SBO which was subsequently applied to the eastern portion of the site (and the wider drainage catchment) as part of Amendment C127 part 2 gazetted on 24 November 2011.
Appendix 3 shows existing Overlays.
The subject land is currently vacant although is substantially sealed and used for car parking in association with the 9 hole golf course. Its eastern boundary adjoins a table tennis centre owned by the Geelong Table Tennis Association and a detached house at 7 Par Court. Land to the north, identified as a 5ha lot A on P.S.647500V (see Appendix 1) is vacant and is subject to a planning permit 362/2011 for lawn bowling club facilities etc.
A fresh permit application 276/2016 by the lawn bowling club has recently been submitted to Council and is currently under consideration. The new application proposes substantial modifications to the previously issued permit.
Appendix 4 is an aerial photo of the subject land and the surrounding area.
It is intended to develop the subject land for a multi-storey aged care facility which will be the subject of a future planning permit application. However the applicant’s consultant has been advised by the Statutory Planning Dept that any such use of the land which will need to obtain access to Ballarat Road from the existing access point falling within the SUZ9 portion of the site would be prohibited by the planning scheme. This part of the site could also provide access to a basement car park and also have some ground level parking in association with the aged car facility.
VicRoads has advised that it would not support any change to the location of the existing access point to Ballarat Road, removing the option of relocating the access into the GRZ1 portion of the site.
The rezoning as proposed by this Amendment will align the zone and title boundaries of the subject land and enable development to proceed in accordance with the GRZ1 provisions, which would otherwise be prohibited for the reasons set out above.
The Overlay changes being proposed are consequential to the zone change as follows:
the EAO which applies to the existing GRZ1 portion of the land needs to be extended to the balance of the land to be zoned GRZ1.
the DPO9 which applies to the SUZ3 portion of the land needs to be removed. This Overlay does not and was never intended to apply to the GRZ1 portion of the subject land.
the LSIO which was originally applied to the GRZ1 portion of the land to address the issue of potential overland flooding is now redundant with the subsequent application of the SBO over the subject land. Removal of the LSIO is supported by Council’s Engineering Services Department.
The existing access to Ballarat Road on the subject land, which will be shared with the adjoining lawn bowling club and golf clubhouse, is already protected by way of a carriageway easement (E46) shown on the title in Appendix 1.
The Council sought and received exemption from the Minister for Planning pursuant to Section 20 (2) of the Act for newspaper notification because of the minor nature of this Amendment.
Direct notification was given to owners of adjoining properties (i.e. table tennis centre, owner of 7 Par Court, the lawn bowling club), VicRoads & CCMA.
Amendment C348 was exhibited between 16 June 2016 and 18 July 2016. Two submissions where received as follows:
VicRoads |
No Objection |
CCMA |
No objection to the Amendment. Notes that the subject land is affected by the 1% floodplain. Any future development proposal of the site will require referral to CCMA to ensure stormwater issues are adequately resolved. |
As no submissions have been received which raise any issues of objection to this Amendment it can proceed for adoption.
This Amendment is supported because it will facilitate the long intended development of the subject land in accordance with the residential zone provisions.
This Amendment will have no environmental implications.
The proposal has no financial implications for Council.
This Amendment was prepared essentially because development of the existing GRZ1 portion of the subject land would be prohibited using the only permissible access to Ballarat Road which falls within the SUZ. The Amendment is consistent with the broad theme of State and Council planning policies which encourage urban consolidation and housing diversity in established urban areas
The Amendment supports the overall thrust of Growing our Economy and Sustainable Built and Natural Environment Strategic directions in that it facilitates the development of land already substantially zoned for residential uses.
No Council Officers have a direct or indirect interest, in accordance with Section 80(c) of the Local Government Act, to which this Amendment relates.
There are no risks to Council in aligning zone and title boundaries as being proposed by this Amendment.
The facilitation of an aged care facility on the subject land (which will require a separate planning permit) provides for a positive social outcome.
The Amendment will not impact on any basic human rights, freedoms and responsibilities as set out in the charter.
All affected properties were directly notified at the time of exhibition of this Amendment.
The planning authority for this amendment is the Greater Geelong City Council.
The Greater Geelong Planning Scheme is amended as follows:
The Planning Scheme Maps are amended by a total of 4 attached maps sheets:
Amend Planning Scheme Map No. 37 in the manner shown on the 1 attached map marked Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, Amendment C348.
Amend Planning Scheme Map No. 37DPO in the manner shown on the 1 attached map marked Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, Amendment C348.
Amend Planning Scheme Map No 37LSIO in the manner shown on the 1 attached map marked Greater Geelong Planning Scheme Amendment C348.
Amend Planning Scheme Map No. 37EAO in the manner shown on the 1 attached map marked Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, Amendment C348.
End of document
(previously agenda item 4)
Source: |
Planning & Development - Strategic Implementation |
General Manager: |
Peter Bettess |
Index Reference: |
Application: Amendment C321 |
The purpose of this report is two fold:
consider the Amendment C321 and Planning Permit 1234/2014 Independent Panel Report and a recommendation that the Amendment be abandoned; and
make consequential changes to the 2016 Portarlington Structure Plan.
Amendment C321 proposes to rezone 30-42 Geelong Road, Portarlington, from the Commercial 2 Zone to the Mixed Use Zone. The proponent is the owner of 30 and 32 Geelong Road.
The Amendment also applies the Environmental Audit Overlay to all the land being rezoned.
The Amendment is concurrent with a planning permit to allow the development and use of the land for a four storey accommodation and retail complex.
The Amendment was exhibited for a 7 week period closing on 8 February 2016.
Council received 35 submissions, 27 of which objected – plus a signed petition with 231 signatures. There were 8 positive submissions including submissions from the Portarlington Business Development Association and the Director of Jack Rabbit Winery.
Council resolved under delegation on 22 April 2016 to refer the submissions to an Independent Planning Panel appointed by the Minister for Planning. The hearing was held in June 2016.
The Panel has recommended that the Amendment should be abandoned.
While the Panel accepted much of the ‘high level’ strategic support and economic benefits of the proposal, it concluded that the Mixed Use Zone at this location is not supported by the Local Planning Policy Framework nor is high density housing.
The Panel considered that any future development of the Amendment land should include built form guidance, particularly to control height.
The Panel agreed that the strategic direction of the Amendment land has changed and is likely to undergo regeneration in the future. The Panel found that introducing residential uses would be consistent with the surrounding underlying land use and potentially contaminated land issues can be managed.
Because the Panel does not support the rezoning, the draft Permit seeking to allow ‘accommodation’ is prohibited in the Commercial 2 Zone. The Panel noted that if it had the ability to consider the planning permit, it would not have been supported due to built form, height and scale issues, as well as insufficient car parking.
The Panel further recommended that Council revisit the 2016 Portarlington Structure Plan to provide a more holistic review of the Amendment land and what planning controls should apply.
The Panel recommendation is supported. The Panel has exposed flaws which are unable to be resolved within the confines of this Amendment.
At the hearing Council officers emphasised the substantial net community benefits of the proposal, such as its ability to meet the need for quality self-contained tourist accommodation on the Northern Bellarine. However, it is accepted that further assessment is required to support a rezoning and permit request.
Officers recommend changes to the Adopted May 2016 Portarlington Structure Plan to remove reference to rezoning the Amendment land to the Mixed Use Zone but retain designation of the precinct as a ‘development opportunity’.
L Gardner moved, P Dorling seconded -
That Council resolves to:
abandon Amendment C321 as outlined in this report;
abandon Planning Permit Application 1234/2014 as the ‘Accommodation’ use is prohibited in the Commercial 2 Zone; and
readopt the 2016 Portarlington Structure Plan dated ‘September 2016’ as outlined in this report.
Carried.
On 25 September 2014 a request from St Quentin Consulting for a concurrent Planning Scheme Amendment and Permit Application under Section 96A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 was received by Council. The request was made on behalf of the proponent, Grabble Pty Ltd, owner of the land at 30 and 32 Geelong Road, Portarlington.
The applicant was subsequently revised to Batman Management Group Pty Ltd and the owner has further acquired 34 Geelong Road, Portarlington.
It is proposed to rezone the land at 30, 32, 34, 36-38, 40 and 42 Geelong Road, Portarlington, from the Commercial 2 Zone to the Mixed Use Zone, apply the Environmental Audit Overlay to all the land being rezoned, and amend the map at Clause 21.14-5 of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.
The draft Permit applies to 30 and 32 Geelong Road for development of a four storey, 55 dwelling apartment building with 569m² of commercial floor space and 57 basement car spaces. It is intended that the apartments will be made available for either short-term accommodation (through a serviced model) or for longer term occupancy by owners. The development would also include public access from Geelong Road to the Portarlington Recreation Reserve.
An aerial map of the Amendment land is shown at Appendix 1 and a current zoning map is shown at Appendix 2. The aerial map shows the location of the proposed development (Permit 1234/2014) within the established commercial precinct.
The proposed (abandoned) rezoning map and development plan are shown at Appendix 3 and 4, respectively.
As a result of a 7 week exhibition period closing on 8 February 2016, 35 submissions were received; 27 objecting. Key issues arising from the submissions included: tourism benefits; opposition to the rezoning; character, height and amenity negative impacts; traffic concerns, impacts on views; and the devaluation of properties.
Under delegation Council then resolved on 22 April 2016 to refer the submissions to an Independent Planning Panel appointed by the Minister for Planning. The Panel Hearing was held on 15, 16 and 17 June 2016.
A two person Panel conducted the hearing. Hearing party attendees were Greater Geelong Council officers, Spiire representing the proponent, Kings Lawyers representing the neighbouring landowner at 28 Geelong Road (and calling planning evidence), two local residents, the PBDA and Committee for Bellarine.
The Panel provided its report to Council on 20 July 2016. A copy of the Panel Report’s Executive Summary is in Appendix 5.
Amendment C321
The Panel accepted much of the ‘high level’ strategic support and other benefits of the proposal, such as:
The land has re-development potential.
The ability to meet the need for high quality tourist accommodation.
Creating jobs during and after construction.
Providing for ongoing support for other existing businesses.
The role of the Amendment land has changed from 2007 where it was to provide for uses within the seafood industry.
Providing public access to the recreation reserve to the rear of the Amendment land.
The Amendment land is set within a broader residential context and has the capacity to accommodate residential uses.
However, the Panel ultimately recommended that the Amendment be abandoned for the following reasons:
Local planning policy for Portarlington strongly favours development that respects the character and role of Portarlington where the low scale coastal character is to be maintained. Higher density mixed use development is encouraged in the town centre and high density apartment style housing development in and around the town centre.
The Amendment land is not located within the Portarlington Increased Housing Diversity Area where high density residential housing is expected and is an isolated precinct within a traditional residential context.
The Mixed Use Zone would facilitate uses that cumulatively could compete with the role of the town centre. This includes commercial uses and higher density residential development.
The Mixed Use Zone, under Council local policy is to provide for medium density, not high density housing. The Panel concludes the Mixed Use Zone is not appropriate for the site and future consideration should be given to the General Residential Zone.
Despite most land in Portarlington having some control over height whether it be by zone or overlay, Council elected not to conduct a strategic investigation into the opportunities and constraints of the Amendment land with a view to providing some overall built form and height guidance. The Panel considers future development of the Amendment land should have this guidance.
Officers principally relied on the higher level strategic planning support to justify the Amendment. It was submitted that the development would be a good outcome for Portarlington, the Northern Bellarine and the Geelong Region. Officers argued that Portarlington needs to consolidate, diversify and play to its competitive strengths.
The Panel was presented with the January 2016 Greater Geelong and The Bellarine Tourism Development Plan. The Tourism Development Plan is the most relevant guiding document to direct and prioritise tourism-related infrastructure in the region. The Plan confirms a need on the Northern Bellarine for the type of self-contained accommodation facility proposed and that the facility should be located in Portarlington.
Officers maintain that the precinct presents as an urban renewal site and redevelopment opportunity within the Portarlington Settlement Boundary.
While it is disappointing that the Panel placed greater weight on the local policy context, it is accepted that flaws in the proposal cannot be remedied within the confines of Amendment C321.
It is therefore accepted that the Mixed Use Zone is not sufficiently justified. This though does not change the fact that the precinct is in need of renewal and residential uses should be able to form part of that renewal. The precinct offers opportunities for but not limited to: self-contained quality short term accommodation; medium density housing; retirement living; and food and drink premises.
These types of uses (all permit required) can be accommodated in the General Residential Zone.
Officers accept that future redevelopment of the precinct should include investigation into height controls and other design features. The Panel has suggested a Design and Development Overlay that guides height, graduation of built form that could increase towards the middle of the site, use of materials, view sharing and access to the Portarlington Recreation Reserve and from Geelong Road.
Draft Planning Permit 1234/2014
As the Panel concluded that it could not support the Amendment, the draft Planning Permit 1234/2014 also could not be supported as the Commercial 2 Zone prohibits ‘accommodation’ uses.
The Panel however provided the following findings:
The height of the building at four storeys plus recreational roof garden and lift overruns is an overdevelopment of the site. This is borne out by the failure to meet a number of ResCode objectives and standards.
The building will have an inappropriate impact upon neighbouring residential properties as it does not graduate the built form with increased side setbacks.
Consideration of vehicle access to the site was hindered by the lack of a plan that detailed the protected right hand turn lane into the site from west bound traffic, road widening and line marking that VicRoads required. A key issue for submitters was the issue of traffic access and parking; which the Panel was unable to deal with fully. The Panel was also concerned that there was no understanding of how access was to be managed across all of the Amendment land.
There is an overreliance on the provision of car parking along Geelong Road or neighbouring streets.
At the hearing Council supported the built form because it represented an appealing, attractive new development of high architectural quality. The retail outlets were considered to provide excellent street activation including activation of the proposed public access through to the Portarlington Recreation Reserve.
Higher built form elements should not be automatically discounted. However the Panel has highlighted a number of design flaws that led it to conclude the building was an overdevelopment. This conclusion is accepted noting that the proponent was encouraged to redesign the building, access and parking once the land at 34 Geelong Road was acquired.
Portarlington Structure Plan
The Panel says its recommendation to abandon the Amendment should require a revisiting of the adopted, but yet to be implemented, Portarlington Structure Plan 2016 along with a more holistic review of the Amendment land and what controls should apply.
Officers have supported this approach by delaying exhibition of Amendment C352 – which seeks to implement the key planning elements of the Adopted May 2016 Portarlington Structure Plan. Consequential changes to the May version (affecting the Amendment land only) are outlined in this section.
Given that it is recommended that the Amendment be abandoned, it is important that the Structure Plan articulates the preferred future planning direction for the precinct. Retaining the 2007 Structure Plan direction to: ‘retain the Business 4 Zone’, limits redevelopment potential.
The Panel acknowledged that the role of the Amendment land has changed from an aquaculture focus and concluded the introduction of residential uses is consistent with the surrounding underlying land use. The Panel says future consideration should be given to the General Residential Zone.
Recognising that the precinct provides redevelopment opportunities, any future rezoning request should take into consideration housing and tourism strategies, design and built form, access and parking, impacts on the Town Centre and potentially contaminated land.
Council however should be mindful of the impact to the existing uses in the precinct, primarily the auto-marine repairs business. This business would become a non-conforming use in the General Residential Zone with existing use rights (i.e. a legal right to continue). This is not an uncommon scenario for land in transition and consultation with landowners and business owners should form part of a future developer-driven planning scheme amendment request.
Until such a request is received (and the precinct rezoned) the existing Commercial 2 Zone allows a number of ‘as-of-right’ uses such as Supermarket, Trade supplies, Restricted retail premises, and Office. Only a permit for buildings and works would be required. Other uses such as Industry, Warehouse and Shop are permit required uses. Given the history and current condition of the precinct new investment in these sectors is considered unlikely.
It is noted that the underutilised Industrial 1 zoned land on Tower Road in Portarlington is able to accommodate commercial and industrial uses. Land has also recently been rezoned to the Commercial 2 Zone on Murradoc Road in nearby Drysdale.
As addressed above, the Structure Plan should provide guidance on height and other design features relevant to the precinct. Any proposed ‘sensitive use’, such as a residential use, will require assessment of potentially contaminated land.
The Portarlington Structure Plan Map (May 2016) is shown in Appendix 6 and the new Map (September 2016) is shown in Appendix 7.
In summary, it is recommended that the following changes are made to the May 2016 version:
Re-title the document as ‘Portarlington Structure Plan, Adopted September 2016’.
Remove reference on the Structure Plan Map to ‘Rezone to Mixed Use Zone’.
Retain reference on the Structure Plan Map identifying the Amendment land as a ‘Development Opportunity’.
Provide commentary in the body of the Structure Plan to inform Council consideration of any future planning permit and/or rezoning application for the precinct. The Structure Plan shall address (but not be limited to):
Council’s housing and tourism strategies
Design and built form including height controls, view sharing and car parking
Access to Geelong Road and through to the Recreation Reserve
Surrounding residential and recreational land uses
Current operating businesses
Potentially contaminated land.
There are no environmental implications as a result of abandoning the Amendment.
No impact to budget.
Abandoning the Amendment requires consequential changes to the Portarlington Structure Plan. The commercial precinct will continue to be recognised as a redevelopment opportunity in the Structure Plan.
Abandoning the Amendment and Permit will prevent proposed new investment in Portarlington. This will impact on ‘Growing the economy’ as construction jobs, jobs associated with the future on-site business opportunities, and regional tourism benefits of providing quality short-term accommodation are lost.
The recommended changes to the adopted Portarlington Structure Plan are intended to facilitate redevelopment of the precinct.
No officers involved in this report have any direct or indirect interest in accordance with Sec 80(c) of the Local Government Act.
There are no notable risks associated with implementing the recommendations contained in this report
Abandoning the Amendment will maintain the status quo. Any future redevelopment opportunities associated with rezoning the precinct to a residential zone are likely to improve the amenity of the area.
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.
Council officers have notified the Amendment landowners and submitters of the Panel Report release. Landowners and submitters will be notified of the final decision of Council.
(previously agenda item 5)
Source: |
Planning & Development – Strategic Implementation |
General Manager: |
Peter Bettess |
Index Reference: |
Application: Amendment C346 |
The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the Independent Panel report into Amendment C346 and to adopt the Amendment.
Amendment C346 seeks to include the key strategies and objectives of the new Ocean Grove Structure Plan and Ocean Grove Town Centre Urban Design Framework into the Planning Scheme.
The main planning scheme changes being introduced by Amendment C346 include a new Clause 21.14 to reflect recommendations of these policy documents and application of new Design and Development Overlays to the town centre and new Grubb Road Activity centre.
The new Structure Plan was adopted by Council in December 2015 and the Urban Design Framework was adopted in June 2014. Extensive informal consultations including workshops, public meetings, resident surveys and meetings with owners and developers were conducted as part of the preparation of these documents.
Amendment C346 was exhibited in the normal manner between 4 February 2016 and 4 March 2016 resulting in the receipt of 42 submissions being: 10 submissions in support, 11 providing comments and 21 objecting.
The submissions were considered under delegation on 22 March 2016 and were referred to an independent Panel appointed by the Minister for Planning.
Following a 5 day panel hearing conducted in Geelong in early May 2016 the Panel has now presented its report for Council’s consideration.
By far the major issue raised in submissions and addressed by the Panel relates to the future long-term urban growth boundary for Ocean Grove as proposed in the Structure Plan.
The Panel has recommended Amendment C346 be adopted by Council subject to a number of changes as described in this report.
Whilst the overall thrust of the Panel’s recommendations are supported, this report provides detailed justification where officers prefer alternative planning scheme wording to the Panel’s recommendations.
Consideration of submissions and the Panel’s recommendations has necessitated changes to the 2015 Ocean Grove Structure Plan. It is also recommended an amended Structure Plan be adopted.
L Gardner moved, P Dorling seconded -
That Council:
adopts Amendment C346 (Appendix 7 of this report);
submits the adopted Amendment and prescribed information to the Minister for Planning requesting approval; and
adopts the Ocean Grove Structure Plan 2015 (amended September 2016).
Carried.
Amendment C346 seeks to implement the findings of the following Council adopted documents into the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme:
the Ocean Grove Structure Plan (December 2015); and
the Ocean Grove Town Centre Urban Design Framework (June 2014).
The Amendment will:
Amend Clause 21.14 Bellarine Peninsula to include the key strategies of the Ocean Grove Structure Plan (December 2015) and the updated Ocean Grove Structure Plan Map, and recommendations of the Ocean Grove Town Centre Urban Design Framework Plan (June 2014).
Insert a new schedule 39 to Clause 43.02 Design and Development Overlay to implement the key urban design recommendations for the Grubb Road activity centre and restricted retail precinct in the north-east growth area.
Insert a new schedule 40 to Clause 43.02 Design and Development Overlay to implement the key design recommendations of the Ocean Grove Town Centre Urban Design Framework (2014) for the Town Centre.
Delete Schedule 16 to Clause 43.02 Design and Development Overlay (Presidents Avenue Ocean Grove).
Delete Schedule 27 to Clause 43.02 Design and Development Overlay (Hodgson Street Mixed Use Precinct).
Apply Schedule 20 to Clause 43.02 Design and Development Overlay (Industrial 1,2 and 3 zones) to the Industrial 3 Zone land within the north east growth area.
Amend Planning Scheme Maps 81 DDO and 82 DDO.
Ocean Grove Structure Plan Review 2015
At its meeting on 8 December 2015 the Council considered a detailed report on the findings of the review of the 2007 Structure Plan (amended 2008) and
Adopted the new draft Structure Plan; and
Resolved to prepare and exhibit an amendment to include the recommendations of the new Structure Plan into the Planning Scheme.
The draft Structure Plan built on the township vision originally developed as part of the Bellarine Strategic Plan 2006 – 2016 and updated the earlier Plan with changes to the State and Local Planning Policy Framework as well as Council studies. It contains key directions about urban growth, settlement and housing, infrastructure, natural environment, economic development and employment and rural areas.
Given Ocean Grove’s role as an urban growth location, it is under pressure to accommodate further urban development. Analysis of lot supply data for the municipality, the Bellarine and the town revealed that there are sufficient residential land stocks to meet the forecast population growth over the short to medium term. Consequently, from a land supply perspective the new Structure Plan did not need to consider additional growth areas.
Key changes in the new Structure Plan included the deletion of the indicative long-term settlement boundary from the Structure Plan map including the wording “protect long-term growth option” that affects land outside the existing settlement boundary west of Grubb Road; the realignment of the eastern settlement boundary along Banks Road and the proposed implementation and review of planning controls to guide future land use and development, particularly for commercial areas and older parts of the town.
The Structure Plan review commenced in late 2014. Informal stakeholder consultation was undertaken in May 2015 as part of the review process which received a high level of interest and engagement.
The Council report of 8 December 2015 discussed in considerable detail the issues raised during the consultation process and planning considerations resulting in the recommendations of the new Structure Plan.
A copy of the existing 2007 Structure Plan map (which is currently at Clause 21.14 of the Planning Scheme) is in Appendix 1. The proposed new Structure Plan map as exhibited in Amendment C346 is Appendix 2.
Ocean Grove Town Centre Urban Design Framework 2014
At its meeting on 24 June 2014 the Council considered a detailed report on the preparation of the UDF including consideration of the submissions which were made as part of the extensive informal public consultation process. As a result Council:
Adopted the UDF document,
Resolved to prepare an implementation plan for the Hodgson Street/The Parade intersection area; and
Resolved to prepare and exhibit an amendment to introduce the recommendations of the UDF into the Planning Scheme.
The development of the UDF was underpinned by the input Council received from residents, businesses, community associations, sporting clubs, schools and government agencies through an Enquiry by Design (EbD) workshop. The two day workshop was held in May 2013 and the preferred future outcomes identified at the workshop were encapsulated in the UDF.
The UDF seeks to guide future growth and development, built form outcomes, streetscapes, traffic and pedestrian movements, carparking and land use as well as providing a framework for Council investment in the town centre over the next 10 years. It provides a vision for how the centre should develop, provides design principles and recommends improvements to existing infrastructure and functionality of the town. The UDF will also assist in the assessment of future development proposals.
The UDF was placed on informal consultation for an eight week period from 5 February until 31 March 2014. A community information session was attended by 70 people. A total of 104 submissions were received.
The key concerns raised in the submissions where the need for pedestrian and cycle infrastructure improvements, the impact of building heights on coastal character, the need for a civic hall, development within and around the Ocean Grove Park, the preferred arterial road route and provision of future car parking areas.
The Council report considered these submissions which resulted in changes being made to the final UDF prior to its adoption.
A copy of the UDF Plan 2014 is Appendix 3.
Amendment C346 was exhibited between 4 February 2016 and 4 March 2016. As a result, 42 submissions were received of which 10 supported, 11 provided comments and 21 objected.
The key themes/issues raised in the submissions were:
Removal of the indicative long term boundary on the west and east sides of Grubb Road.
Changes to the settlement boundary east of Banks Road
Request to extend the settlement boundary to the Bellarine Highway
Grubb Road Neighbourhood Activity Centre - Design & Development Overlay (DDO39)
Town Centre Urban Design Framework and DDO40
Traffic Issues (Grubb Road/The Terrace)
Other Planning Issues
Footpath Issues
Structure Plan Consultation Process.
The Delegated Authority report dated 22 March 2016 both summarises all of the submissions and provides a detailed officer response to all of the issues raised. This report is available on Council’s website (under the C346 webpage).
All submissions where considered under delegated authority and referred to an Independent Panel appointed by the Minister for Planning.
The appointed 2 person panel held a Directions Hearing on 5 April 2016 and a 5 day Panel Hearing in Geelong on 2 – 5 May and 13 May 2016.
The Panel has now presented its report to Council for its consideration and has recommended that Amendment C346 be adopted as exhibited subject to a number of changes. Appendix 4 is the Executive Summary of the Panel report which outlines the issues considered by Panel and contains the consolidated panel recommendations that is: recommended changes to the exhibited amendment documentation).
A full copy of the Panel’s Report has been placed on Council’s website (under the C346 webpage). The following sections of this report make reference to page numbers in the Panel report where specific issues have been addressed.
By far the major issue raised in the submissions and addressed by the Panel relates to the future long-term urban growth boundary for Ocean Grove as proposed in the 2015 Structure Plan.
In particular the Panel has addressed the issues of whether the 2015 Structure Plan provides appropriate strategic justification for the deletion of the long-term settlement boundary and the new policy emphasis on the landscape values west of Grubb Road and whether (future) potential areas for residential growth should be (now) evaluated.
Section 2 of the Panel report (page 10 onwards) addresses the settlement boundary issue in considerable detail. It assesses the policy and strategic context for such changes, addresses broad hectare land requirements, questions whether long-term growth areas need to be evaluated now and comments on specific submissions relating to future potential growth areas.
Council officers support the overall thrust of the Panel’s conclusions which, briefly summarised, are:
A future review of the Structure Plan should include evaluation of potential areas for urban expansion in a town identified for growth.
A future settlement boundary needs to recognise the full range of policy and planning considerations (such as protecting landscape values, maintaining rural breaks between settlements, environmental & conservation protection, township character etc).
There is ample existing zoned land to accommodate residential development for between the next 13 – 20 years.
There is a need to commit to a timeframe to assess potential long-term growth areas to the north, north-west & east of Ocean Grove. Pending this review, the long-term settlement boundary shown in the 2007 Structure Plan should be deleted ( as was proposed by the exhibited 2015 Structure Plan).
What has become increasingly clear as a result of preparation of the new Ocean Grove Structure Plan, the submissions received and the subsequent Panel hearing is the need to undertake a wider and detailed review of planning for the whole Bellarine Peninsula. The current policy of directing the majority of growth to 3 growth areas (Leopold, Drysdale/Clifton Springs and Ocean Grove) originated from work undertaken during the 1980s by the Geelong Regional Commission culminating in the Geelong Regional Development Strategy 1988. Since that time there has been extensive residential development in each of these towns. Reviews of both the Drysdale/Clifton Springs and Leopold Structure Plans, scheduled within the next 1 – 2 years, will certainly give rise to similar issues such as further loss of attractive rural farming landscapes and impacts on conservation and environmental values which contribute strongly to the unique character of the Bellarine Peninsula. At the same time the need to provide opportunities for outward growth at each of these locations needs to be re-evaluated.
The Bellarine Peninsula Localised Planning Statement September 2015 which now forms part of the State Planning Policy Framework of the Planning Scheme recognises these values and demonstrates the importance of the Bellarine Peninsula from a State perspective.
Prior to the next review of the Ocean Grove Structure Plan as recommended by the Panel (and prior to reviewing the Leopold and Drysdale/Clifton Springs Structure Plans), Council officers intend to seek funding in the next financial year to undertake a wider municipal settlement strategy. Among other things, a key aim of the settlement strategy would be to provide greater clarity and certainty on the future direction of the municipality’s settlements. Importantly, the role and function of the townships on the Bellarine will be an important consideration. An essential aspect of the study will be the need to ensure strong public communication and participation.
Detailed response to Panel’s recommendations
Whilst the overall thrust of the Panel’s recommendation as summarised above are supported, it is necessary to provide a detailed response to each of the Panel’s recommendations. The consolidated panel recommendations in the Executive Summary (Appendix 4) represent the Panel’s findings and proposed changes to the exhibited amendment documents contained throughout the panel report.
Appendix 5 sets out the Panel’s recommendations, the Council officer responses and reasons where, in a small number of occasions, the Panel’s recommended wording changes are either not supported or require modification.
It should be noted that other than the long-term boundary issue, all other issues which were subject to submissions and Panel recommendations (UDF, DDO’s 39 & 40, traffic and other planning issues) were generally quite minor in nature and for the most part resolved. These items are all addressed in Appendix 5.
Ocean Grove Structure Plan
As a result of the consideration of submissions to Amendment C346 and the recommendations contained in the Panel’s report, a number of changes have been made to the adopted 2015 Structure Plan as outlined in this report and Appendix 5.
It is therefore necessary for Council to adopt a new Structure Plan which will be named Ocean Grove Structure Plan 2015 (amended September 2016). A copy of the proposed amended Structure Plan has been placed on Council’s website (under the C346 webpage). The revised Structure Plan Map is in Appendix 6.
Amendment Recommended for adoption
Appendix 7 is the updated Amendment C346 documentation being recommended for adoption resulting from consideration of submissions and recommendations contained in the Panel’s report.
In very brief summary, changes have been made to the exhibited Clause 21.14, the Ocean Grove Structure Plan map at Clause 21.14-7 and Schedule 39 to the Design and Development Overlay, all as described in Appendix 5 of this report. In addition a revised Clause 21.06 has been introduced into the amendment as recommended by the Panel but with different wording to that recommended. The changes made to the exhibited documents are shown in the track-changes format in Appendix 7.
Environmental implications where considered as part of the Structure Plan review. Key environmental features within and around the town have been reviewed and considered in terms of future land use and development and associated impacts. Further investigation work is also supported by the Structure Plan including assessing vegetation in older parts of the town that contribute to the overall landscape and neighbourhood character. The current growth direction of the town focuses on the north-east growth area. The 1993 and 2007 Structure Plans directed growth away from the environmentally sensitive areas such as the coastline, Barwon Estuary and Lake Victoria environs, also the Ocean Grove Nature Reserve. The new Structure Plan continues to support this key land use direction.
The Town Centre UDF project does not have direct environmental impacts. It encourages pedestrian connectivity to the centre and higher density sustainable built form for new development.
Adoption and approval of Amendment C346 will have no significant financial implications for Council. Implementation of the UDF projects will be subject to future Council budget consideration as described in the 24 June 2014 Council Report.
Amendment C346 has been prepared having regard to existing relevant State, regional and local planning policies as described in some detail in the Explanatory Report accompanying the exhibited amendment.
The existing Clause 21.14 of the Planning Scheme acknowledges the need for additional planning work to be undertaken for the town centre in the form of an UDF.
The Independent Panel has considered in detail all relevant aspects of State, regional and local planning policies in providing its recommendations to Council. .
Both the Structure Plan and the UDF, the subject of Amendment C346, align with the directions of the Sustainable, Built and Natural Environment and Growing our Economy strategic directions in City Plan.
No Council officers involved in the preparation of this Amendment, the development of the new Structure Plan and UDF and the preparation of this report have any direct or indirect interest, in accordance with Section 80 (c) of the Local Government Act, to which this report relates.
There are no risks associated with processing a Planning Scheme Amendment as recommended by this report.
A whole range of social considerations have been taken into account in the preparation of the Structure Plan including community needs for housing, employment and provision of a range of commercial and community services.
The UDF includes proposals that will deliver significant long term social benefits to the Ocean Grove community. These include better use of existing commercial land, increased diversity of housing types, improved streetscapes, better pedestrian connections between the town’s key assets – the beach, the Town Centre and the park, slower traffic speeds and better pedestrian safety and amenity throughout the Town Centre. The UDF will create a new town square to become a focus for social interaction within the Terrace.
The Amendment will not impact on any basic rights, freedoms and responsibilities as set out in the Charter. Both the Structure Plan and UDF have been subject to extensive community consultation as part of their preparation.
Amendment C346 has been exhibited in accordance with the provisions of the Planning and Environment Act and all persons who lodged a submission had an opportunity to be heard before an Independent Panel appointed by the Minister for Planning. This report has also outlined the extensive informal consultation processes undertaken in the preparation of both the Structure Plan and the UDF.
Map 1: Framework Plan
The Panel has recommended that Amendment C346 be adopted as exhibited subject to changes which are detailed in 5 separate points which will be individually addressed.
Long Term Boundary issue
The Panel recommends that the following changes be made to the exhibited amendment:-
Preserve the potential of the land to the north, north-west and east of Ocean Grove for urban development in the long term and include a commitment in the planning scheme to establish an enduring settlement boundary for Ocean Grove by changing clause 21.06 and 21.14 as follows:
At clause 21.06-6 Further Work add:
Assess the potential of rural land to the north, north-west and east of Ocean Grove for future urban development to determine the location of an enduring settlement boundary around Ocean Grove.
At clause 21.14-2 under Ocean Grove add:
Avoid development of rural land to the north, north-west and east of Ocean Grove (identified on the Ocean Grove Structure Plan in this clause) that would compromise development for urban purposes in the future.
At clause 21.14 Further Work add:
Review the Ocean Grove Structure Plan at least every 5 years.
Assess long term growth options (both infill and settlement expansion) for Ocean Grove by no later than 2020. The assessment should include consideration of:
The role of Ocean Grove Structure as a district town.
Other planned growth on the Bellarine Peninsula.
Development trends, lot supply and housing capacity within the settlement boundary.
The desirability of providing a diversity of living options.
Physical and environmental constraints, including the importance of protecting the biodiversity values of the Reserve and maintaining a rural break between settlements.
The desirability of providing a diversity of living options.
Physical and environmental constraints, including the importance of protecting the biodiversity values of the Reserve and maintaining a rural break between settlements.
The protection of landscape values and implications for the character of approaches to Ocean Grove township along the Bellarine Highway, Grubb Road and Wallington Road.
The implications for significant agricultural uses and their employment generating potential.
Whether any adjustments to the settlement boundary are required.
Officer Response:
Council officers support the overall thrust of the Panel’s recommendations on the long term boundary and future growth of Ocean Grove.
This is consistent with Council’s submission to the Panel where officers agreed to undertake further detailed strategic assessment of the areas to the north, north-west and east of Ocean Grove as possible future growth options so that an enduring settlement boundary can be established.
Council officers don’t support recommendations 1 a) and b) or the first dot point of c) in the form proposed by the Panel. Council officers believe the assessment of growth for Ocean Grove needs to be undertaken within the framework of an overall municipal-wide settlement strategy as described in the Council Report.
In Clause 21.06-6 Further work, rather than make reference to potential growth areas at Ocean Grove, it is proposed to refer to the preparation of a new municipal-wide settlement strategy. It is more appropriate to refer to the specific potential Ocean Grove growth areas in Clause 21.14 (as proposed by the Panel).
In Clause 21-14-2 the Panel recommended dot point b) referring to “Avoid development…” is not supported because it may well apply an unnecessary freeze on development of these areas for some years pending completion of Council’s planning work. Inclusion of reference to the need to assess these specific areas is more appropriately located in Clause 21.14 under the “Further Work” heading.
The Panel’s recommendation of a time commitment for Council to undertake a review of Ocean Grove’s long term growth options (both infill and settlement expansion) is supported. Rather than 2020 as recommended by the Panel, 2021 provides a more manageable timeframe particularly in light of the need to prepare a municipal settlement strategy beforehand. There is more than ample existing zoned residential land to ensure no interruption to residential lot supply requirements by extending the date to 2021.
All of the Panel’s other recommended wording changes to Clause 21.14 are supported.
See Appendix 6 for a revised Structure Plan Map and Appendix 7 for a complete set of changes to Clause 21.14 with changes proposed in response to the Panel Recommendations highlighted in yellow.
The Panel has recommended 3 changes to the exhibited Ocean Grove Structure Plan map, as follows:
At Clause 21.14 on the Ocean Grove Structure Plan:
Identify the need for a rural break and interface treatment along the Bellarine Highway.
Indicate in relation to areas to the north, north-west and east of Ocean Grove ‘Protect long term growth potential’.
Reinstate the current settlement boundary to the east of Banks Road, move the annotation ‘protect sensitive interface’ to land at the interface with the reinstated settlement boundary and maintain the existing annotation ‘further investigation site’.
Officer Response:
The first two dot point recommendations are not supported. The exhibited map already contains a graphic with the wording “Retain as rural break” applying to all of the area stretching from Wallington Road to Banks Road to the north and north west of the town. This does not need to be changed; any reference to Bellarine Peninsula interface implies the prospect of urban expansion which is an issue to be addressed in the next Structure Plan review.
Inclusion of the wording “Protect long-term growth potential” on the map is considered unnecessary because the commitment to review these areas will be contained in the revised Clause 21.14 as indicated above. Bubble diagrams or arrows on maps pointing to general areas creates confusion and can raise unintended expectations among landowners (as demonstrated by such designations on the 2007 Structure Plan map).
The other change to the Structure Plan map relating to the boundary at Banks Rd and referred to in the third dot point above is supported.
Ocean Grove Structure Plan 2015 document.
The Panel has recommended changes be made to the 2015 Structure Plan document as follows:
Update the 2015 Structure Plan reference document to ensure consistency with changes recommended by the Panel.
Officer Response:
This recommendation is supported.
It is important to ensure that the Structure Plan document, as a reference document in the Planning Scheme, is consistent with the proposed changes to the text of Clause 21.14 as outlined above.
It also became apparent and acknowledged by Council during the course of the panel hearing that the forecasts of future land requirements for residential development in the Structure Plan were too conservative. These figures in the Structure Plan have been updated in accordance with the evidence presented by Council at the Panel hearing.
Since adoption of the 2015 Structure Plan considerable progress has been made and agreements reached with the owners and developers of the new Grubb Road Neighbourhood Activity Centre (NAC) regarding urban design objectives and overall site layout in accordance with the Grubb Road Activity Centre Framework Plan 2015. The Structure Plan document needs to be updated to also reflect these changes. Council officers indicated to the developer (Lascorp) prior to the panel hearing that these changes would be made.
Ocean Grove Town Centre Urban Design Framework (UDF)
The Panel has made the following recommendations referring to the UDF and the proposed DDO40 which is intended to give effect to the recommendations of the UDF
Reinforce the importance of view sharing between properties by:
Considering extension of Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 7 to include the properties on the south side of The Terrace via proposed Amendment C300; or
Adding a design and built form guideline to Design and Development Overlay Schedule 40 to address the issue of view sharing.
Officer Response:
Council officers do not support these recommendations.
The proposed urban design guidelines and building height provisions in DDO40 were widely canvassed and accepted by property owners and the wider community during the preparation of the UDF. This has been reflected in the fact that only one submission was received about the proposed maximum 13.5 metres height level and the only submitter to the hearing regarding the UDF expressed concern about view sharing arrangements within the town centre and adjoining Residential Growth Zone.
Part 3 of the Panel report (pages 45 – 48) addresses the UDF. In summary, the Panel has found “that the heights proposed by the Urban Design Framework are well founded” and that “the proposed planning framework should reinforce the importance of view sharing between properties”.
The concerns raised by the submitter about view sharing arrangements in the adjoining Dare Street RGZ are already addressed by the current application of SLO7 to the Dare St properties and the proposed retention of view sharing objectives through the application of DDO14 as part of the Ocean Grove Significant Tree Study currently underway. It is expected an Amendment to give effect to this change will be exhibited in late 2016.
Application of SLO7 to the commercially zoned areas along The Terrace is not supported because:
This overlay is essentially directed at protecting landscape character and vegetation and providing a balance between built form and vegetation within a residential (rather than commercial) environment. The low site coverage and landscape requirements are completely inappropriate in the town centre and conflict with the design guidelines in DDO40; and
The Terrace occupies the hill-top or ridge-line and any development within the town centre will not result in any substantial lots of views i.e. all properties will always retain their predominant existing ocean views to the south west, south and south east.
The Panel’s alternative options to reinforce view-sharing arrangements to apply to the town centre are not supported and no change to the exhibited DDO40 is proposed.
Alternative arterial road
The Panel has made the following recommendation regarding designating The Terrace as the long-term arterial route through the town.
Change the annotation on Map 1 of Design and Development Overlay Schedule 40 from ‘preferred long term arterial route’ to ‘potential long term arterial route’.
Officer Response:
Council officers accept this recommendation.
This issue has been addressed on page 17 of the Delegated Authority Report dated 22 March 2016 and the Panel report on pages 47 – 48. No submitters appeared before the Panel about this issue.
The prospect of changing the arterial road from The Parade to The Terrace has been raised in both the 1993 and 2007 Structure Plans.
No objection is seen to the slight change in emphasis from the use of the word “preferred” to “potential” in the map forming part of DDO40. The Structure Plan Map and wording in Clause 21.14 should be similarly modified for the sake of consistency.
Design and Development Overlay 39 – Grubb Road NAC
The Panel has made the following recommendations regarding the proposed DDO39 to apply to the new Grubb Road Neighbourhood Activity Centre & adjoining Commercial 2 zone:
Adopt the revised changes to Design and Development Overlay Schedule 39 as agreed by Lascorp and Council (Hearing document 14), subject to the following:
Under Built Form and Scale section replace:
dot point five to read ‘Provide articulation to larger built forms to break up continuous frontages and visual bulk’
dot point ten to read ‘Built form should provide an articulated and attractive presentation towards Grubb Road avoiding blank facades and back of house uses’
Under Vehicle Access and Movement:
dot point one - replace the word ‘multiple’ with ‘restricted’.
Officer Response:
Council officers accept these recommendations.
This issue has been addressed on page 15 of the Delegated Authority report and pages 49 – 51 of the Panel report.
Prior to the hearing, the Council and Lascorp (shopping centre developer) reached agreement on the provisions of a revised DDO39 and Lascorp withdrew their request to be heard by the Panel. Shell Road Developments were also satisfied with the changes.
The Panel agreed that the DDO39 should be retained to provide urban design guidance for further stages of the shopping centre and adjoining C2 zone.
The Panel’s recommended changes in point a) above have the effect of strengthening the urban design principles applying to future development applications and are supported. Recommendation b) above is a VicRoads’ requirement and also supported.
Other issues
The Panel Report has, as required, addressed issues raised in other submissions referred to the Panel but where submitters chose not to appear before the Panel. These issues include:
Grubb Road duplication
Location of a new school
Footpath and pedestrian movements
Structure Plan consultation process
Protection of neighbourhood character north of Asbury Street West.
Soccer facilities
These issues are dealt with on pages 17 - 19 of the Delegated Authority report and pages 51 - 57 of the Panel report.
In summary the Panel has been satisfied with Council’s response to the issues raised and has not as a result recommended any changes be made to the exhibited Amendment C346 documentation.
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME
Map 1: Framework Plan
GREATER GEELONG PLANNING SCHEME
Map 2: Building height and setback
Pages 5-7 of Clause 21.06 not included in this report
Clause 21.14 for Adoption (Post Panel changes highlighted in yellow)
Pages 14-18 of Clause 21.14 not included in this report
Source: |
Planning & Development - Planning Strategy |
General Manager: |
Peter Bettess |
Index Reference: |
PRJ-16-2993 |
This report recommends that Council adopts the findings and recommendations of the ‘Ocean Grove Significant Tree Project, Final Report 2016’ and to give them statutory effect by including them in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme via a planning scheme amendment.
The development of the 2015 Ocean Grove Structure Plan identified further work to address issues with Significant Landscape Overlay 7 (SLO7) and to assess the need for character controls in the older parts of Ocean Grove. These matters form the basis of the ‘Ocean Grove Significant Vegetation Project’.
In June 2015 Council engaged specialist consultants ‘Okologie’ to carry out vegetation surveys and make recommendations on how to best protect and manage the vegetated landscape character in the identified areas.
Officers prepared a draft background report which included the vegetation survey findings, analysis of development history, SLO7 issues, building data, policy etc.
A set of draft policy, zone and overlay provisions were then drafted with the aim of preserving and enhancing the identified vegetated landscape character.
Informal public consultation occurred April - May 2016. As a result 26 submissions were received. 5 supportive, 1 requesting clarification and 20 raising objections or recommending changes.
As a result of submissions a number of changes have been made to the proposed planning provisions.
It is recommended Council adopts the findings and recommendations of the ‘Ocean Grove Significant Tree Project – Final Report 2016’ and give them statutory effect by including them in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme via a planning scheme amendment.
As part of the formal amendment process it is recommended Council apply for interim overlay controls to avoid vegetation loss while the amendment is being considered.
P Dorling moved, L Gardner seconded -
That Council:
adopts the Ocean Grove Significant Tree Project, Final Report 2016;
requests the Minister for Planning authorise the preparation of an amendment as detailed in this report; and
requests the Minister for Planning exercise powers under Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by applying an interim Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 15 to the identified precinct while the formal Planning Scheme Amendment is prepared and considered.
Carried.
The Ocean Grove Significant Vegetation Project aims to identify and protect, through planning controls, the unique coastal/bush landscape character within the well established areas of the township of Ocean Grove.
This project was identified in the previous and current Ocean Grove Structure Plan 2015 which identified the following further work:
Undertake a review of Schedule 7 to the Significant Landscape Overlay as per Part C of the Structure Plan. This overlay currently applies to the hilllside area and aims to achieve a balance between rooftops and vegetation. Permits are triggered for buildings over 7.5m in height, some vegetation removal and site permeability less than 30%.
Undertake a review of the older parts of Ocean Grove as identified on the Structure Plan map to investigate the introduction of new planning overlay controls to protect important landscape and built form attributes.
To help inform the project vegetation consultants, Okologie, were engaged mid 2015 to undertake vegetation surveys on public and private land and to make recommendations around vegetation protection. Two areas were identified for investigation; the current extent of the SLO7 or hillside area and the area in the north east part of old Ocean Grove known in the project as the Significant Tree Area (STA).
Along with vegetation surveys a detailed background report was prepared to help inform the draft planning controls. The background material now forms part of the ‘Ocean Grove Significant Tree Project – Final Report 2016’ which is provided as an attachment to this report.
The background report identified 3 key precincts each with proposed customised planning controls:
Significant Tree Area – north east pocket of ‘old Ocean Grove’ below Thacker Street characterised by spacious blocks with scattered mature trees
Hillside Area – escarpment overlooking the ocean characterised by dwellings taking advantage of views with moderate levels of vegetation
Coastal Fringe Area – close to the dunes generally south of Orton/Dare Streets characterised by dwellings taking advantage of views with lower growing coastal vegetation.
As part of the public consultation a project brochure and precinct flyers were prepared detailing the proposed controls. The flyer was sent out to property owners as part of the informal public notification phase. Copies of the brochure and flyers are provided in the Final Report (Attachment 1).
Informal public consultation on the draft background report and planning controls occurred April - May 2016. A total of 26 submissions were received:
5 were supportive;
1 requested clarification;
20 raised objections or recommended changes.
The ‘Ocean Grove Significant Tree Project – Final Report 2016’ is provided as an attachment to this report. The Report outlines in detail the public consultation activities, summary of submissions and an officer response to submissions.
The key concerns with the draft controls were:
Discouraging urban consolidation by restricting development.
Limiting choice and type of development.
Risk and expense associated with trees in urban areas.
Existing controls not being implemented what is the point of new ones.
Detrimental impacts on property values.
Unfair for those who have not yet developed compared to those that have.
People should be able to do what they want with their own property.
Questioning accuracy of vegetation data.
Inadequate public consultation.
Council should focus on public land not restrict private property.
The supporting submissions made the following points:
Recent development is too large and too bulky and does not leave room for vegetation - controls are needed to address this.
Trees are a major part of the appeal in the STA which are at risk from increased development.
When blocks are cleared there is little or no replacement vegetation being planted affecting character and habitat.
Looking at what has been developed in the SLO7 it is clear the control is failing and needs strengthening.
The proposed controls allow for redevelopment while still keeping the coastal environment.
Absence of any controls will see a continuation of development setting new precedents and absence of landscaping.
We can’t rely on people doing the right thing, planning protection needed and sanctions required for those who don’t do the right thing.
In response to submissions a number of changes were made to the draft controls including:
Coastal fringe precinct now included as part of the Hillside Precinct (generally previous SLO7 extent) - site coverage increased from 40% to 50% and area for landscaping/permeability reduced from 40% to 30%.
2 metre side setback included as permit trigger in overlay only not in schedule to the zone.
No changes to height controls.
Two canopy trees required in landscaping plans instead of one making a greater contribution to the vegetated existing and preferred character of the area
Area required for canopy tree and canopy tree size not specified in overlays providing greater flexibility.
Increased scope of works not requiring an arborist reducing potential costs for minor works.
Significant trees defined in overlays based on tree type and height.
View sharing decision guidelines added to SLO7 to improve built form and view outcomes.
Caravan Park to be included in Hillside precinct.
SLO7 to be retained on east side of town centre where it was recommended for removal.
The final planning scheme recommendations are summarised below with copies of the proposed ordinance schedules provided in Appendix 1 and summary maps, including the current and proposed zones and overlays provided in Appendix 2:
Ordinance:
MSS (Cl. 21.14-2) Strategies: Add point to strategy under Ocean Grove
Add a new Schedule 3 to the GRZ (Cl. 32.08)
Add a new Schedule 4 to the NRZ (Cl. 32.09)
Revise wording of Schedule 7 to the SLO (Cl. 42.03)
Maps:
Rezone Significant Tree Area from GRZ2 to (new) NRZ 4
Rezone Hillside Precinct* from GRZ2 and RGZ3 to (new) GRZ 3
Delete DDO14 (except small pocket south of Blackwell Street) and SLO7 from the Significant Tree Area and replace them with (new) SLO15
Change a portion of the Hillside Precinct* from SLO7 to DDO14 (RGZ3 / Increased
Housing Diversity Area)
Rezone Hillside Precinct west of Field Street from RGZ3 to (new) GRZ3
(* Hillside Precinct incorporates the previous Coastal Fringe Precinct)
Other matters considered as part of the project:
Clause 52.48 Bushfire Protection – Vegetation Clearance Exemptions
Council considered a Report and wrote to the Minister for Planning in early 2016 to request the Minister investigate the blanket application of this provision as it is seeing vegetation removed in urban areas with no identified fire threat.
The Minster advised in writing in June 2016 that DELWP (the department) is currently investigating a proposed update to the clause based on a more risk based approach and the matter will be considered ‘in due course’.
Tree Planting Guidelines
Council is looking to provide guidelines for applicants to assist them with vegetation and landscaping plans. This will be provided as information only and will not form part of the planning scheme. See Attachment 2 for a copy of the draft guidelines.
Planning Scheme Amendment
Copies of the proposed planning controls are provided in the Final Report which will form the basis of the formal planning scheme amendment. They are also provided as an appendix to this report.
Interim Controls
It is recommended Council apply for interim controls for the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 15 while the amendment is being considered. This will help ensure development that does not meet the proposed landscape objectives is not approved in the period between adoption and consideration of the amendment. Without interim controls there could be a loss of vegetation and development that does not support the landscape objectives detrimentally impacting upon the existing and preferred neighbourhood character.
It is not proposed the revised Significant Landscape Overlay 7 is applied as an interim control as this would create major administrative issues given there will be a existing and proposed control and given the boundary adjustments proposed for SLO7. The existing control will be in place throughout the amendment process.
Interim controls are routinely applied where heritage overlays are proposed and there have been instances where Councils have applied them to vegetation such as Banyule and the implementation of their Strategy for Substantial trees in Banyule’s Garden Court and Garden Suburban Neighbourhoods 2013 (the Strategy for Substantial Trees).
Transitional Arrangements
It is recommended transitional arrangements form part of the proposed overlays so applicants who have made applications under the current planning regime are not unfairly affected.
The project has positive environmental implications including the retention of existing vegetation and promoting new vegetation leading to improved biodiversity, storm water management, habitat and urban heat impact outcomes.
There will be no significant financial implications on Council as part of the future planning scheme amendment process or final Ministerial approval of the controls . All future statutory processes will be covered by respective departmental budgets.
The Project has considered the relevant State and local planning considerations. To give proposed controls statutory weight, a planning scheme amendment will be initiated to implement them in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.
This report aligns with the directions of the Sustainable and Built Environments theme in City Plan.
No Council officers involved in the development of the Ocean Grove Significant Tree Project and preparation of the report have a direct or indirect interest in the issue, in accordance with Section 80(c) of the Local Government Act, to which this report relates.
There is a risk that there will be continued loss of the vegetated landscape character without the introduction of the proposed planning controls.
The planning scheme amendment process affords landowners and residents a formal opportunity to participate.
We have taken into consideration the human rights relative to the subject matter of this report, including rate-payers property rights and the right to a fair hearing.
In addition to the informal community consultation, the planning scheme amendment process will include a statutory consultation period (minimum 30 days). Where submissions cannot be resolved, an Independent Panel will be requested.
Shown on the planning scheme map as GRZ3
1.0 |
Permit requirement for the construction or extension of one dwelling on a lot |
||
|
Is a permit required to construct or extend one dwelling on a lot of between 300 square metres and 500 square metres? |
||
|
None specified |
||
2.0 |
Requirements of Clause 54 and Clause 55 |
||
|
|
Standard |
Requirement |
|
Minimum street setback |
A3 and B6 |
None specified |
|
Site coverage |
A5 and B8 |
50% |
|
Permeability |
A6 and B9 |
None specified |
|
Landscaping |
B13 |
At least 30% of the site is available for landscaping. Two canopy trees (indigenous and/or Australian native) per site. |
|
Side and rear setbacks |
A10 and B17 |
None specified |
|
Walls on boundaries |
A11 and B18 |
None specified |
|
Private open space
|
A17 |
An area of 60 square metres, with one part of the private open space to consist of secluded private open space at the side or rear of the dwelling or residential building with minimum area of 40 square metres, a minimum dimension of 5 metres and convenient access from a living room. It cannot include a balcony or roof top terrace. |
B28 |
An area of 60 square metres, with one part of the private open space to consist of secluded private open space at the side or rear of the dwelling or residential building with minimum area of 40 square metres, a minimum dimension of 5 metres and convenient access from a living room. It cannot include a balcony or roof top terrace. |
||
|
Front fence height |
A20 and B32 |
None specified. |
3.0 |
Maximum building height requirement for a dwelling or residential building |
||
|
A building used as a dwelling or residential building must not exceed a height of 9 metres. unless the slope of the natural ground level at any cross section wider than 8 metres of the site of the building is 2.5 degrees or more, in which case it must not exceed a height of 10 metres. |
||
4.0 |
Application requirements |
||
When any of the lots being created are less than 500 square metres, a subdivision application must be accompanied by a development application or approved planning permit plans for the site for the construction of the dwellings. |
|||
5.0 |
Decision guidelines |
||
|
|||
Shown on the planning scheme map as NRZ4
1.0 |
Minimum subdivision area | ||
|
None specified. |
||
2.0 |
Permit requirement for the construction or extension of one dwelling on a lot |
||
|
|
Requirement |
|
|
Permit requirement for the construction or extension of one dwelling on a lot |
None specified. |
|
|
Permit requirement to construct or extend a front fence within 3 metres of a street on a lot |
None specified. |
|
3.0 |
Requirements of Clause 54 and Clause 55 |
||
|
|
Standard |
Requirement |
|
Minimum street setback |
A3 and B6 |
None specified |
|
Site coverage |
A5 and B8 |
40% |
|
Permeability |
A6 and B9 |
None specified |
|
Landscaping |
B13 |
At least 40% of the site is available for landscaping. Two canopy trees (indigenous and/or Australian native) per site. |
|
Side and rear setbacks |
A10 and B17 |
None specified |
|
Walls on boundaries A11 and B18 None specified |
|
|
|
Private open space |
A17 and B28 |
An area of 60 square metres, with one part of the private open space to consist of secluded private open space at the side or rear of the dwelling or residential building with a minimum area of 40 square metres, a minimum dimension of 5 metres and convenient access from a living room |
|
Front fence height |
A20 and B32 |
None specified |
4.0 |
Number of dwellings on a lot |
||
|
None specified. |
||
5.0 |
Maximum building height requirement for a dwelling or residential building |
||
|
A building used as a dwelling or a residential building must not exceed a height of 9 metres. |
||
6.0 |
Application requirements |
||
|
Subdivision |
||
7.0 |
Decision guidelines |
||
|
|
||
Shown on the planning scheme map as SLO7
1.0 Statement of nature and key elements of landscape
Ocean Grove is a growing coastal township located on a hillside extending to a popular ocean surf beach. Areas of public and private land within established Ocean Grove supports a mix of remnant coastal and grassy woodland vegetation, indigenous and planted Australian natives which contribute to the unique coastal and vegetated character of the township.
The area also supports the threatened Bellarine Yellow Gum Eucalyptus leucoxylon subsp. bellarinensis which is endemic to the area. The retention of these trees is important for the ongoing survival of the species. The incremental loss of vegetation and the impact of not providing adequate space for the re-establishment of vegetation around buildings are having a major impact on the landscape character of the area.
The preferred character for this area includes achieving a balance between landscape and built form where buildings sit within a landscaped setting. Vegetation, in particular trees are required to soften the impact of buildings in the environment. There are examples of development where this balance has not been achieved and buildings dominate the site and streetscape. While these developments form part of the character of the area they do not represent the preferred character.
The retention of and ability to plant screening vegetation along boundaries and fronting the street and building height and bulk that does not dominate the streetscape, neighbouring properties and long distance views are all important landscape elements.
The hillside topography has encouraged development that seeks to maximise views. Part of the landscape character of Ocean Grove that is valued by the local community is the ability to view the ocean and/or the Barwon River from numerous points in public areas and from private dwellings. Respect for the sharing of views, rather than necessarily the retention of all existing views, is therefore an important characteristic of this coastal town.
Significant trees are defined as an indigenous and Australian native trees 3 or more metres in height.
2.0 Landscape character objective to be achieved
To conserve, enhance and reinstate the preferred character of buildings sitting within vegetated settings including in areas that have been substantially cleared of vegetation.
To preserve the balance between roof tops and vegetation in long distance views of the town.
To encourage vegetated streetscapes where the vegetation acts to filter and soften the appearance of buildings and hard surface areas.
To promote buildings that fit within the landscape and do not dominate the streetscape and long distance views.
To provide a balance between buildings and vegetation canopy.
To ensure that buildings are sited and designed to avoid and/or minimise removal of Australian native/indigenous vegetation.
To encourage development that sits within a vegetated setting by providing space at the front, side and rear of buildings for the retention and planting of screening vegetation.
To maximise opportunities for view sharing, particularly where views are available to the ocean and river from private dwellings.
3.0 Permit requirement
Buildings and Works
A permit is not required to construct a building or construct or carry out works provided all of the following requirements are met:
The height of any part of the building, excluding any television antenna, chimney or flue, is less than 7.5 metres above natural ground level.
No more than 70% of the site is covered by buildings and impervious/hard surfaces including driveways, paving, decks, crushed rock, swimming pools or tennis courts.
At least 30% of the site is available (free from hard surfaces) for soft landscaping (eg. vegetation).
Buildings are setback a minimum of 2 meters from one side boundary.
There is only one dwelling on the lot.
Vegetation Removal
A permit is required to remove, destroy or lop vegetation. This does not apply to:
Indigenous vegetation less than 3 meters in height.
Australian native vegetation less than 3 meters in height.
Exotic vegetation.
Vegetation listed within the incorporated document Environmental Weeds, City of Greater Geelong, September 2008 except Coastal Tea-tree which contributes to the coastal character of this area.
Prune a tree to improve its health or appearance, provided its normal growth habit is not retarded
Vegetation that presents an immediate risk of personal injury or damage to property, if only that part of vegetation which presents the immediate risk is removed, destroyed or lopped.
Prune vegetation to remove any branch that overhangs an existing dwelling or is within 2 metres of an existing dwelling
Vegetation that is dead to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Maintaining public utility services for the transmission of water, sewage, gas, electricity, electronic communications or the like to the minimum extent necessary by the relevant authority.
Works carried out in accordance with the Geelong Street Tree Strategy by the Responsible Authority.
4.0 Application Requirements
An application must be accompanied by the following information, these requirements may be waived or reduced if the information is not relevant to the assessment of an application:
A Design Response which shows the development in relation to:
Building and Works
A schedule of construction materials, external finishes and colours (incorporating samples).
View Sharing
A view impact analysis should be submitted when the proposed development is over 7.5 meters in height and is likely to impact on views to significant landscape features. The view impact analysis should demonstrate how the design objectives to achieve a reasonable sharing of views have been met, having regard to topography, siting, height and visual bulk.
Landscaping
An application for buildings and works, or to remove, destroy or lop vegetation must be accompanied by a landscaping plan prepared by a suitably qualified person and should incorporate at least 2 canopy trees per site and the use of local indigenous or Australian native species.
Buildings and works occurring within the drip line of a significant tree on the subject land or adjoining site requires a report from a suitably qualified arborist that shows how the tree will be managed during construction.
Vegetation Removal
An application to remove, destroy or lop a significant tree must be accompanied by the following information.
A report from a suitably qualified arborist (level 5 or equivalent) that:
Includes a site plan (drawn to scale) showing the boundaries of the site, existing and proposed buildings and works, existing vegetation and the vegetation to be removed.
Details of vegetation within 3 meters of the subject site boundary on any adjoining property.
Describes the vegetation to be removed, including the genus, species, extent, number, height, health and quality of vegetation to be removed.
Specifies the purpose of the proposed removal, destruction or lopping of vegetation.
Justifies removal and demonstrates that the extent of removal, destruction or lopping has been reduced as much as is reasonable and practicable.
Nominates tree protection zones where proposed development could impact on the tree root systems, canopy and overall health and appearance of trees.
Provides a vegetation management plan for the construction period.
5.0 Transitional Arrangement
The requirements of this overlay do not apply to any planning permit application received by the responsible authority before the approval date of the amendment that introduced this schedule to Clause 43.02 into the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.
6.0 Decision guidelines
Before deciding on an application the responsible authority must consider:
The siting and design of buildings to achieve a reasonable sharing of views between properties with significant landscape features having particular regard to the following:
The impact of the proposed buildings and works on the view from another property or the street as a result of the design, siting, height, size, bulk (including the roof), and colour of the building.
Whether opportunities exist to avoid a building being visually obtrusive by the use of alternative building designs, including split level and staggered building forms, that follow the natural slope of the land and reduce the need for site excavation or filling.
The opportunity for a reasonable sharing of views having regard to the extent of the available view(s) and the significance of the view(s) from the properties affected.
Whether a vegetated setting is reinforced or reinstated as part of the development.
Whether the removal, lopping and/or destruction of vegetation that contributes to the screening of development from property boundaries and the street has been avoided.
Whether the siting and footprint of buildings and availability of areas not covered by impervious surfaces enables the retention of significant vegetation and space for new canopy vegetation.
Whether hard surfaces like driveways have been minimised
Whether setbacks can be varied to minimise the removal of native/indigenous vegetation.
The size, species, age and health of existing vegetation proposed to be removed, destroyed or lopped and the size, species and growth characteristics of any proposed replacement vegetation.
Whether there is a valid reason for removing the vegetation and alternative options to removal have been fully explored such as changing the building footprint and/or lopping or trimming vegetation.
The effect of constructing a building or constructing or carrying out works on the root system, canopy and overall health and appearance of any trees.
Whether a loss of character would result from a variation to part 3.0 of this clause.
Whether any street trees will need to be removed or detrimentally affected.
Shown on the planning scheme map as SLO15
1.0 Statement of nature and key elements of landscape
This precinct within Ocean Grove is distinctive due to the high number of significant canopy trees (indigenous and Australian native) located on both public and private land. These trees are a dominant feature of the neighbourhood with buildings nestled within spacious bush garden settings.
Dwellings in the area generally sit below the tree canopy and are characterised by low density and scale, detached housing surrounded by generous areas of open space capable of accommodating significant and multiple canopy trees.
Vegetation includes the threatened Bellarine Yellow Gum Eucalyptus leucoxylon subsp. bellarinensis which are endemic to the area. The residential streetscape and private gardens within the precinct support a large component of the remnant Bellarine Yellow-gum population. The retention of these trees is important for the ongoing survival of the species.
The incremental loss of significant Australian native and indigenous canopy trees has the potential to change the character of the area over time. The retention of and ability to establish new canopy trees will help integrate and reduce the impact of new development on neighbourhood character.
Managing development, tree protection and management together with new and replacement tree planting on public and private property will help safeguard the unique landscape character of the area.
Significant trees are defined as an indigenous tree 3 or more metres in height and an Australian native tree 5 or more metres in height.
2.0 Landscape character objective to be achieved
To protect and ensure the long term future of significant canopy vegetation which is the dominant visual and environmental feature of the precinct
To ensure that buildings and works retain an unobtrusive profile and do not dominate the landscape.
To ensure that a reasonable proportion of a lot is free of buildings and hard surfaces to provide for the retention and planting of significant canopy trees and generous open space areas.
To minimise the effect of future development on significant canopy vegetation.
To ensure that new development has proper regard for the established landscape character in terms of building height, scale, site coverage, site permeability, siting and landscaping.
To minimise the impact of vehicle access, road works, fences, service trenches etc have on existing vegetation.
To ensure adequate tree protection zones are provided around existing trees as part of any development.
To encourage strategic replanting on public and private land to provide for the long term maintenance of landscape and environmental values within the precinct.
To prevent the premature removal of vegetation from a site prior to consideration of design options for a proposed development.
To ensure that appropriate replacement planting is provided and located appropriately on site where tree removal occurs.
To promote the use of locally indigenous plants for landscaping.
3.0 Permit requirement
Buildings and works
A permit is not required to construct a building or construct or carry out works provided all of the following requirements are met:
No more that 60% of the site is covered by buildings and impervious /hard surfaces including driveways, paving, decks, crushed rock, swimming pools or tennis courts.
At least 40% of the site is available (free from hard surfaces) for soft landscaping (eg. vegetation).
Buildings are setback a minimum of 2 meters from one side boundary.
There is only one dwelling on the lot.
Works are not being carried out within the drip line (outer edge of tree canopy) of a significant tree including a significant tree on an adjoining property or nature strip.
Vegetation Removal
A permit is required to remove, destroy or lop vegetation. This does not apply to:
Indigenous vegetation less than 3 meters in height.
Australian native vegetation less than 5 meters in height.
Exotic vegetation
Vegetation listed within the incorporated document Environmental Weeds, City of Greater Geelong, September 2008, except Coastal Tea-tree which contributes to the coastal landscape character in this location.
Prune a tree to improve its health or appearance, provided its normal growth habit is not retarded.
Vegetation that presents an immediate risk of personal injury or damage to property, if only that part of vegetation which presents the immediate risk is removed, destroyed or lopped.
Prune vegetation to remove any branch that overhangs an existing dwelling or is within 2 metres of an existing dwelling.
Vegetation that is dead to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.
Maintaining public utility services for the transmission of water, sewage, gas, electricity, electronic communications or the like to the minimum extent necessary by the relevant authority.
Works carried out in accordance with the Geelong Street Tree Strategy by the Responsible Authority.
4.0 Application Requirements
An application must be accompanied by the following information, these requirements may be waived or reduced if the information is not relevant to the assessment of an application:
A Design Response which shows the development in relation to:
Location of the proposed building(s) on the site and on surrounding properties;
The use of surrounding buildings;
Location of significant trees existing on the site and any significant trees removed;
Details of significant vegetation within 3 meters of the subject site boundary on any adjoining property;
Location and canopy size of street trees adjacent to the site;
Views to and from the site;
Any other notable features or characteristics of the site.
Landscaping
An application for buildings and works, or to remove, destroy or lop vegetation must be accompanied by a landscaping plan prepared by a suitably qualified person and should incorporate at least 2 canopy trees per site and the use of local indigenous or native species.
Buildings and works occurring within the drip line of a significant tree on the subject land or adjoining site requires a report from a suitably qualified arborist that shows how the tree will be managed during construction.
Vegetation Removal
An application to remove, destroy or lop a significant tree must be accompanied by the following information:
A report from a suitably arborist (level 5 or equivalent) that:
Includes a site plan (drawn to scale) showing the boundaries of the site, existing and proposed buildings and works, existing vegetation and the vegetation to be removed.
Details of vegetation within 3 meters of the subject site boundary on any adjoining property.
Describes the vegetation to be removed, including the genus, species, extent, number, height, health and quality of vegetation to be removed.
Specifies the purpose of the proposed removal, destruction or lopping of vegetation.
Justifies removal and demonstrates that the extent of removal, destruction or lopping has been reduced as much as is reasonable and practicable.
Nominates tree protection zones where proposed development could impact on the tree root systems, canopy and overall health and appearance of trees.
Provides a vegetation management plan for the construction period.
5.0 Transitional Arrangement
The requirements of this overlay do not apply to any planning permit application received by the responsible authority before the approval date of the amendment that introduced this schedule to Clause 43.02 into the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.
6.0 Decision guidelines
Before deciding on an application the responsible authority must consider:
Whether buildings sit within a vegetated landscape.
Whether the siting and footprint of buildings and availability of areas not covered by impervious surfaces enables the retention of significant vegetation and space for new canopy vegetation.
The need to retain significant vegetation due to its species, age, health, growth characteristics and/or contribution to neighbourhood character.
The size, species, age and health of existing vegetation proposed to be removed, destroyed or lopped and the size, species and growth characteristics of any proposed replacement vegetation.
Whether there is a valid reason for removing the vegetation and alternative options to removal have been fully explored such as changing the building footprint and/or lopping or trimming vegetation.
Whether new trees are consistent with the character of existing vegetation, have sufficient space to reach maturity and the proportion of new trees that would be semi-advanced or advanced in size at the time of planting.
The effect of constructing a building or constructing or carrying out works on the root system, canopy and overall health and appearance of any trees.
Whether a loss of character would result from a variation to part 3.0 of this clause.
Whether any street trees will need to be removed or detrimentally affected.
(previously agenda item 7)
Source: |
Planning & Development - Urban Growth |
General Manager: |
Peter Bettess |
Index Reference: |
Armstrong Creek Project - Development Contributions Plan - Armstrong Creek - Horseshoe Bend |
This report seeks approval for the preparation and exhibition of a Public Acquisition Overlay (PAO) to facilitate the acquisition of land for the purposes of drainage at
661-669 Barwon Heads Road and 619-639, 641-655 and 657-669 Boundary Road, Charlemont. The land is required for the construction and commissioning of the end-of-line storm water infrastructure nominated in the Horseshoe Bend Precinct Storm Water Management Strategy.
The Horseshoe Bend Precinct Structure Plan (HBPSP) and associated Horseshoe Bend Development Contributions Plan (HBDCP) nominate drainage infrastructure across four land parcels on the eastern edge of the precinct boundary (see Appendix 1).
The purpose of the drainage, as nominated in the PSP and DCP, is the conveyance of storm water from the Horseshoe Bend PSP area to the east into the Sparrovale Wetlands.
The subject land parcels are fragmented in both size and ownership and require an overall master plan to be developed by the land holders and approved by Council. The master plan must show a consolidated subdivision proposal for the entire area bounded by a boundary known as ‘sub-precinct C’ (see Appendix 2).
As a result of lack of access to services and the tremendous effort in coordination and/or land assembly required to enable development, the timeframe for the development of these properties for residential purposes and the overall Horseshoe Bend precinct requirement for the drainage infrastructure is unlikely for many years.
There is a need for the drainage infrastructure to be established as part of the commissioning of the Sparrovale Wetlands to receive water from the west side of Barwon Heads Road.
As a result, Council officers wish to pursue a Public Acquisition Overlay (PAO) on the land required for the drainage infrastructure across the four parcels to ensure that both the Sparrovale Wetlands and the infrastructure for conveyance of flows are secured.
P Dorling moved, L Gardner seconded -
That Council resolve to:
seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare Amendment C360 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme;
prepare and exhibit the amendment in accordance with the requirements nominated in the Planning & Environment Act 1987.
Carried.
The establishment of the Sparrovale Wetlands is critical to the continued development of the land within the Horseshoe Bend Precinct Structure Plan (HBPSP) area. Equally important is the establishment of drainage infrastructure to convey storm water from the Horseshoe Bend Precinct into the Sparrovale Wetlands (refer Appendix 3). It is the securing of land for this conveyance that forms the basis of the proposed application of a PAO on the land parcels that are the subject of this report.
The Horseshoe Bend Precinct Structure Plan was incorporated into the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme in November 2014. Since that time, three (3) Planning Permits have been issued in the PSP area representing approval of 3,102 residential lots and the setting aside of land for future retail, education and community purposes.
Significant civil works are currently being undertaken to support the residential development of the Horseshoe Bend Precinct Structure Plan area, however, in accordance with the approved Storm Water Management Strategy (SWMS) development of the precinct is limited to 25 per cent of the total net developable area without the acquisition and commissioning of the land parcels that make up the future Sparrovale Wetlands.
The Horseshoe Bend Precinct Development Contributions Plan (HBDCP) also nominates a trigger for the purchase and commissioning of the Sparrovale Wetlands: The upgrade of culverts under Barwon Heads Road (being the outlet from Barwon Heads Road south retarding basin) or at the discretion of the Responsible Authority. The requirement for the upgrade of the culverts is very likely to occur prior to the construction of 25 per cent of the developable land, given a planning permit has been granted for the land on which the construction of the Barwon Heads Road retarding basin is required.
Council has proposed, in a separate Planning Scheme Amendment, the application of a Public Acquisition Overlay (PAO) on the two (2) land parcels that will become the Sparrovale Wetlands.
The proposal of a PAO over the areas required for drainage on the east side of Barwon Heads Road is critical to the establishment of the drainage infrastructure required for conveyance of water into the Sparrovale Wetlands.
The establishment of an effective storm water management system in accordance with the Horseshoe Bend Storm Water Management Strategy will provide significant positive environmental outcomes including the protection of habitat.
Funding for the purchase of the land for drainage has been nominated in the incorporated Horseshoe Bend Development Contributions Plan (HBDCP).
Future budget proposal.
It is envisaged that a future proposal for budget will be requested to fund the timely delivery of the drainage infrastructure over the next three years.
As noted above, the costs for land acquisition for these drainage projects are included in the Horseshoe Bend DCP. As a result, there is an opportunity to offset the purchase costs against funds collected as future development occurs.
The planning scheme amendment to incorporate the Public Acquisition Overlay on properties is in accordance with the intent for the land as nominated in both the Horseshoe Bend Precinct Structure Plan and Horseshoe Bend Development Contributions Plan.
The Horseshoe Bend PSP and DCP are incorporated documents in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme and have been prepared in accordance with the Planning & Environment Act 1987, including direct notification to relevant property owners. Council is required to deliver each of the items nominated in the DCP and PSP to facilitate the orderly development of the Horseshoe Bend PSP area.
The amendment is also considered to meet the relevant requirements of both State Government and Council.
The Armstrong Creek Urban Growth area is one of Council’s priority projects in the City Plan.
The application of a Public Acquisition Overlay to both the Sparrovale Wetlands and the land required to convey storm water flows will ensure that the continuing needs of the growing community will be met in a timely manner.
In accordance with Section 80C of the Local Government Act no Council officers involved in this report have a direct or indirect interest.
In the absence of the Sparrovale wetlands development of the Horseshoe Bend Precinct Structure Plan area is limited to 25 per cent of the nominated net developable area and is triggered when the culverts are upgraded under Barwon Heads Road. Should the wetlands not be in public ownership at the time that the 25 per cent threshold is reached, or the culverts are upgraded, development within the Horseshoe Bend Precinct will be required to cease. This represents a potentially significant cost to developers and a dramatic reduction in the availability of residential house lots available for purchase. Ultimately, the situation will also result in a lag in the development of key infrastructure to serve the existing residents of the Horseshoe Bend precinct.
When the Sparrovale Wetlands are secured there remains a requirement for drainage infrastructure to feed storm water from the Horseshoe Bend Precinct area into the wetland area. As a result, both the acquisition of the two land parcels that will become the Sparrovale Wetlands and the land for conveyance of flows from the west side of Barwon Heads Road are inseparable. Should the Sparrovale Wetlands be acquired and the land for conveyance of flows not be acquired the risks highlighted above will remain.
That being said, the primary risk, of not securing the drainage infrastructure to convey flows in to the Sparrovale Wetlands, is in development occurring in the upper catchment (which is where the permitted development is currently being constructed) and resulting in adverse flooding impact through these properties beyond what is currently being experienced.
The Horseshoe Bend Precinct Structure Plan is a considered and well planned approach to the development of additional residential communities within the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area. The intent of the HBPSP and the HBDCP is to ensure that the infrastructure required to service the community meets their needs and expectations and is provided in a timely manner.
Council officers have taken into consideration the Human Rights Charter relative to the application of the Public Acquisition Overlay. This includes ‘ratepayers property rights’ and a ‘right to a fair hearing’.
Should Council resolve to seek authorisation to prepare the amendment, consultation and communication with land holders will be in accordance with the requirements nominated in the Planning & Environment Act 1987.
(previously agenda item 8)
Source: |
Planning & Development - Urban Growth |
General Manager: |
Peter Bettess |
Index Reference: |
Armstrong Creek Project - Development Contributions Plan - Armstrong Creek - Horseshoe Bend |
This report seeks approval for the preparation and exhibition of a Public Acquisition Overlay (PAO) to facilitate the acquisition of land at 1-87 Groves Road, Armstrong Creek and part of the land at 109-215 Sparrovale Road, Charlemont. The land is required for the construction and commissioning of the end-of-line wetlands nominated in the Horseshoe Bend Precinct Storm Water Management Strategy.
Storm water management for the Horseshoe Bend Precinct Structure Plan (HBPSP) area is reliant on the acquisition of the entire land parcel at 1-87 Groves Road, known as ‘Cold Winds’ and approximately 420 hectares of the land parcel at 109-215 Sparrovale Road, known as ‘Sparrovale’. The combined total acquisition area of both land parcels is approximately 523 hectares (see Appendix 1) and is commonly known as the ‘Sparrovale Wetlands’ project.
Without the two parcels in public ownership, and commissioned as a functioning wetland, only 25 per cent of the developable area nominated within the Horseshoe Bend Precinct can be constructed.
Funding for the purchase of the Sparrovale and Cold Winds properties is nominated in the Horseshoe Bend Development Contributions Plan (HBDCP).
Council officers entered into negotiations with the land holders in an attempt to purchase the land via private treaty. Council approved a budget to pursue purchase of the two land parcels in ’15-‘16, these negotiations have been unsuccessful and remain at an impasse.
A separate, but inextricably linked, issue is that storm water management for the balance of the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area is reliant on the Armstrong Creek entering the Connewarre Wetlands Complex via Hospital Swamp.
Whilst acquisition of the two land parcels is an essential component of the storm water management plan for the Horseshoe Bend Precinct Structure Plan, they can potentially accommodate additional storm water from the neighbouring Armstrong Creek East Precinct.
Council officers believe that the application of a Public Acquisition Overlay will provide the mechanism to resolve the purchase of both properties within a timeframe that allows for the establishment of the Sparrovale Wetlands. This will release the entire Horseshoe Bend Precinct Structure Plan area for urban development.
P Dorling moved, L Gardner seconded -
That Council resolve to:
requests that the Minister for Planning act as the Planning Authority for Amendment C357 and approve the amendment;
in the event that the Minister for Planning does not support the above option, seek Authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit Amendment C357 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.
Carried.
The Horseshoe Bend Precinct Structure Plan (HBPSP) was incorporated into the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme in November 2014. Since that time, three (3) Planning Permits have been issued in the PSP area representing approval of 3,102 residential lots and the setting aside of land for future retail, education and community purposes.
Significant civil works are currently being undertaken to support the residential development of the Horseshoe Bend Precinct Structure Plan area, however, in accordance with the approved Storm Water Management Strategy (SWMS) development of the precinct is limited to 25 per cent of the total net developable area without the acquisition and commissioning of the land parcels that make up the future Sparrovale Wetlands.
The Horseshoe Bend Precinct Development Contributions Plan (HBDCP) also nominates a trigger for the purchase and commissioning of the Sparrovale Wetlands, being the upgrade of culverts under Barwon Heads Road (being the outlet from Barwon Heads Road south retarding basin) or at the discretion of the Responsible Authority. The requirement for the upgrade of the culverts is very likely to occur prior to the construction of 25 per cent of the developable land, given a planning permit has been granted for the land on which the construction of the Barwon Heads Road retarding basin is required.
In 2015, negotiations to purchase both properties have been unsuccessful in the securing of the land required for the Sparrovale Wetlands.
As a result, Council officers recommend that a Public Acquisition Overlay (PAO) be applied to the necessary land area (see Appendix 2) to assist in facilitating the timely acquisition of these properties and allow access and construction of the wetland prior to:
the exhaustion of the 25 per cent developable area within the Horseshoe Bend Precinct; or,
the culvert upgrade under Barwon Heads Road.
Amendment C259 – Horseshoe Bend Precinct
Preparation of the Horseshoe Bend PSP, DCP and Native Vegetation Precinct Plan (NVPP) commenced in 2012 and was approved and gazetted in 2014. As with other precincts a key focus when developing the PSP was the development of a strategy for the management of storm water.
The Storm Water Management Strategy (SWMS) for Horseshoe Bend noted that the bulk of existing pre-development run off from the area that defines the Horseshoe Bend Precinct runs easterly across Barwon Heads Road into the Sparrovale Farm then on to the Barwon River. In addition to storm water from the west, Sparrovale Farm and Cold Winds are also subject to inundation from the Barwon River during major flood events.
The following extract is taken from Page 3 of the Horseshoe Bend SWMS:
It is clear from Figures 2-4 inclusive that Sparrovale Farm is and has historically been subject to extensive inundation from both its local catchment and the Barwon River.
Development of the HBP lands will further increase volumes and frequency of surface runoff discharging to the farm area which is of critical concerns [sic.] for the affected landowners.
Acknowledgement of the poor outcomes for both Cold Winds and Sparrovale from both the Barwon River and the Horseshoe Bend Precinct resulted in their inclusion in the Horseshoe Bend DCP to fund the purchase of both properties with the aim of rehabilitating them into a high quality wetland to receive urban runoff.
During the preparation, exhibition and incorporation of the Horseshoe Bend PSP, DCP and NVPP at least one development company were negotiating with the land owners regarding forward funding the purchase of both Sparrovale and Cold Winds. Council officers were also actively attempting to mediate the purchase of the land for the Sparrovale Wetlands. These attempts were unsuccessful.
Funding for land acquisition
In the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 budgets, Council approved funds for the purchase of both Sparrovale (in part) and Cold Winds. Council officers have been liaising with the land owners and their legal representatives regarding a negotiated purchase of both properties on agreed terms. To date, no such agreement has been reached resulting in the need to provide certainty via a compulsory acquisition process.
The application of a Public Acquisition Overlay (PAO) will provide the mechanism to acquire the two parcels within a timeframe that allows for the establishment of the Sparrovale Wetlands and facilitate continued development within the precinct.
Minister for Planning as the Planning Authority
As noted above, the Horseshoe Bend PSP, DCP and NVPP were incorporated into the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme in November 2014.
The amendment was formally exhibited between the 5th December 2013 and the 27th January 2014 with a total of 42 submissions received. No submissions were received objecting to the purchase of the two land parcels for the establishment of the Sparrovale Wetlands.
A Panel Hearing was conducted on the 10th, 11th, 12th and 18th June 2014 in an attempt to resolve outstanding issues in the submissions. The Panel Report was issued on 29th July 2014.
The Panel accepted the Horseshoe Bend Precinct Storm Water Management Strategy and the proposal to purchase the two properties for the Sparrovale Wetlands.
The lack of an objection to the purchase of both properties and the rigour applied to the development, exhibition and notice, Panel Hearing and ultimately the Gazettal of the Horseshoe Bend PSP, DCP and NVPP, has led to the request that the Minister for Planning expedite the application of the PAO by consenting to being the Planning Authority for the amendment.
Planning Scheme Provisions
The Explanatory Report, Instruction Sheet and relevant Planning Provisions that Council officers have prepared in support of the amendment are attached at
Appendix 3.
The establishment of the Sparrovale Wetlands will provide significant positive environmental outcomes including the potential to divert storm water volumes from Hospital Swamps and the subsequent protection of several habitat zones surrounding the Hospital Swamps.
In addition, the amendment will address the potential environmental implications of the continued development of the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area through the protection of the Ramsar listed Lake Connewarre Wetland Complex.
Funding for the purchase of both land parcels has been nominated in the incorporated Horseshoe Bend Development Contributions Plan.
Current approved budget.
The Horseshoe Bend DCP attributes values to the land acquisition required for the Sparrovale Wetlands. In accordance with the administration requirements of the DCP, revaluations are undertaken annually and the costs apportioned across the developable area of the Horseshoe Bend precinct.
As a result of the inclusion of these costs in the Horseshoe Bend DCP, there is an opportunity to offset the purchase of both properties with funds collected as development occurs.
The planning scheme amendment to incorporate the Public Acquisition Overlay on both properties is in accordance with the intent for the land as nominated in both the Horseshoe Bend Precinct Structure Plan and Horseshoe Bend Development Contributions Plan.
The Horseshoe Bend PSP and DCP are incorporated documents in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme and have been prepared in accordance with the Planning & Environment Act 1987, including direct notification to relevant property owners. Council is required to deliver each of the items nominated in the DCP and PSP to facilitate the orderly development of the Horseshoe Bend PSP area.
The amendment is also considered to meet the relevant requirements of both State Government and Council.
The Armstrong Creek Urban Growth area is one of Council’s priority projects in the City Plan.
The application of a Public Acquisition Overlay to the Sparrovale Wetlands will ensure that the continuing needs of the growing community will be met in a timely manner.
In accordance with Section 80C of the Local Government Act no Council officers involved in this report have a direct or indirect interest.
In the absence of the Sparrovale wetlands development of the Horseshoe Bend Precinct Structure Plan area is limited to 25 per cent of the nominated net developable area or triggered when the culverts are upgraded under Barwon Heads Road. Should the wetlands not be in public ownership at the time that the 25 per cent threshold is reached, or the culverts are upgraded, development within the Horseshoe Bend Precinct will be required to cease. This represents a potentially significant cost to developers and a dramatic reduction in the availability of residential house lots available for purchase. Ultimately, the situation will also result in a lag in the development of key infrastructure to serve the existing residents of the Horseshoe Bend precinct.
The Horseshoe Bend Precinct Structure Plan is a considered and well planned approach to the development of additional residential communities within the Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Area. The intent of the HBPSP and the HBDCP is to ensure that the infrastructure required to service the community meets their needs and expectations and is provided in a timely manner.
The establishment of the Sparrovale Wetlands will also bring a significant area of passive environmental recreation for residents and will assist in the timely provision of serviced land for residential development.
Council officers have taken into consideration the Human Rights Charter relative to the application of the Public Acquisition Overlay. This includes ‘ratepayers property rights’ and a ‘right to a fair hearing’.
Council officers will write to the land owners seeking support for a fast-track planning scheme amendment process via the Minister for Planning.
Should the Minister for Planning decline to become the Planning Authority for the amendment, Council will seek Authorisation to exhibit the amendment. Consultation and communication with land holders will be in accordance with the requirements nominated in the Planning & Environment Act 1987.
(previously agenda item 9)
Source: |
Planning & Development |
General Manager: |
Peter Bettess |
Index Reference: |
Development Contribution Plans - Governance |
As part of Council’s Development Contribution Governance Framework an annual report is to be presented to Council and the Audit Advisory Committee reporting on the income, expenditure and general performance of Development Contribution Plans over the past 12 months.
Council currently has seven (7) active Development Contribution Plans (DCPs) that facilitate the collection of development contributions and fund the delivery of essential projects within Council major growth area
A robust governance framework has been set up for the management and administration of these Development Contribution Plans with a particular emphasis on consistency, accountability, transparency and strategic focus.
Council’s DCPs require the delivery of approximately $492M in essential projects to service Council’s key growth areas, with the current performance of these DCPs reflecting a remaining liability of approximately $450M and remaining income of approximately $425M expected over the next 15 - 20 years. This represents a current funding gap of approximately $25.2M.
The performance of Council DCPs during the 2015/16 financial year has seen $1.19M in income received (cash) and $3.28M in expenditure ($3.23M in developer works-in-kind projects and $0.05M in Council initiated projects).
The current delivery status of Council’s DCPs (whole of life) shows approximately 9% of projects have been completed for all active DCPs.
The indexation for DCP projects saw increases of 1.44% for buildings and 0.37% for roads and bridges (based on the adopted ABS produce price index), while average land increases were 10.2%. The combined result of these indexation figures saw Development Contribution levies rise by between 0.18 – 1.55% as at 1 July 2016.
Development within Council’s major growth area, Armstrong Creek, has continued to show very strong development activity with dwelling activity currently at 60% above original forecasts (2014/15 was 57%). This highlights the importance of continued investment in key DCP projects to meet the needs of this, and other, growing communities around the City of Greater Geelong.
L Gardner moved, P Dorling seconded -
That Council notes the 12 month report on Development Contribution Plans and the current funding gap of approximately $25.2M over the next 15-20 years (not including additional costs directly or indirectly linked to urban growth management).
Carried.
Geelong is experiencing significant urban growth across the municipality and with this growth comes the need for delivering key infrastructure to service these new communities.
One of the key funding avenues to deliver this infrastructure is the use of development contributions, or more formally, the use of a Development Contribution Plan (DCP).
A DCP is an incorporated document within the planning scheme that allows Council to levy a charge upon a specific area/precinct of development in order to facilitate the delivery of future projects specifically required to service this area/precinct (e.g. traffic lights, recreation reserves, community centres, etc).
Council’s DCPs require the delivery of approximately $492M in essential projects to service urban growth, with the current performance of these DCPs reflecting a remaining liability of approximately $450.3M and remaining income of approximately $425.1M expected over the next 15-20 years. This represents a current funding gap of approximately $25.2M.
Over the past six years the City of Greater Geelong has been implementing a detailed governance framework for the administration of DCPs. The framework is aimed at ensuring all DCPs are managed and administered in a strategic, consistent, accountable and transparent manner (Refer Appendix 1 – CoGG DCP Governance Framework).
A recognised component of the governance framework was the need to provide an annual report to Council detailing the performance of Council’s DCPs over the past financial year.
The report is aimed at summarising the following key features:
Income received
Works in Kind projects delivered by developers
Council expenditure on DCP projects
Land provided to Council (funded by a DCP)
Current funding gaps for DCPs
General growth area development activities
These themes are consistent with the recommendations made by the Standard Development Contribution Advisory Committee responsible for recommending reforms within the State Government’s new development contributions system. This new system is planned for implementation in late 2016.
The above themes are also consistent with the draft template provided by State Government relating to the proposed annual reporting requirements set out under recent changes to the Planning and Environmental Act (Part 3B, Section 46QD). Noting this reporting obligation and templates are yet to be formalised.
The indexation for DCP projects saw increases of 1.44% for buildings construction and 0.37% for roads and bridge construction (based on the adopted ABS Produce Price Index), while average land increases were 10.2% during 2015/16.
The indexation performance of Council’s DCP Levies Appendix 4 – Development Contribution Plan Levies – Indexation Trends (4 years) shows the average annual increase of between 0.18% and 1.55% per annum for Council’s DCP Levies. A key factor in this variation is based on DCP levies being indexed via three separate indices for land, civil works and building projects.
DCP INCOME RECEIVED
Council currently has three DCPs generating income from either the Development Infrastructure Levy (DIL) or the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL, $900 / dwelling), or both (refer Appendix 2 – DCP Summary Report).
The total cash income received across these three DCPs (Armstrong Creek East and West and Jetty Road) was $1.89M ($1.02M for DIL and $0.87M for CIL). However during the year a developer within the Curlewis Growth Area completed the final stage of their development and due to their work-in-kind credits being in excess of their overall liability they were entitled to a refund of these credits. This refunded was acknowledge at the start of their development due to a significant DCP road project being delivered through the middle of their development. The refund amount was $705,558.
The result was a net income position of $1.18M during 2015/16 ($0.31M for DIL and $0.87M for CIL).
The total income received for all three DCPs since their approval is $4.08M.
DCP WORKS IN KIND PROJECTS (EXCLUDING LAND)
Works in kind projects are those projects delivered by developers in exchange for a credit against their developments DCP liability.
A total of six (6) works in kind projects were delivered either in full or in part during 2015-16; one being within the Jetty Road Growth Area (foreshore improvement works) and five being within the Armstrong Creek West Precinct (intersection, shared paths and drainage works).
The credited value of these DCP projects was $3.12M. For a detailed breakdown refer Appendix 2 – DCP Summary Report.
DCP PROJECTS DELIVERED BY COUNCIL
Council progressed the delivery of one DCP project during 2015/16, being a signalised intersection for the North South Collector Road (Part A) and Geelong Portarlington Road, relating only to minor survey costs completed during the year.
The credited value of these DCP projects was $300. For a detailed breakdown refer Appendix 2 – DCP Summary Report.
DCP FUNDED LAND
During 2015/16 six land projects were undertaken within Council’s DCP areas (refer Appendix 2 – DCP Summary Report), four being delivered by Council and two being works-in-kind projects by developers.
Two of these projects were land provided to Council as works-in-kind for drainage projects within the Armstrong Creek West Precinct (credited at $0.14M).
The Council projects involved early legal and administration costs associated with land acquisition projects, including three in the Horseshoe Bend Precinct (drainage land) and one within the Curlewis Growth Area (north-south connector road).
DCP FUNDING GAPS
A critical component of managing Council’s DCPs is a clear understanding of the funding gap associated with delivering Council’s legal obligations under the DCPs.
Council DCPs require the delivery of approximately $492M in essential projects to service urban growth. The current performance of these DCPs reflects a remaining liability of approximately $450.3M with remaining income of approximately $425.1M expected over the next 15 - 20 years.
Council’s total funding gap across all DCPs is $25.2M (as at 30 June 2016).
For a detailed breakdown of Council’s current liabilities and gap funding refer Appendix 3 - Development Contribution Plans - Whole of Life Remaining Liability, Income and Funding Gap.
The above funding gaps don’t include additional costs associated with:
Increases in scope for DCP projects (eg: increasing the size, standard, etc for community centres, pavilions or recreation facilities and playing fields),
Financing costs associated with forward funding DCP projects in advance of DCP income being available;
The continued long term impact of the non-indexed Community Infrastructure levy (capped at $900/dwelling. Capped since 2003);
Increased cost of land acquisition program due to legal/administration costs, increased compensation claims and land value escalation;
The cost of public open space land. Public open space contribution is a separate levy, but has a similar exposure to large land compensation; and
Unfunded projects not linked to DCPs but are essential to the long term infrastructure/service needs of the community (eg: Armstrong Creek’s regional library, aquatic centre, multi-purpose stadium and art and cultural facility). It is estimated that on their own these unfunded projects total close to $80M.
DCP GROWTH AREAS – DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
Another important aspect of DCP management is understanding the development activity that supports the generation of income for the DCPs and also triggers the need for DCP projects that service these new communities.
Appendix 5 – Armstrong Creek Annual Dwelling Activity by Suburb (compared to forecast) illustrates the development activity within the City’s major growth area, Armstrong Creek. The table highlights the need for strong financial planning and early infrastructure investment to ensure Council delivers DCP projects as required under the DCP (e.g. facilities like community and recreation facilities, purchasing land to facilitate other projects and in some case drainage projects required to unlock / service fragmented development fronts).
The table in Appendix 5 shows the Armstrong Creek growth area (ie: the two active suburbs of Armstrong Creek and Mt Duneed) are delivering dwellings at 60% above that forecast for the 2011/12 to 2015/16 period (i.e.: projected dwellings of 1,469 versus actual dwellings of 2.349). This is a total of 880 additional dwellings delivered over the five year period.
The Jetty Road growth area has seen strong subdivision activity during 2015/16 with double the previous years’ lot production (noting the annual projection for the growth area in approximately 100 lots per annum). The Lara West Growth Area has only recently commence development via the Manzeene Village estate.
GENERAL DCP PROGRESS REPORT
Curlewis Growth Area (Jetty Road DCP)
The Curlewis Growth Area (also known as the Jetty Road Growth Area) is significantly advanced with 820 lots delivered, the Curlewis Parks (north) estate now complete and another four estates well advanced.
Council is undertaking land acquisition for the north-south connector road which will be a crucial link from Portarlington Road into this new community and continued to progress works for the Griggs Creek Rehabilitation and Revegetation project.
Council has received Community Infrastructure Levies for 218 lots during 2014/15 (with 97 being received in 2014/15).
Armstrong Creek East Precinct
The Armstrong Creek East Precinct’s main estate, Warralily is progressing development on two fronts on Barwon Heads Rd and Surf Coast Hwy.
Warralily are continuing to provide the Armstrong Creek Drainage and Waterway Improvement works between Barwon Heads Road and Surf Coast Highway to offset their DCP liabilities (an award winning project recognised by Stormwater Victoria). Horizon Cove and Armstrong Waters, are also progressing development to the west of Barwon Heads Road. The Precinct’s neighbourhood activity centre, Warralily Village, has also commenced development facilitating the delivery of key community, education, recreation and retail facilities.
Council has received Community Infrastructure Levies for 450 lots during 2014/15 (with 406 being received in 2013-14)
Armstrong Creek North East Industrial Precinct
The Armstrong Creek North East Industrial Precinct Development Contribution Plan was approved in 2010. Development is yet to commence in this precinct.
Armstrong Creek West Precinct
The Armstrong Creek West Precinct’s main development Armstrong Mt Duneed estate has continued development west of Surf Coast Highway. As part of offsetting its DCP liabilities it has constructed the intersection at Surf Coast Highway and Burvilles Road and a shared path along Sovereign Drive. The developer is also continuing to provide the Armstrong Creek waterway improvement and drainage works between Surf Coast Highway and Sovereign Drive.
As part of the Armstrong Creek West DCP, Council has completed construction of the intersection at Baanip Boulevard and Sovereign Drive.
Council has received Community Infrastructure Levies for 296 lots during 2014/15 (with 224 being received in 2013-14).
Lara West Growth Area
Amendment C285 - Lara West Growth Area DCP was approved by the Minister for Planning on 17 July 2014. The first estate, Manzeene Village, has commenced development during 2015/16 with the first lots scheduled for delivering in late 2016.
Armstrong Creek Town Centre Precinct
Amendment C267 Armstrong Creek Town Centre Development Contributions Plan was approved by the Minister for Planning on 23 October 2014.
The DCP includes eight intersections, shared paths, drainage works and contribution towards the construction of a Regional Library. Development is expected to commence in 2016-17 financial year.
Horseshoe Bend Precinct
Amendment C259 Armstrong Creek Horseshoe Bend Development Contribution Plan was approved by the Minister for Planning on 27 November 2014. The Horseshoe Bend DCP includes active open space, intersections, drainage works and community centres.
During 2015/16 development commenced for three estates, Charlemont Rise, Ashbury and Watermark, with the first lots scheduled for delivering in late 2016.
There are no significant environmental impacts as a result of the management and administration of Council DCP system.
One of the main features of the development contributions system is to ensure that new development funds essential infrastructure required to service these new communities.
The system is also setup to ensure these new development don’t create an unfair burden on the existing community. Therefore it is important to recognise the $25.2M funding gap in DCP projects and ensure these funds are included in Council long-term financial plan and various funding strategies are put in place to secure these funds when required with minimal impact to the existing community.
The report has been prepared to reflect Council’s obligations under the Victorian Local Government Act (1989) and Planning and Environment Act (1987).
The report supports the How We Do Business strategic direction of City Plan, in particular the priority of ‘responsible and sustainable financial management.
There is no direct or indirect officer conflict.
As part of the DCP Governance Framework a detailed risk assessment has been undertaken to assist in the management of development contribution within Council. Key risks have been elevated to Council’s corporate risk register, while lower risks have been included as part of the DCP administration processes / procedures.
Some of these major corporate risks include failure to delivery infrastructure projects; over expenditure on DCP projects; and early claims for land purchase / compensation.
There are no significant social impacts as a result of the management and administration of Council DCP system.
Council officers have taken into consideration the Human Rights Charter relative to the subject matter of this report.
A summary of the report has been included in the draft City of Greater Geelong
2015-16 Annual Report.
As at 30 June 2016
DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTION PLANS |
Income |
Total |
Value |
Percentage of Project Completed |
Total Percentage of Project Completed |
JETTY ROAD GROWTH AREA |
|||||
Development Infrastructure Levy collected |
-655,894* |
|
|
|
|
Projects Delivered by Developers |
|
1,987,845 |
397,569 |
20.0% |
20.0% |
Projects Delivered by Council |
|
366,055 |
36,312 |
9.9% |
10.0% |
R003 Intersection - North South Connector Road (Part A) / Portarlington Road - Construction |
|
1,740,546 |
300 |
0.0% |
1.0% |
ARMSTRONG CREEK EAST PRECINCT |
|||||
Development Infrastructure Levy collected |
973,876 |
|
|
|
|
Community Infrastructure Levy collected |
405,000 |
|
|
|
|
Projects Delivered by Developers |
|
|
|
|
|
ARMSTRONG CREEK WEST PRECINCT |
|||||
Development Infrastructure Levy collected |
3,698 |
|
|
|
|
Projects Delivered by Developers |
|
2,028,086 |
85,585 |
4.2% |
13.4% |
ARMSTRONG CREEK HORSESHOE BEND PRECINCT |
|||||
Development Infrastructure Levy collected |
- |
|
|
|
|
Projects Delivered by Developers |
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
1,189,280 |
19,303,292 |
3,282,709 |
|
|
* This negative income includes $49,663 in cash and a repayment of $705,558 for reimbursement of additional credits due to works-in-kind.
As at 30 June 2016
Development Contribution Plans |
Current Remaining Liability |
Remaining Income |
Funding Gap* |
% of Liability the Gap Represent |
Jetty Road Urban Growth Area |
22,610,635 |
16,322,911 |
6,287,725 |
27.8% |
Armstrong Creek North East Industrial Precinct |
13,684,704 |
13,684,704 |
- |
0.0% |
Armstrong Creek East Precinct |
106,979,230 |
103,032,677 |
3,946,552 |
3.7% |
Armstrong Creek West Precinct |
94,806,606 |
89,468,228 |
5,338,377 |
5.6% |
Lara West Urban Growth Area |
43,826,696 |
40,105,767 |
3,720,928 |
8.5% |
Armstrong Creek Town Centre Precinct |
24,018,432 |
22,309,620 |
1,708,812 |
7.1% |
Armstrong Creek Horseshoe Bend Precinct |
144,328,103 |
140,150,982 |
4,177,121 |
2.9% |
TOTAL |
450,254,406 |
425,074,890 |
25,179,516 |
5.6% |
* Gap funding includes Community Infrastructure Levy shortfall (impacted by non-indexed $900/dwelling), CoGG contribution and DET contribution
As at 30 June 2016
Development Contribution Plan |
Current Income |
Current Projects Complete |
% Total DCP Projects Completed |
Jetty Road Urban Growth Area |
1,302,384 |
5,786,355 |
20% |
Armstrong Creek North East Industrial Precinct |
- |
- |
0% |
Armstrong Creek East Precinct |
1,807,758 |
22,868,362 |
18% |
Armstrong Creek West Precinct |
968,929 |
13,992,173 |
13% |
Lara West Urban Growth Area |
- |
1,911 |
0% |
Armstrong Creek Town Centre Precinct |
- |
- |
0% |
Armstrong Creek Horseshoe Bend Precinct |
- |
- |
0% |
TOTAL |
4,079,071 |
42,648,802 |
9% |
Development Infrastructure Levy
Development Contributions Plan |
2014-15 |
2015-16 |
2016-17 |
Average Annual Increase |
Jetty Road Urban Growth Area (residential) |
88,038 |
90,399 |
92,137 |
1.55% |
Armstrong Creek North East Industrial Precinct (industrial) |
97,186 |
97,406 |
97,699 |
0.18% |
Armstrong Creek East Precinct (residential) |
242,152 |
246,613 |
249,683 |
1.04% |
Armstrong Creek West Precinct (residential) |
258,493 |
262,798 |
265,960 |
0.96% |
Armstrong Creek Town Centre (Precinct 5 – Mixed Use Residential) |
261,635 |
258,895 |
272,367 |
1.37% |
Armstrong Creek Horseshoe Bend (residential) |
281,488 |
284,902 |
290,703 |
1.09% |
Lara West Urban Growth Area (residential – Charge Area A) |
129,561 |
132,482 |
134,015 |
1.15% |
|
|
|
|
|
As at 30 June 2016
Suburb |
Projected or Actual Dwellings # |
Dwellings per Year |
|||||
11/12 |
12/13 |
13/14 |
14/15 |
15/16 |
TOTALS |
||
Armstrong Creek |
Projected |
40 |
180 |
345 |
346 |
350 |
1,261 |
|
Actual |
128 |
325 |
449 |
406 |
450 |
1,758 |
Mount Duneed |
Projected |
1 |
1 |
0 |
106 |
100 |
208 |
|
Actual |
0 |
0 |
71 |
224 |
296 |
591 |
TOTALS |
Projected |
41 |
181 |
345 |
452 |
450 |
1,469 |
|
Actual |
128 |
325 |
520 |
630 |
746 |
2,349 |
Difference |
|
87 |
144 |
175 |
178 |
296 |
880 |
Cumulative Difference |
|
87 |
231 |
406 |
584 |
880 |
- |
Percentage Increase |
|
212% |
80% |
51% |
39% |
65% |
60% |
# Based on City of Greater Geelong Population Forecast (forecast.id) and actual figures based on annual collection of community infrastructure levy ($900 / dwelling)
Note – Development has only recently commence in the suburb of Charlemont, and yet to commence in Marshall.
(previously agenda item 10)
Source: |
Planning & Development – Strategic Implementation |
General Manager: |
Peter Bettess |
Index Reference: |
Application: Amendment RL121 |
The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the operation of an existing S173 Agreement and determine whether it should be ended.
Amendment RL121 which was approved in 1998 with an accompanying Section 173 Agreement provided for the development by Anco Seed & Turf P/L (ANCO) of 9 residential lots and a boathouse/restaurant on the south west corner of Balcombe & Winsor Road, Newtown adjacent the Barwon River.
The residential lots have been constructed and the boathouse/restaurant was built in a landscaped setting and been in operation since 2005.
Whilst most of the conditions of the Agreement have been met, the requirement that 2.5ha of land (including the restaurant complex) be transferred to Council has never been completed.
Council officers have identified some financial exposures for the Council under the current Agreement arrangements whilst the owners have sought changes to the Agreement to enable them to retain ownership of the restaurant and surrounding area.
Despite some years of negotiations between the parties, no acceptable outcome has been achieved.
Having reviewed the current circumstances as set out in this report, Council officers now believe there is little value in pursuing negotiations and becoming responsible for the management of further passive recreational land in this area.
It is recommended Council advises the owner that it proposes to initiate steps to end this Agreement.
L Gardner moved, P Dorling seconded -
That Council advises ANCO Seed and Turf P/L that it proposes to initiate steps to end the Section 173 Agreement forming part of the approval of Amendment RL121 applying to land at the south-west corner of Balcombe and Windsor Roads, Newtown.
Carried.
Amendment RL121 which was approved in 1998 with an accompanying Section 173 Agreement provided for the development by Anco Seed & Turf P/L (ANCO) of 9 residential lots and a boathouse/restaurant on the south west corner of Balcombe & Winsor Road, Newtown adjacent the Barwon River. This development was completed in 2005.
Detailed conditions applying to these uses and their operation, scale, buildings and works, subdivision, development plans etc were contained in Ordinance provisions forming part of the Amendment.
The accompanying Section 173 Agreement dealt in particular with landscaping of the site, staging of the subdivision, construction of Windsor Road and transfer of open space land to the Council.
The existing zoning of the subject land and surrounds is Appendix 1 and an aerial photo is Appendix 2. The subject land adjoins King Lloyd Reserve to the south.
Details of the land transfer arrangement in the Agreement and attached lease include:
Anco to transfer approximately one third of the development site including the road to the Council, being lots 11 & 12. See Appendix 3.
Anco is to develop a restaurant on part of lot 12 with a lease back from Council to Anco for a term of 100 years, with the first 50 years rent free, and the rent for the next 50 years at market rent. The lease is a ground lease and is incorporated into the existing agreement.
Anco is to develop the balance of lot 12 and lot 11 as a public park and maintain the area through the term of the lease.
Whilst the residential subdivision and the restaurant boathouse (Barwon Edge) have been completed and operational for over 10 years, the land transfer anticipated by the Agreement and associated subdivision of land has not been completed.
Council’s Property and Procurement Department considers that some terms of the existing agreement and lease expose Council to possible costs and risks including:
The lease incorporated into the existing agreement exposes Council to maintenance and repair of the restaurant building in relation to “…..damage by fair wear and tear, fire, storm, tempest, explosion, flood … etc”. From year 1 Council is to be responsible for maintenance to the external fabric of the building and the roof, as well as mechanical systems excluding the tenant’s fit out. Such provisions are unusual in a ground lease where the landlord normally has no obligations in relation to the tenant’s buildings.
Council is responsible for the repair costs of wilful damage to the restaurant and parkland by members of the public even when it is not receiving any rent in years 1 – 50.
The tenant is to maintain the parkland throughout the 100 years, but if its rent from the premises is reduced significantly against the cost of maintaining parkland, the Council may receive no rent.
In order to avoid some of the above exposures, discussions have been taking place over many years with the owner to see if alternative arrangements which better suit both parties can be agreed.
Council’s position has also been influenced by the King Lloyd Reserve Master Plan which indicates that part of the land to be retained by the owner pursuant to the original Agreement(lot 10 in Appendix 3) could be used for sports grounds, in particular a north/south oriented hockey field.
From the owner’s viewpoint there would seem to be considerable benefit in being able to maintain freehold title to the restaurant land and the surrounding landscaped setting (which whilst being generally accessible to the public, is physically associated with and focused on the restaurant and does not naturally attract the wider public i.e. non-restaurant users).
Negotiations with the owner have been more or less centred on the owner retaining most of Lots 11 & 12 as shown in Appendix 3 and in return lot 10 would be transferred to Council.
Over recent times the negotiations have been further complicated by:
The owner negotiating directly with the Newtown City Hockey Club to transfer ownership of parts of the lots 10 and 11 directly to it to enable it to establish a new hockey facility. Any Council involvement or financial commitment to this arrangement is not recommended.
The owner indicating an intention to seek planning approval (rezoning) for a small scale convention/function facility on part of Lots 10 & 11. The owner is aware that a range of flooding, amenity and planning issues need to be addressed, making the outcome difficult to predict.
Council officers believe that in these circumstances there is now little value in pursuing negotiations with the owner. The only positive outcome for Council is to have Lot 10 transferred to it which would enable a north/south oriented hockey field to be established. Any other land configuration enabling only an east-west hockey field (privately owned or otherwise) or further passive open space is not supported and is not consistent with the King Lloyd Reserve Masterplan. As this Masterplan notes, this general area is well served with passive recreational facilities and walking tracks along the Barwon River and Balyang Sanctuary just downstream on the east side of Shannon Avenue. There is little value in pursuing negotiations and for Council to become responsible for the management of further passive recreational land in this area (which for the most part has already been provided by the owner and is accessible to the public).
Ending the existing Section 173 Agreement as recommended will result in a need to amend the zoning of that part of the subject land which was zoned Public Park and Recreation zone in anticipation of the Agreement being implemented. At this stage it is proposed that preparation of the necessary Planning Scheme Amendment to make this zone change be held in abeyance pending Council consideration of the owners proposal for a small-scale convention function facility which may impact on future zonings on the land.
The land as it is currently developed and used consists of buildings and formal parkland areas which enhance the general environs of the Barwon River and the associated shared pathway. Lot 10 is unimproved land formerly used for turf production and farming.
The Council’s King Lloyd Reserve is located to the south of the subject land. Future development of that reserve will seek to protect the values of the park, enhance the landscape quality of the reserve, promote effective management of the tree stock and improve facilities, infrastructure and functioning for broad community use whilst retaining the natural ambiance of the precinct.
The financial implications arising out of the existing Agreement arrangements have been discussed in the report and constitute a major factor in the recommendation that the current Agreement be ended.
Section 177 (2) of the Planning & Environment Act enables an Agreement to be ended by Council with the Approval of the Minister or by Agreement between the parties to an Agreement.
If the Agreement is to be ended as recommended, notice will be required under s189 of the Local Government Act as Council would be surrendering its right to have land transferred to it which could be interpreted as selling or exchanging land.
No officers involved have a direct or indirect interest in this matter.
Ending the Agreement as recommended reduces the risks of Council exposure to adverse financial implications as described in this report.
There are no social considerations to this report.
The ending of this Agreement will not impact on basic human rights, freedoms and responsibilities as set out in the Charter.
This report discusses issues affecting signatories to a Section 173 Agreement which should not impact on adjoining owners or the general public.
This report has not been subject to any external communication other than the existing owner.
Source: |
City Services - Environment and Waste Services |
Acting General Manager: |
Vicki Shelton |
Index Reference: |
Sustainability |
The purpose of this report is to seek endorsement for the Draft Greenhouse Strategy to be placed on public exhibition for feedback. The feedback from the community will be used to inform the drafting of a final Greenhouse Strategy to be presented to Council for adoption.
The Greenhouse Strategy provides a framework for Council to reduce Council energy costs, increase investment in renewable energy and, in partnership with the Geelong community, achieve a reduction in Geelong’s greenhouse emissions.
The City of Greater Geelong was recently announced as the third Australian local government to be certified as a One Planet Living Council. The City of Greater Geelong is committed to working towards the ten One Planet Living principles including working towards Zero Carbon emissions for Council’s buildings and infrastructure.
The Draft Greenhouse Strategy is the primary guiding document for Council to work towards zero carbon and delivering on key actions of Council’s Environment Management Strategy.
The Draft Greenhouse Strategy represents an update of Council’s Greenhouse Response 2008-2011 and builds on Council’s work to date on emissions reduction.
Input for the Draft Greenhouse Strategy has been sought from the community and council via formation of Project Steering and Advisory Groups, workshops, presentations, interviews and surveys.
The Draft Greenhouse Strategy includes seven Council emissions reduction target options for 2020.
The Draft Greenhouse Strategy will be updated with any changes that may arise to Council building stock pending the outcome of an assessment for consolidating council staff into fewer buildings.
Once endorsed by Council, the Draft Greenhouse Strategy will be placed on public exhibition for a four week period.
P Dorling moved, L Gardner seconded -
That Council:
endorse a greenhouse emissions reduction target of 50% based on 14/15 emissions (Option 5), and recognize Council's aspirations to reach zero carbon emissions;
note that the endorsed target will be incorporated into the Draft Greenhouse Strategy and placed on public exhibition for four weeks;
approve the public exhibition of the Draft Greenhouse Strategy for public comment.
The City of Greater Geelong was recently announced as the third Australian local government to be certified as a One Planet Living Council. The City of Greater Geelong is committed to working towards the ten One Planet Living principles and the Greenhouse Strategy is the primary document guiding work to achieve zero carbon emissions.
The development of an updated Greenhouse Strategy is a key action of the City’s Environment Management Strategy under the strategic direction of “Leadership, Greenhouse and Energy”.
The Draft Greenhouse Strategy represents an update of Council’s Greenhouse Response 2008-2011 and builds on Council’s work on emissions reduction. The Greenhouse Strategy also incorporates work from the Low Carbon Growth Plan for Greater Geelong and provides an opportunity to bring together Council corporate and community emission reduction programs under the One Planet Living sustainability framework and principle of “Zero Carbon”.
Council’s emissions profile in 2015 was 23,135 tonnes of CO2-e. Council’s emissions come from energy (electricity and gas) used in buildings, Council owned lighting and fuels used in Council’s fleet.
Geelong’s community emissions profile in 2015 was 4,574,000 tonnes of CO2-e. Community emissions come from different sources; non-residential buildings, residential buildings, transport, industrial and agricultural activities, landfill waste and leased street lighting.
The development of the Draft Greenhouse Strategy incorporates outcomes from consultation activities and background documents that have been produced:
Consultation:
Three workshops were conducted with the Project Steering Group and Project Advisory Group.
Interviews with key stakeholders including; Geelong Sustainability, Geelong Chamber of Commerce and key internal Council stakeholders.
Community survey: 325 completed surveys received. The purpose of the survey was to gain the community’s views on what action the City should take to minimise greenhouse gas emissions in the municipality.
Council staff survey: 60 completed surveys received. The survey was undertaken to canvass staff views on how their work is connected to environmental issues, and what information and support is needed by staff to contribute to Council’s overall emissions reduction efforts.
Background documents:
Background and Literature Review analysed current climate change policies from a federal, state and local government perspective.
Energy audit and solar analysis of Councils top ten energy consuming buildings provides a costed, energy efficiency priority action list and solar analysis for each site.
Emissions Abatement Business Case presents a range of abatement scenarios and cost impacts for Council to consider when making a decision as to which option to adopt in the draft strategy.
Draft Strategy review
Background document information has been incorporated into the Draft Greenhouse Strategy. Project Steering Group and Project Advisory Group members provided comments on the Draft Strategy.
Greenhouse Strategy Reduction Target Options:
Using the 2015 baseline of 23,135 tonnes of CO2-e, there are seven emission reduction target options to 2020 that Council could pursue to reduce its corporate emissions.
Council is requested to endorse one of the target options shown in table 1. The endorsed target will be incorporated into the Draft Greenhouse Strategy and placed on public exhibition for four weeks.
Key action areas that support the target options include; energy efficiency (electricity and gas) in buildings, renewable energy (small and large scale) and carbon offset purchasing.
Table 1: Greenhouse Strategy Reduction Target Options
Option |
Reduction target by 2020 based on 2014-15 emissions |
TCO2-e saved annually |
Financial Investment |
NPV (2035) |
1. |
8% |
2,024 |
$1,315,000 |
$ 2,932,408 |
|
10% |
2,313 |
$1,315,000 |
$ 2,889,008 |
3. |
20% |
4,626 |
$1,315,000 |
$ 2,542,108 |
4. |
30% |
6,934 |
$1,315,000 |
$2,195,909 |
5. |
50% |
11,567 |
$1,315,000 |
$1,500,949 |
6. |
100% |
23,135 |
$1,315,000 |
-$234,251 |
7. |
100% |
23,135 |
$9,315,000 |
$3,002,311 |
* Net Present Value (NPV) represents the cumulative total value of the initiatives for the twenty year period (2015-2035) by considering initial capital and expected cash inflows and outflows.
Table 1. demonstrates the range of emission reduction targets available to Council and various financial investments required to achieve each option including the return on investments in 2035.
The 8% reduction target is supported by capital funding within the 2016/17 and 2017/18 budget derived from collected landfill carbon charges.
The 8% reduction target is supported by an energy efficiency and solar program on Council’s top ten buildings. This program of works has a payback of 4.7 years and will provide a financial saving to Council of $265,781 per annum on completion of works (2 years).
Council is currently investigating reinvestment options of these savings into energy efficiency and renewable energy programs to further reduce operational costs and provide some ongoing financial stability for programs to meet Council’s emission reduction target.
It is important that Council transitions over time from purchasing offsets on an annual basis, to investments in energy efficiency works and solar systems to establish a net positive return on investment program.
Maintaining flexibility within the works program to take advantage of supporting funding including government grants as they become available will be important. This may allow for high capital investments projects such as large scale solar to be considered earlier if support funding becomes available.
Council is currently investigating Council staff accommodation options. This investigation may result in changes to building stock and baseline energy profile. The Greenhouse Strategy will be updated with any change to Council building stock pending the outcome of the assessment.
Council can play a key role in enabling positive change in the community. Through the Draft Greenhouse Strategy, Council aims to support community groups to deliver actions that reduce community emissions, including:
Assisting the Geelong community to implement carbon reduction initiatives via a One Planet Living Grants Program.
Providing information and facilitating discussions between individuals, community groups and organisations around greenhouse action and One Planet Living principles.
Continuing the implementation of the Low Carbon Growth Plan with a focus on assisting small-medium businesses and the residential sector.
Advocating on behalf of the community for supporting regulation, incentives and increased action by other levels of government.
Greenhouse emissions are a major factor in driving global climate change. The Draft Greenhouse Strategy will assist in reducing Council and community generated greenhouse emissions.
The Greenhouse Strategy will be supported through the recent carbon tax refund. This funding provides an opportunity to implement key energy efficiency and renewable energy actions. This funding will enable council, as a minimum, to meet the 8% target option listed in Table 1.
Financial savings from these actions could be reinvested to fund future energy efficiency works and a model to do this will be investigated. This is particularly important with the introduction of Council Rate Capping.
There are no policy or legal implications.
The Draft Greenhouse Strategy aligns closely with City Plan strategic direction; Sustainable Built and Natural Environment. An objective within this is to partner with our community to encourage sustainable design and reduce resource consumption. The Greenhouse Reduction Strategy is listed as a key strategy for delivering Sustainable Built and Natural Environment priorities.
No Officer has a direct or indirect interest in the matter to which the report relates.
There have been no identified risks to Council in the development of the Draft Greenhouse Strategy.
The development of the Draft Greenhouse Strategy provides an opportunity for the community to have a say on what action the City should take to minimise greenhouse gas emissions in the municipality.
There are no known positive or negative impacts.
Key stakeholder consultation has been an important component of the development of the Draft Greenhouse Strategy. Public exhibition of the Draft strategy will provide further opportunity for the public to comment.
Consultation undertaken is included in the ‘background’ of this report.
Source: |
Community Life/Community Development |
General Manager: |
Linda Quinn |
Index Reference: |
Grants Outgoing (Community Grants Program) |
The purpose of this report is to present details of allocations of the Community Grants program for the period 1 January to 30 June 2016.
This forms part of the ongoing accountability framework for managing the Community Grants Program in accordance with the City of Greater Geelong Grants, Donations and Sponsorship Policy.
The City of Greater Geelong Community Grants Program assists not for profit community organisations to apply for funding to deliver local projects and activities for the benefit the wider Geelong community.
The Program has an annual budget allocation of $240,000 that is available to expend on groups who apply and are eligible under this grant program.
As part of the accountability framework for managing the Community Grants, details of allocations are reported to Council twice per financial year.
Details of grant recipients awarded funds for the period 1 July to 31 December 2015 were detailed in the Council report of 15 March 2016.
This report provides a statement of the allocations made during the period of 1 January to 30 June 2016. (Appendix 1-1).
The total amount funded under this program for this period was $109,136.50 distributed among 58 community organisations.
This brings the total amount allocated for the 2015/2016 financial year to $240,000 distributed among 126 community organisations.
P Dorling moved, L Gardner seconded -
That Council:
notes the statement of allocations under the 2015/2016 Community Grants Program provided to community groups and organisations as detailed in Appendix 1-1 for the period 1 January to 30 June 2016;
commends and congratulates the community groups and organisations who have received funding under the Community Grants Program for their efforts and contribution to the Geelong community.
Carried.
The Community Grants Program is available to not-for-profit community groups and organisations who can apply for funds to support activities that will benefit the Geelong community.
In order to receive funds, applicants must comply with the established guidelines which govern the grant program.
A summary of allocations for the period 1 July to 31 December 2015 was provided in a report to Council on 15 March 2016.
The allocation of grants assists with meeting the objectives of City Plan’s Community Wellbeing priority areas. This funding provides an opportunity to enhance the wellbeing of the community by building social capital and enabling community engagement through the provision of funds to assist with local activities.
Several grant rounds are advertised throughout the year and eligible applicants can apply through an online portal accessible through the Geelong Australia website.
The accountability framework for managing the Community Grants Program is in accordance with the City of Greater Geelong Grants, Donations and Sponsorship Policy and a management procedure provides guidance on administering the program.
Grants must support a specific activity, project or event that can demonstrate community benefit and address the set criteria detailed in the grant guidelines.
Submitted applications are then assessed based on the set criteria.
The outcome of the assessments is referred to a grants assessment panel that includes staff from the Community Life Division and from the City’s Chief Executive (Governance) area. The panel review the recommendations and provide the outcomes to the General Manager, Community Life for final approval.
All applicants are then advised of the outcome of their submissions.
A total $109,136.50 was allocated among 58 community organisations through the Community Grants Program between 1 January and 30 June 2016.
This brings the total amount awarded for the 2015/2016 financial year to $240,000 awarded among 126 community organisations. Details of allocations made between July and December 2015 were reported to Council on 15 March 2016.
Some of the projects supported via this grant program undertake environmental activities.
There are no financial implications.. All funds have been expended in accordance with the Community Grants Guidelines and within the $240,000 budget allocation.
The provision of grants to the community supports local, community organisations and endorses the aims of City Plan and the G21 Regional Plan.
This report is presented in accordance with the City of Greater Geelong Grants, Contributions, Donations and Sponsorship Policy.
The Community Grants Program aims to fund projects that assist in achieving goals and outcomes consistent with City Plan‘s Community Wellbeing objectives.
The grant guidelines provide details about the three priority areas of the Community Wellbeing objectives. This is to ensure applicants are made aware of the aims of the program and to assist them in developing their proposals.
The provision of grants is offered to assist community organisations to provide opportunities that benefit the wider Geelong community.
Applications are encouraged for projects that demonstrate or promote social inclusiveness, healthy lifestyles, healthy environments that provide broad benefits to the City of Greater Geelong community.
The provision of grants is carried out in accordance with the Local Government Act 1989 Officer Direct or Indirect Interest.
The Community Grants Program has provision in the assessment process to record any conflict of interest relating to each grant application that is assessed.
The Community Grants Program is governed in accordance with Council’s monitoring, reporting and accountability framework.
Successful applicants are provided with an acquittal/evaluation form for their completion and return to Council as a record of the outcome of the grant funding they received. Annual audits are also conducted on a sample group of grant recipients.
The provision of Community Grants provides an opportunity to support and strengthen communities to provide a broad range of activities for the benefit of the Geelong community.
The Grants, Contributions, Donations, and Sponsorship Policy references the Chart of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.
The Charter states that human rights are essential in a democratic and inclusive society that respects the rule of law, human dignity, equality and freedom.
The provision of grants provides opportunities to assist in promoting social inclusiveness and projects that deliver broad community benefit.
All groups are notified of the outcome of their grant application.
The list of allocations will be reported on the Geelong Australia Website.
The Community Development Department is responsible for communication of all matters relating to this report.
Organisation |
Project Title |
Amount Allocated |
2nd Lara Scout Group |
Canvas Tents for Scout Camps |
$2,500.00 |
AFL Barwon |
Steven Motlop Squad (Geelong Diverse Academy) Indigenous and Multicultural Football Program |
$2,500.00 |
Ardoch Youth Foundation |
Community Garden - Northern Bay College, Hendy St Campus |
$2,500.00 |
Australian Muslim Women's Centre for Human Rights |
Pre-Ramadan Awareness Week |
$2,700.00 |
Australian Skateboard Federation |
VertFest! Skateboard Workshops |
$1,800.00 |
Austrian Club Geelong Inc |
Upgrade to Hall - Purchase & Installation of Vinyl Flooring for Community space |
$2,000.00 |
Barwon Health Carer Respite Service |
Young Carers Cook Program |
$2,700.00 |
Bellarine Bears Baseball Club |
Netting Batting Tunnel |
$800.00 |
Belmont Bowls Club Inc. |
Scoreboard Project |
$1,000.00 |
Belmont Senior Citizens |
Photocopier for Establishment of Admin |
$2,000.00 |
Blind Sports and Recreation Victoria (BSRV) |
Walking with Willpower in Greater Geelong |
$2,900.00 |
Ceres Community Association |
Ceres Temperance Hall - Chairs Upgrade Program |
$1,500.00 |
Clifton Springs Tennis Club |
Kitchen Under bench Oven Project |
$1,000.00 |
Cobradah Senior Citizens Centre |
Indoor bowls Project/Equipment Purchase |
$1,000.00 |
Community Food Marketplace Ltd (trading as Geelong Farmers Markets) |
Geelong Farmers Market - Feasibility Study/Business Plan |
$3,900.00 |
Eastern Park Croquet Club |
Air Conditioner and Shelving Project |
$2,000.00 |
Friends of Edwards Point Reserve Inc |
Walking Edwards Point |
$1,000.00 |
Friends of Geelong Botanic Gardens |
Conference of Australian Association of Friends of Botanic Gardens |
$1,000.00 |
Friends of Kevin Kirby Inc |
Kevin Kirby Reserve New Street Furniture |
$2,000.00 |
Geelong & District Vietnam Veterans Assoc |
50th Anniversary of Vietnam Veterans Day |
$2,000.00 |
Geelong Buccaneers |
Helmet Purchase |
$1,686.50 |
Geelong Cement Bowls Club |
Score Boards |
$1,000.00 |
Geelong Concert Band |
Replace 32" Timpani |
$3,000.00 |
Geelong Disc Golf Club Inc |
Pop-up Disc Golf Events |
$2,000.00 |
Geelong Eastern Park Bowling Club inc. |
Disabled Toilet |
$2,500.00 |
Geelong Inclusive Limited |
By The Bay Emergency Accommodation Project |
$2,400.00 |
Geelong Radio Control Car Club |
GRCCC Storage Container Project |
$1,500.00 |
Geelong Rangers Soccer and Sports Club |
Connected community PLUS Healthy lifestyle - Purchase of Kitchen Equipment |
$1,300.00 |
Geelong RSL Bowls |
Geelong RSL Bowls Scoreboard Replacement |
$1,000.00 |
Greater Geelong Galaxy Football Inc. |
Increasing girls participation in Geelong Soccer |
$3,500.00 |
Grovedale Senior Citizens Club Inc |
Office Equipment Set Up |
$1,000.00 |
Holy Trinity Anglican Church Lara |
Installation of Crossovers |
$1,000.00 |
Indented Head Yacht Club Inc. |
Sailing for Kids |
$1,800.00 |
Lara Amateur Swimming Club Inc |
Long term Sustainable Club Investment - Purchase of Kitchen Equipment |
$2,000.00 |
Lara Community Garden and Art Precinct (LCGAP) Incorporated |
LCGAP Multi Purpose Shelter |
$1,500.00 |
Lara Heritage & Historical Inc |
Electronic Surveillance System |
$2,600.00 |
Lara Jean Association Inc |
Movie Mayhem Project |
$1,000.00 |
Leopold Tennis Club Inc. |
Installation of LED lights on Courts 1 and 2 |
$1,750.00 |
Mount Duneed Progress Association Inc. |
Overhead Projector and Screen Project |
$1,600.00 |
Mt Rothwell Landcare |
Purchase of Defibrillator |
$2,000.00 |
Netball Victoria |
Women in Sport and Leadership |
$2,500.00 |
Ocean Grove Senior Citizens Club Inc |
Office Upgrade |
$1,500.00 |
PARKRUN INC t/a Parkrun Australia (You Yangs Parkrun) |
You Yangs Parkrun |
$3,000.00 |
Rotary Club of Queenscliffe Inc |
RYDA Geelong (Young Driver Awareness Program - Geelong Region) |
$2,000.00 |
Sacred Heart College |
2016 Mind, Body and Soul Expo |
$2,500.00 |
Scout Association of Australia, Victorian Branch, 1st Eastern Scout Group |
Compliant Gas Cylinder Storage Equipment Project |
$650.00 |
Serbian Orthodox Church Saint Nicholas Geelong |
Outdoor Play Area Upgrade |
$1,000.00 |
Short Statured People of Australia Inc. |
Accessible Supermarket Trolley Project |
$1,500.00 |
South Western District Ladies Golf Association Inc |
Elite Junior Girls Coaching Program |
$1,000.00 |
St John Ambulance - Barwon Division |
Life Saving First Aid Equipment |
$2,700.00 |
St Mary's Sporting Club - Netball |
St Mary's Netball Scoreboard |
$2,000.00 |
Stroke Association of Victoria |
Geelong Stroke Support Centre |
$2,000.00 |
Ten02 Incorporated |
Faith Restoration (Panel Beating/Spray Painting Program) |
$1,750.00 |
The Geelong Amateur Radio Club Inc |
Club House Roof Project |
$1,500.00 |
Treehouse Autism Family Support Group |
Treehouse IT equipment for Admin Set up |
$2,500.00 |
U3A Geelong Inc |
Purchase of Defibrillator |
$2,000.00 |
Victorian Heron Sailing Association |
58th Heron National Championships |
$2,500.00 |
Volunteering Geelong |
St Marys Community Hub Set Up |
$1,600.00 |
|
Total Allocated |
$109,136.50 |
Note: Amendment from Summary of Allocations June to December 2015
The following community grant allocation was reported to Council on 15 March 2016. Funding was not required by the applicant. The $2,000 initially allocated was then returned to the community grants funding pool and was subsequently allocated during the period between January and June 2016.
Organisation |
Project Title |
Amount Allocated |
Jirrahlinga Wildlife Sanctuary |
‘It’s OK to be different’ – anti bullying Seminars |
$2,000 |
Source: |
Community Life |
General Manager: |
Linda Quinn |
Index Reference: |
SUB-16-3370 CRICKET |
Report to: |
|
This report proposes to continue the Turf Wicket Maintenance Agreement between Council and the Geelong Cricket Association (GCA).
In 2006, the City of Greater Geelong entered into an agreement with the GCA that passed all turf wicket maintenance and development responsibilities previously carried out by Council, to the Association.
As part of the agreement, Council provides the GCA with an annual grant for the maintenance of Council owned or controlled turf wickets. This allocation also provides for junior development programs, training of curatorial staff, the replacement of synthetic wicket tables and an allowance for the purchase of turf maintenance equipment.
The agreements will be struck for a two (2) year term. The existing agreement has expired and is now due for renewal.
P Dorling moved, L Gardner seconded -
That Council approve the renewal of the Wicket Maintenance and Development Agreement between the City of Greater Geelong and the Geelong Cricket Association for a two year term via the allocation of $248,595 per annum plus Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustments.
Carried.
Cricket within the City of Greater Geelong is managed and governed by three entities being the Geelong Cricket Association (GCA), Bellarine Cricket Association (BPCA) and the Geelong Cricket Club (GCC). This agreement deals specifically with the GCA who operate a turf based competition with the primary focus of the agreement being the maintenance support of the turf wickets. The City of Greater Geelong directly maintain the GCC’s wicket being the only premier cricket club in the region and the City directly maintain the synthetic wickets played upon by the BPCA.
The GCA has 38 clubs playing across 15 grades of cricket including 4 premier grades in turf based competition. The GCA represents 27 clubs within the Geelong region and draws its associated clubs from the Surfcoast and Golden Plains Shires.
The original Wicket Maintenance Agreement commenced in 2006. With an annual allocation from Council to the GCA of $168,800 for turf wicket maintenance and development. The Murgheboluc Cricket Club and St Albans Cricket Club were added to the agreement by Council in 2011. This addition and an annual increase in CPI now accounts for an annual disbursement of $248,595.
The previous Agreement recognises the GCA as the peak cricket body to administer the Council grant funds for turf wicket maintenance. CoGG provides the GCA with the authority to distribute these funds to associated clubs for the maintenance of turf wickets on Council owned or controlled land.
The existing agreement has been acknowledged by Cricket Victoria as making a significant contribution to cricket in Geelong.
The GCA has 38 clubs playing across 15 grades of cricket, 27 from within the Geelong region, with in excess of 2500 senior and 1800 junior participants, accounting for cricketers playing on both turf and hard/synthetic wickets.
The turf competition acts as a pathway for Geelong cricketers as they progress from the GCA to premier league and then State competition. The approach of allocating the funds to the association was initiated to reduce the resource liability to Council. Key features of this agreement include;
Clubs are responsible for maintenance of turf wickets at Council-owned facilities;
Clubs are responsible for the procurement and maintenance of any new and existing equipment used to curate turf wickets;
The GCA are responsible for communicating to Clubs their maintenance responsibilities over turf wickets;
Clubs must ensure that sufficient funds will be available to replace any maintenance equipment at the end of its useful life; and
Council will not fund turf maintenance equipment purchases under any circumstance.
This Agreement will commence on 1 October 2016 for a two (2) year term. The Agreement will be due for renewal at the completion of the 2017/2018 season (31 March 2018).
Council is currently working in collaboration with the G21 LGAs and Cricket Victoria on the G21 and Cricket Victoria Barwon Region Cricket Strategy to guide the development of cricket within the G21 region. The plan will address infrastructure, sports development and governance aspects and will involve all relevant stakeholders within the region.
Pending the outcome of the G21 and Cricket Victoria Barwon Region Cricket Strategy, it is recommended that the agreement be renewed for a further two (2) year term, until the end of the 2017/2018 season and the funds be expended by the GCA in the following manner:
$198,784 |
80% |
To be used on the maintenance and preparation of 23 turf wickets. |
$29,882 |
12% |
To enable the GCA to replace and/or repair covers for synthetic wickets. |
$19,929 |
8% |
To assist the GCA with training and development requirements. This allocation is to be used for funding:
|
The main amendments to this agreement from previous include:
Increased reporting requirements of the GCA to CoGG (detailed in Attachment 1);
Increased responsibility for the GCA to report responsibilities to their clubs; and
Increased accountability of the GCA for the disbursement and receipting of funds.
The turf wicket Agreement is unique to City of Geelong and is acknowledged as providing support to the development of cricket.
In regards to the turf wicket component which forms the foundation of this agreement, there are 4 grades of turf competition that make up approximately 528 players in 2015/16. Based on the 2015/2016 contribution this equates to an approximate subsidy of $471 per player for the turf wicket component of the Agreement. This cost does not include the normal maintenance routines such as mowing, irrigation and weed control, undertaken by Council.
It is important to note that sports grounds with turf wickets have significantly limited use and only generally allow one-two days play per week. Cricket for the lower grades and junior participation therefore requires the provision of alternative hard wicket cricket facilities. Currently the City of Greater Geelong has no additional oval capacity available for Saturday cricket. Attachment 2 outlines the clubs involved, the divisions and type of wicket at each location.
At the conclusion of this Agreement CoGG reserves the right to cease funding the maintenance of turf wickets for any turf club that is still playing in a hard wicket competition. CoGG will not guarantee funding for the maintenance of turf wickets for clubs playing in a hard wicket competition after two (2) years.
There are no foreseeable environmental implications associated with this report.
The increase in funding under the agreement is based on annual CPI increase. This is proposed to continue for a further two (2) year period and will start at $248,595.
It is recommended the allocation be adjusted annually in accordance with the CPI, as has been the case with the previous agreement.
There are no legislative or legal ramifications associated with the adoption of this report.
The recommended project will align to the City Plan’s priority of Community Wellbeing, encouraging healthy lifestyles and connected communities through active recreation and participation in sport.
There are no officer conflicts of interest relating to the project being proposed for submission or this report.
There are no immediate risks associated with this report.
The expected population growth necessitates increased and improved provision of community sport and recreation facilities that provide a social outlet for the local community.
Participation in sport and recreational activities has long been recognised as an important contributor to community health and well being. Benefits of physical activity are well documented and include improved health, development of social skills, increased community connectedness and enhanced self-esteem.
As the premier grades of cricket are played on turf, the progression for junior players requires junior pathways with similar standards and facilities. It is essential that Council provide accessible options to juniors for the development of the sport.
This report has no impact on human rights.
The agreement provides for an annual report to be lodged with Council outlining the allocations made to GCA clubs for the maintenance of turf wickets, a schedule of the synthetic wickets replaced and details of expenditure on training junior development and the timing of payments to clubs. Additional reporting and analysis that the GCA can include such as the number of players benefiting from Council’s financial support has also been introduced as a requirement.
The GCA must provide a break down of juniors, males / females, culturally & linguistically diverse (CALD) participants and participants with a disability.
Amount |
% |
Particulars |
Reporting Required |
$198,784 |
80% |
To be used on the maintenance and preparation of 23 turf wickets. |
|
$29,882 |
12% |
To enable the GCA to replace and/or repair covers for synthetic wickets. |
|
$19,929 |
8% |
To assist the GCA with training and development requirements. This allocation is to be used for funding;
|
|
$248,595 |
|
||
GCA Competition |
Div 1 |
Div 2 |
Div 1 |
Div 2 |
Div 3 |
GCA 5 |
GCA 6 |
GCA 7 |
GCA 8 |
Total |
Wicket Type |
TURF |
TURF |
HARD |
HARD |
HARD |
HARD |
HARD |
HARD |
HARD |
|
Team (no. of teams) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alexander Thomson |
|
2 |
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
Anakie |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
2 |
Bell Park* |
|
2 |
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
Bell Post Hill |
2 |
|
2 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
5 |
Corio Bay |
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
3 |
Corio* |
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
1 |
|
4 |
East Belmont |
2 |
|
2 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
6 |
Geelong City |
2 |
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
5 |
Geelong West |
2 |
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
Grovedale |
2 |
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
5 |
Guild |
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
3 |
Highton |
|
2 |
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
5 |
Lara |
2 |
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
6 |
Leopold |
2 |
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
5 |
Little River |
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
4 |
Manifold Heights |
2 |
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
5 |
Marshall |
|
2 |
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
6 |
Murgheboluc |
|
2 |
|
2 |
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
6 |
Newcomb and District |
|
2 |
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
5 |
Newtown and Chilwell |
2 |
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
6 |
North Geelong |
2 |
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
5 |
North Shore (Club currently in temporary recession) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Barwon |
2 |
|
2 |
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
7 |
St Albans |
|
2 |
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
St Peters |
|
2 |
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
5 |
Thomson |
|
2 |
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
5 |
No. of teams |
22 |
18 |
22 |
18 |
13 |
4 |
5 |
8 |
8 |
118 |
No. of players |
242 |
220 |
242 |
220 |
143 |
44 |
55 |
88 |
88 |
1298 |
*Guild and Corio both have turf wickets but are not playing in turf competitions |
||||||||||
Source: |
Strategy & Performance – Customer Service & Council Business |
Acting General Manager: |
William Tieppo |
Index Reference: |
Delegations |
To update the delegations from Council to the CEO and Council to members of Council staff. To appoint Lana Krauses, Town Planner, as an authorised officer under the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
Council as a legal entity can only act in one of two ways, by resolution or through others acting on its behalf. To enable effective and efficient functioning of local government, decision making powers are allocated by formal delegation.
The Local Government Act 1989 enables Council to delegate to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), with specified exemptions, “any power duty or function of a council under this Act or any other Act”.
Maddocks lawyers advise that delegations from Council to the CEO be reviewed periodically to ensure new legislation is captured under the broad delegation. Refer Appendix 1.
Section 98 of the Local Government Act 1989, section 188 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, section 58A of the Food Act 1984 and other legislation empowers Council to delegate its powers duties and functions to appropriate Council officers
Whilst most delegations to staff are in the form of sub-delegation from the Chief Executive Officer, there are a small number that require specific delegation from Council. Refer Appendix 2.
Updated delegations reflect recent legislative amendments that are advised by Maddocks lawyers bi-annually.
Appoint Lana Krausas, Town Planner, as an authorised officer under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (as per Appendix 3).
P Dorling moved, L Gardner seconded -
In the exercise of the powers conferred by section 98(1) of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act) and the other legislation referred to in the attached instrument of delegation (Appendix 1), Greater Geelong City Council (Council) resolves that –
There be delegated to the person holding the position, acting in or performing the duties of Chief Executive Officer the powers, duties and functions set out in the attached Instrument of Delegation to the Chief Executive Officer, subject to the conditions and limitations specified in that Instrument.
The instrument comes into force immediately the common seal of Council is affixed to the instrument.
On the coming into force of the instrument all previous delegations to the Chief Executive Officer are revoked.
The duties and functions set out in the instrument must be performed, and the powers set out in the instruments must be executed, in accordance with any guidelines or policies of Council that it may from time to time adopt.
It is noted that the instrument includes a power of delegation to members of Council staff, in accordance with section 98(3) of the Act.
In the exercise of the powers conferred by section 98(1) of the Act) and the other legislation referred to in the attached instrument of delegation (Appendix 2), Council resolves that –
There be delegated to the members of Council staff holding, acting in or performing the duties of the offices or positions referred to in the attached Instrument of Delegation to members of Council staff (Appendix 1), the powers, duties and function set out in that instrument, subject to the conditions and limitations specified in that instrument.
The instrument comes into force immediately the common seal of Council is affixed to the instrument.
On the coming into force of the instrument all previous delegations to members of Council staff (other than the Chief Executive Officer) are revoked.
The duties and functions set out in the instrument must be performed, and the powers set out in the instruments must be executed, in accordance with any guidelines or policies of council that it may from time to time adopt.
In the exercise of the powers conferred by section 224 of the Local Government Act 1989 and under section 147(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 Council resolves that:
The member of Council staff referred to in the Instrument of Appointment and Authorisation (Appendix 3) is appointed and authorised as set out in the instrument.
This instrument comes into force immediately the common seal of Council is affixed to the instrument.
Carried.
These delegations are based on a model developed and maintained by Maddocks Lawyers who are engaged to provide an update service and include legislative changes up to June 2016.
The delegation model is based on:
Delegations from Council to the CEO
Delegations from Council to members of Council staff
Sub-delegation from the CEO to Council staff.
This report addresses delegations from Council to the Chief Executive Officer and Council to members of staff and for the appointment of and Authorised Officer under the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
Whilst no changes are proposed in the delegations from Council to the CEO, it is recommended that Council re-makes its instrument of delegation to the Chief Executive Officer on a regular basis to capture any new legislative powers, duties or functions enacted since the instrument of delegation was last made, refer Appendix -1
The proposed delegations of Council to members of staff detail sections of Acts and Regulations and nominate officers by position title to undertake specific powers, duties and functions on behalf of Council.
Delegations were last approved by Council in January 2016.
The changes in the June update were minor amendments, including:
Updating s181 Planning & Environment Act 1987, to provide for a delegation to enable Co-ordinator Leasing and Property Legal Advisor to sign the coversheet which goes to Land Victoria to accompany the s173 Agreement.
The Road Management (General) Regulations 2016 have replaced the Road Management (General) Regulations 2005, with minor amendments to council duties where it is the coordinating road authority.
Attachment 1 to the Instrument of Delegation sets out the complete schedule of the relevant powers, duties and functions being delegated.
Attachment 2 lists the changes from the previously endorsed Council to Staff delegations.
The Planning and Environment Act 1987 regulates enforcement and is reliant on authorised officers acting on behalf of the Responsible Authority (Council).
Lana Krausas has recently been employed by the Council and is required to be authorised under the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
Appendix 2 sets out the Instrument of Appointment and Authorisation under the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
There are no environmental implications relative to this report.
There are no financial implications relative to this report.
The delegation and authorisation schedules have been prepared in accordance with the Maddocks lawyer’s model.
How we do business.
No officer involved in the preparation of this report has a direct or indirect interest.
A properly prepared system of delegations and authorisations minimises the likelihood of officers acting outside their powers and exposing Council to unacceptable risk. Regular review of the delegations ensures accountability and responsibility for decisions when the decision makers are identified. Delegations and authorisations can be subject to legal scrutiny in courts and tribunals.
There are no social considerations relative to this report.
No Human Rights are affected by the contents of this report.
All delegations and authorisations are published on Council’s internal website, Cityweb. Managers are consulted on the updates to the changes in legislation that effect their areas of responsibility.
In exercise of the power conferred by section 98(1) of the Local Government Act 1989 ("the Act"), the Greater Geelong City Council ("Council") delegates to the member of Council staff holding, acting in or performing the position of Chief Executive Officer, the powers, duties and functions set out in the Schedule to this Instrument of Delegation,
AND declares that
this Instrument of Delegation is authorised by a Resolution of Council passed on <date>
the delegation
2.1 comes into force immediately the common seal of Council is affixed to this Instrument of Delegation;
2.2 is subject to any conditions and limitations set out in the Schedule; and
2.3 must be exercised in accordance with any guidelines or policies which Council from time to time adopts, and
2.4 remains in force until Council resolves to vary or revoke it.
The member of Council staff occupying the position or title of or acting in the position of Chief Executive Officer may delegate to a member of Council staff any of the powers (other than the power of delegation conferred by section 98(3) of the Act or any other powers not capable of sub-delegation) which this Instrument of Delegation delegates to him or her.
THE COMMON SEAL of GREATER )
GEELONG CITY COUNCIL was affixed )
hereto in the presence of: )
____________________________
Chief Administrator
____________________________
Chief Executive Officer
Date: / /
The power to:
determine any issue;
take any action; or
do any act or thing
arising out of or connected with any duty imposed, or function or power conferred on Council by or under any Act.
The delegate must not determine the issue, take the action or do the act or thing
if the issue, action, act or thing is an issue, action, act or thing which involves
1.1 awarding a contract exceeding the value of $2,000,000 (excluding GST), or exceeding $1,000,000 (excluding GST) where it is proposed not to accept the lowest tender;
1.2 making a local law under Part 5 of the Act;
1.3 approval of the Council Plan under s.125 of the Act,
1.4 adoption of the Strategic Resource Plan under s.126 of the Act;
1.5 preparation or adoption of the Budget or a Revised Budget under Part 6 of the Act;
1.6 adoption of the Auditor's report, Annual Financial Statements, Standard Statements and Performance Statement under Part 6 of the Act;
1.7 determining pursuant to s.37 of the Act that an extraordinary vacancy on Council not be filled;
1.8 exempting a member of a special committee who is not a Councillor from submitting a return under s.81 of the Act;
1.9 appointment of councillor or community delegates or representatives to external organisations; or
1.10 the return of the general valuation and any supplementary valuations;
if the issue, action, act or thing is an issue, action or thing which is required by law to be done by Council resolution;
if the issue, action, act or thing is an issue, action or thing which Council has previously designated as an issue, action, act or thing which must be the subject of a Resolution of Council;
if the determining of the issue, taking of the action or doing of the act or thing would or would be likely to involve a decision which is inconsistent with a
4.1 policy; or
4.2 strategy
adopted by Council; or
if the determining of the issue, the taking of the action or the doing of the act or thing cannot be the subject of a lawful delegation, whether on account of section 98(1)(a)-(f) (inclusive) of the Act or otherwise; or
the determining of the issue, the taking of the action or the doing of the act or thing is already the subject of an exclusive delegation to another member of Council staff.
In exercise of the power conferred by section 98(1) of the Local Government Act 1989, and the other legislation referred to in the Schedule (Attachment 1), Greater Geelong City Council ("Council") by this instrument:
delegates each duty and/or function and/or power described in columns 1 and 2 of the Schedule (and summarised in column 3 of the Schedule) to the member of Council staff holding, acting in or performing the duties of the office or position described opposite each such duty and/or function and/or power in column 4 of the Schedule;
delegates each duty and/or function and/or power described in columns 1 and 2 of the Schedule (and summarised in column 3 of the Schedule) to any member of Council staff to whom a member of Council staff listed in column 4 of the Schedule reports;
declares that a delegate is not authorised by this Instrument of Delegation to:
3.1 determine any planning permit application which any Councillor requests be referred to the Development Hearings Panel, Planning Committee or Council and such request is made before the delegate has made a decision on the permit application; or
3.2 exercise the power conferred by the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to determine upon any application in cases where six or more objections to the grant of the permit have been made.
3.3 refuse a permit under Section 52(1A) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
declares that–
4.1 this Instrument of Delegation is authorised by a resolution of Council passed on <date> and
4.2 the delegation authorised by a resolution of Council passed on 27 January 2016 is revoked; and
4.3 the delegation:
4.3.1 comes into force immediately the common seal of Council is affixed to this Instrument of Delegation;
4.3.2 remains in force until Council resolves to vary or revoke it;
4.3.3 is to be exercised in accordance with the exceptions, conditions and limitations set out in the Schedule and with the guidelines or policies which Council from time to time adopts.
4.3.4 must be exercised in accordance with any guidelines or policies which Council from time to time adopts; and
4.4 the delegate must not determine the issue, take the action or do the act or thing:
4.4.1 if the issue, action, act or thing is an issue, action or thing which Council has previously designated as an issue, action, act or thing which must be the subject of a Resolution of Council; or
4.4.2 if the determining of the issue, taking of the action or doing of the act or thing would or would be likely to involve a decision which is inconsistent with a
policy; or
strategy
adopted by Council; or
4.4.3 if the determining of the issue, the taking of the action or the doing of the act or thing cannot be the subject of a lawful delegation, whether on account of section 98(1)(a)-(f) (inclusive) of the Act or otherwise; or
4.4.4 the determining of the issue, the taking of the action or the doing of the act or thing is already the subject of an exclusive delegation to another member of Council staff.
THE COMMON SEAL of GREATER )
GEELONG CITY COUNCIL was affixed )
hereto in the presence of: )
Chief Administrator
Chief Executive Officer
Date: / /
By this instrument of appointment and authorisation Greater Geelong City Council -
under section 147(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 - appoints the officer listed below to be an authorised officer for the purposes of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and the regulations made under that Act; and
under section 232 of the Local Government Act 1989 authorises the officer listed below generally to institute proceedings for offences against the Acts and regulations described in this instrument.
Lana Krausas – Town Planner
It is declared that this instrument -
comes into force immediately upon its execution;
remains in force until revoked.
This instrument is authorised by a resolution of the Greater Geelong City Council on <date>.
THE COMMON SEAL of GREATER )
GEELONG CITY COUNCIL was affixed )
hereto in the presence of: )
Chief Administrator
Chief Executive Officer
Date: / /
Source: |
Strategy & Performance - Property & Procurement |
Acting General Manager: |
William Tieppo |
Index Reference: |
Council Property Management |
For Council to endorse the use of the CEO’s delegation to approve the sale and purchase of land where the consideration is less than $500,000. The current limit is $150,000.
On 10 February 2016 Council endorsed a policy which provided a framework for the conduct of land transactions. That policy is publically available under the heading Sale of Land – Advice to Purchasers.
Part of the policy provides that the CEO will exercise delegation to approve transactions up to a value of $150,000. That delegation has been implemented for over 10 years and has been effective, reducing the time and effort required to finalise a transaction.
It is recommended that the limit on transactions be raised to $500,000 on the conditions set out in the recommendation below.
All land sales are required to be advertised under s189 of the Local Government Act (LG Act) whether approved under delegation or by Council. If submissions are received they are considered by Council which makes a final decision on the sale, unless a special committee is established for this purpose.
L Gardner moved, P Dorling seconded -
That Council endorse the use of the CEO delegation to approve property sales and purchases (including easements, access and discontinued roads) as follows:
where the consideration is less than $500,000 excluding GST;
a budget exists for purchases;
the land being sold is not open space;
any sales of land are notified under s189 of the Local Government Act and, if submissions are received the decision to sell the land is approved by Council.
Carried.
At its meeting on 10 February 2015 Council endorsed a policy relating to land transactions which established policy in relating to:
Incorporation of the provisions of the LG Act and Guideline (2009) into the Policy. The Guideline, which is published by Government to guide Councils in the sales process, was adopted in full.
The separation of land sales from other Council roles and responsibilities.
Provision of a budget context for land transactions.
When roads, reserves or easements are created for the benefit of another land owner, even though Council remains the owner of the underlying land, compensation is due to Council resulting from the restriction placed on the use of Council’s land, its subsequent reduction in value and to account for the value gained by the purchaser.
Sales of Council land are contractual and based on commercial principles. The price of land is determined having regard to the valuation and if appropriate, negotiations can be assisted through a conference of valuers. Council has no obligation to provide its valuation to purchasers.
Council aims to recover all reasonable costs incurred in selling land.
Advice and guidance on the processes involved.
The policy is publically available on the Geelong Australia web site under the heading Sale of Land – Advice to Purchasers.
Note: Transactions include both the sale and purchase of land, including sale of rights to use or access Council land (easements and other rights) and discontinued roads.
One section of the policy adopted on 2015 related to the use of the CEO’s delegation and advised as follows:
“Who decides if land can be sold?
Minor land sales with consideration of less than $150,000 excl GST are approved by the Chief Executive Officer under delegation providing the land is not open space and there are no submissions received following the notice of intention to sell land. The Ward Councillor is informed of and comments on sales proposed to be approved by the CEO.
Otherwise all other transactions are approved by resolution of the full Council.”
The use of the CEO’s delegation for minor land transactions has been in place for at least 10 years and has worked effectively reducing the time and effort required to finalise a transaction.
In all instances the Ward Councillor has been asked to comment on the proposed transaction, and of all approvals given under delegation, no submissions have been received. In most circumstances the transaction is of no interest to persons other than the purchaser, and where road discontinuances are involved any person directly affected is usually required to consent writing to the potential loss of access rights or road frontage.
There are transactions with values greater than $150,000 that are of little interest to others and some have involved properties which have ceased to be used for Council purposes, and have been included in the budget as sales. With purchases the item is usually included in the adopted budget and the land is required to support a funded building or engineering project. In the circumstances it is considered reasonable raise the limit on the use of the CEO’s delegation for such sales and purchases to $500,000.
There are no environmental implications associated with the recommendation of this report.
The proceeds from the sale of the land are non recurrent income for which provision is made in the annual budget. As property assets are disposed of the written down value is adjusted on the asset register.
When selling land, under delegation or otherwise, there is a requirement to give notice of intention to sell under s189 of the Act. S223 of the Act enables submitters to have their submissions heard, and Council has established the Submissions Review Panel consisting of Councillors/Administrators for this purpose. No general delegation has been given to allow a special committee to consider submissions which must be considered by Council. Hence the use of delegation to approve the sale of land will be reviewed by the Council where submissions are received, whether they are heard or not heard.
How we Do Business
No officers or contractors involved in the preparation of this report have a direct or indirect interest in matters to which this report relates.
Section 189 of the Local Government Act (“LG Act”) requires that Council obtain a certified valuation dated not more than six months prior to the sale of the land being the date of the contract of sale.
There are no social considerations relevant to this report.
No human rights will be affected by the recommendation of this report.
Relevant internal departments have been consulted in the preparation of this report The extension of the use of the CEO delegation to sell properties was raised with the Administrators at the Strategic Workshop on 19 July 2016.
Source: |
Strategy & Performance – Capital Projects |
Acting General Manager: |
William Tieppo |
Index Reference: |
C15851 Hendy Street Children and Family Centre |
The purpose of this report is to seek Council consent to delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the power to accept or reject tenders for each of the Hendy Street Children and Family Centre project; provided tenders fall within the adopted budget.
The design process for the Hendy Street Children and Family Centre is nearing completion and Council will soon be inviting tenders for the construction of this facility.
The Capital Projects and Procurement Services departments are exploring prudent and expeditious mechanisms to complete the tender processes for this project.
Due to the tight timelines to ensure opening of the facility for 2018, it is necessity to award construction tenders prior to the Christmas and New Year. Due to the reduced Council meeting cycle during that period this poses a potential risk to the project schedule.
P Dorling moved, L Gardner seconded -
That Council delegate to the Chief Executive Officer its powers and functions to accept or reject a tender and sign the contract documents for the construction and associated works for Hendy Street Children and Family Centre project provided it is within budget.
Carried.
Since receiving funding for the Hendy Street Children and Family Centre development project Council has moved through the project development phases and is now finalising the design of the facility.
As the design of the facility is being finalised Council will enter the procurement phase for the project.
The project is being tendered through the State Government Construction Suppliers Register (CSR). The CSR allows local government to enter into contracts for the purchase of building and construction services.
The rules for utilising the panel state that we must seek tenders from a minimum of five (5) pre-qualified contractors registered with on CSR panel. Two of which are to be locally based companies and one of which hasn’t been invited to tender in the last six (6) months.
This process provides council with the shortest possible tendering timeframe, and if it can be awarded under delegation it will allow Council the best opportunity to deliver the project on time.
The Capital Projects and Contracts and Purchasing departments are exploring prudent and expeditious mechanisms to achieve opening deadlines for the facility, noting that the award of the construction contract will be beyond officer delegations.
The current project timelines will see the full documentation and contract specifications for this project finalised in August 2016 and ready for awarding in November 2016.
The timing for the appointment of a contractor means that it would be beneficial if the Chief Executive Officer entered into the contract under delegation. This would expedite the Council reporting and approval process which takes between 4 and 6 weeks to complete.
If awarding of the contract is delayed it could have a significant impact on project delivery and the subsequent opening date for the facility.
The building is being designed and built to Council’s 5 Star Green Star requirements.
The project is funded through Council’s budgetary allocations in both the current and future financial years.
Against the above timeframes and expected milestones there may be inadequate time for Council to formally determine the outcome of the tenders in its normal capacity. This report provides the policy and legal mechanisms necessary for the Chief Executive Officer to award or reject tenders.
The project is contained within Council’s budget which support the strategic directions in our Community Wellbeing, Growing Our Economy, and Sustainable Built & Natural Environment areas.
No council officers involved in this project or report have declared a direct or indirect interest in this matter.
There will be a risk to Councils reputation and grant funding commitments if this project cannot be completed in time for the 2018 pre-school year.
Council’s commitment to the construction of the Hendy Street Children’s and Family centre is in response to the recommendations of the Northern Infrastructure Plan.
If Council is unable to complete this projects in a timely manner there is likely to be disruption to early childhood services.
It is not evident or likely that this report would negatively impact any of the rights contained in the Charter of Human Rights.
There are no communication issues or requirements with acceptance of the proposed recommendation.
Source: |
City Services - Engineering Services |
Acting General Manager: |
Vicki Shelton |
Index Reference: |
Barwon Heads - Ozone Road - drainage |
The purpose of this report is to seek Council consent to delegate the power to accept or reject tenders to the Chief Executive Officer for the construction of a main drainage outfall into the Barwon River off Ozone Road, Barwon Heads.
Planning and design of this main drainage outfall has been ongoing since 2011.
The project involves the construction of a 1600mm diameter main drainage outfall pipe into the Barwon River in the vicinity of Ozone Road, Barwon Heads. The pipe will replace a smaller diameter pipe that currently discharges storm water across the beach under an existing jetty. The new pipe will be buried under the beach and will be largely invisible except for the mandatory marine markers that will provide warning to marine traffic and beach users. (See plan Appendix 1).
The pipe outlet will include a ‘tide flex’ valve to allow a one way passage of storm water and disallows anything from entering the pipe from the river.
The pipe construction is a staged upgrade of the drainage for Barwon Heads with an estimated cost of $2.4Mil.
The Engineering Services department is enacting the tender process for this project and would like to put in place a mechanism to expedite the commencement date for construction.
It is imperative that this project be completed in the current financial year. The ability to award tenders early by bypassing a Council meeting cycle reduces the risk to project timelines.
K Alexander moved, P Dorling seconded -
That Council delegate to the Chief Executive Officer its powers and functions to accept or reject a tender within the allocated budget and sign the contract documents for the construction and associated works for the following project:
C02317 Main Drainage outfall – Ozone Road, Barwon Heads
Carried.
Barwon Heads is problematic in terms of drainage. It is low lying and relatively flat which gives rise to flooding issues within the town. A main drainage study of the town was completed by WBM Oceanics Australia in November 2005 and mitigation options were recommended. Stage 1 of the mitigation solution was the construction of an 825mm diameter storm water main from Bridge Road to Clifford Parade that was completed in 2006. Stage 2 involved the construction of a new 600mm diameter main from Clifford Parade to Flinders Parade in 2011. Stage 3 involved the upgrade of Clifford Parade storm water pumping station to a capacity of 800L/s in 2013/14. Stage four is the current project to upgrade the main drainage outfall into the Barwon River off the intersection of Flinders Parade and Ozone Road.
This outfall has been in the planning and design phase for a number of years. Approving authorities include Council, Barwon Coast Committee of Management (BCCM), Parks Victoria and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP).
Design of the outfall has been carried out by Civil Engineering Consultant GHD and overseen by Council’s Design Unit. The outfall of the pipe will extend approximately 20 metres into the Barwon River in the deepest part of the channel. The construction method will include a temporary ‘cofferdam’ construction including dewatering.
All approvals are now in place and the project is nearing the tender stage.
The Engineering Services department is seeking to expedite the construction for the outfall project, noting that the construction contract for the project is beyond officer delegation. The contract is also in excess of the $2.0Mil delegation authority of the Chief Executive Officer which triggers a report to Council.
The current project timelines will see the tender evaluation process completed by October 2016. The timing for the appointment of a contractor means that it would be beneficial if the Chief Executive Officer can enter into the contracts under delegation. This is because the Council reporting process generally takes between 4 and 6 weeks to complete.
If awarding of this contract is delayed, it could have an adverse impact on project delivery as it could delay the commencement date once the tender evaluation process is complete.
The drainage outfall proposed will provide proper drainage for Barwon Heads. Due to the inclusion of a sump and pumping station litter trap in previous stages of construction, storm water runoff is less contaminated with silt and refuse prior to final discharge into the river.
It is anticipated that minimal 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 sources 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.
Funding of $2.4 Mil has been allocated in the 2016/17 Financial Year from the C02317 Task 60 cost code. This project is within budget and is a significant storm water outfall construction project that will be a once off Capital Cost with minimal ongoing short to medium term maintenance costs. Long term maintenance (30 plus years) will need some consideration as the pipe outfall is permanently submerged and may require a further ‘cofferdam’ style of construction to replace the outfall valve of the pipe.
Against the above timeframes and expected milestones there is minimal time for Council to formally determine the outcome of the tenders in its normal capacity.
This report provides the policy and legal mechanisms necessary for the CEO to award or reject tenders.
This report aligns with the City Plan as follows:
Community Wellbeing:
Healthy Environments
Safe, hazard and nuisance free environments
No council officers involved in this project or report have declared a direct or indirect interest in this matter.
Council has made a commitment to deliver this project by June 2017. There will be a risk to Council’s reputation if this project cannot be completed in time. It is also important to deliver the project within the current financial year to eliminate the problems associated with funding rollovers.
There is some risk to Council from a constructability perspective to allow delegation authority to the Chief Executive Officer. This is due to the specialised construction methods employed by contractors during the outfall construction phase of the project that will require supervision and approval by Council works inspectors.
The provision of a compliant drainage system is aligned to Council’s City Plan as described above. Nuisance and problematic flooding events in Barwon Heads will be reduced.
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.
There are no communication issues or requirements with acceptance of the proposed recommendation. Prior to construction commencing, further consultation will be carried out with the approval authorities and the affected residents of Barwon Heads.
Source: |
City Services - Engineering Services |
Acting General Manager: |
Vicki Shelton |
Index Reference: |
McManus Road, Heales Road, Lara - Special Rates and Charges |
The purpose of this report is to seek Council consent to delegate the power to accept or reject tenders to the Chief Executive Officer for the construction of main drainage infrastructure at the Geelong Ring Road Employment Precinct (GREP), Lara.
Council resolved to declare the charges for this Special Charge Scheme at its meeting of 10 May 2016.
The project involves the construction of large diameter main underground drainage pipes along Heales Road and McManus Road and a large high standard culvert crossing for McManus Road (see plan Appendix 1).
The project is estimated to cost $4.2M and represents stage one of a two stage construction project that is required to allow full and unimpeded development of the industrial subdivision.
The Engineering Services department is enacting the tender process for this project and would like to put in place a mechanism to expedite the commencement date for construction.
It is imperative that this project be completed in the current financial year. The ability to award tenders early reduces the risk to project timelines.
K Alexander moved, P Dorling seconded -
That Council delegate to the Chief Executive Officer its powers and functions to accept or reject a tender within the allocated budget and sign the contract documents for the construction and associated works for the following project:
C17301 Stage 1 Elcho Channel Special Charge Scheme (SRC 322) Main Drainage Construction.
Carried.
The Elcho Channel main drainage Special Charge Scheme has been under development since 2013 in its current form. The scope of work was confirmed by Council when it resolved to declare the Special Charge Scheme at its meeting of 10 May 2016.
The scheme is designed to allow for full and unencumbered development of 250Ha of industrial land at the GREP. The new drainage infrastructure will allow the industrial land to drain without risk of flooding up to the 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) storm event. Once completed, the drainage system will be capable of treating and retarding the storm water runoff from the industrial estate to best practice standards.
Stage 1 of the scheme is in the final design stage and is ready for tender. Stage 2 is planned for the 2017/18 FY and included the remaining components of the scheme.
The Engineering Services department is seeking to expedite the construction for the drainage construction project, noting that the construction contract for the project is beyond officer delegation. The contract is also in excess of the $2.0Mil delegation authority of the Chief Executive Officer which triggers a report to Council.
The current project timelines will see the tender evaluation process completed by October 2016. The timing for the appointment of a contractor means that it would be beneficial if the Chief Executive Officer can enter into the contracts under delegation. This is because the Council reporting process generally takes between 4 and 6 weeks to complete.
If awarding of this contract is delayed, it could have an adverse impact on project delivery as it could delay the commencement date once the tender evaluation process is complete.
The drainage infrastructure proposed is part of a overarching drainage strategy that will convey and retard storm water run off from the industrial estate and treat it to best practice standards prior to discharge back into the Elcho Channel.
It is anticipated that no vegetation of significance will be required to be removed to complete the project.
During the course of construction and the manufacture and procurement of materials, there is expenditure of energy sources 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.
Funding of $4.2 Mil has been allocated in the 2016/17 Financial Year from the C17301 program. This project is within budget and is a standard drainage construction project that will be a once off Capital Cost with minimal ongoing maintenance costs.
As a Special Charge Scheme, $1.45M will be recovered as income from a benefiting property owner. This funding will be fully recovered at the completion of works.
Against the above timeframes and expected milestones there is minimal time for Council to formally determine the outcome of the tenders in its normal capacity. This report provides the policy and legal mechanisms necessary for the CEO to award or reject tenders.
This report aligns with the City Plan as follows:
Community Wellbeing:
Healthy Environments
Safe, hazard and nuisance free environments. The new drainage system will convey, retard and treat storm water to best practice standards.
Growing our Economy
Facilitate major infrastructure and investment to enable economic growth. The drainage infrastructure allows industrial land to develop to its full potential.
No council officers involved in this project or report have declared a direct or indirect interest in this matter.
Council has made a commitment to deliver this project by March 2017. There will be a risk to Council’s reputation if this project cannot be completed in time. It is also important to deliver the project within the current financial year to eliminate the problems associated with funding rollovers.
There is minimal risk to Council from a constructability perspective to allow delegation authority to the Chief Executive Officer. This is due to the well rehearsed standard construction methods employed by contractors during the drainage construction phase of the project that will require direct supervision and approval by Council works inspectors.
The provision of a compliant drainage system is aligned to Council’s City Plan as described above. Opportunities for employment in the region will be enhanced as land is able to be developed and businesses come on line.
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.
There are no communication issues or requirements with acceptance of the proposed recommendation.
Source: |
City Services - Engineering Services |
Acting General Manager: |
Vicki Shelton |
Index Reference: |
Portarlington - Special Rates and Charges |
The purpose of this report is to seek Council consent to delegate the power to accept or reject tenders to the Chief Executive Officer for the construction of roads in the north east area of Portarlington bounded by Hood Road, Mercer Street, The Esplanade and Fisher Street.
Council resolved to declare the charges for this Special Charge scheme at its meeting of 27 January 2016.
The project involves the construction of roads in the north east sector of Portarlington. These roads include Clarke Street, Drysdale Street, Fenwick Street, Stevens Street, Willis Street, Payne Street, Gellibrand Street, Batman Street, Fairfax Street, Simson Street and Mercer Street.
A total of 8.5 km of roads are to be constructed at an estimated cost of $4.4M. The scope of work includes sealing only without additional kerb and channel. Intersection alignments and drainage will be improved. Additional street lighting will be installed at some intersections as a Council funded safety improvement.
The Engineering Services department is enacting the tender process for this project and would like to put in place a mechanism to expedite the commencement date for construction.
It is imperative that this project be completed in the current financial year. The ability to award tenders reduces the risk to project timelines.
K Alexander moved, P Dorling seconded -
That Council delegate to the Chief Executive Officer its powers and functions to accept or reject a tender within the allocated budget and sign the contract documents for the construction and associated works for the following project:
C17302 Portarlington North East Group (SRC 340) Road Construction
Carried.
The Portarlington Roads North East Group Special Charge Scheme has been a community lead project since 2010. The scope of work was confirmed by Council when it resolved to declare the Special Charge Scheme at its meeting of 27 January 2016.
During the subsequent VCAT referral period, no applications were made and the scheme is now ready for tender.
The Engineering Services department is seeking to expedite the construction for the road construction project, noting that the construction contract for the project is beyond officer delegation. The contract is also in excess of the $2.0Mil delegation authority of the Chief Executive Officer which triggers a report to Council.
The current project timelines will see the tender evaluation process completed by September 2016. The timing for the appointment of a contractor means that it would be beneficial if the Chief Executive Officer can enter into the contracts under delegation. This is because the Council reporting process generally takes between 4 and 6 weeks to complete.
If awarding of this contract is delayed, it could have an adverse impact on project delivery as it could delay the commencement date once the tender evaluation process is complete.
The road infrastructure proposed, provides proper sealed access and improved drainage. Dust is eliminated and storm water runoff is less contaminated with silt prior to final discharge into the bay.
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 sources 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.
Funding of $3.4 Mil has been allocated in the 2016/17 Financial Year from the C17302 program whilst the remainder of funds will come from the core C02301 Street construction program. This project is within budget and is a standard road construction project that will be a once off Capital Cost with minimal ongoing maintenance costs.
As a Special Charge Scheme, it is anticipated that $3.4Mil will be recovered as income from property owners. This funding will be recovered over a 5 year period when the scheme is billed and invoicing commences.
Against the above timeframes and expected milestones there is minimal time for Council to formally determine the outcome of the tenders in its normal capacity. This report provides the policy and legal mechanisms necessary for the CEO to award or reject tenders.
This report aligns with the City Plan as follows:
Community Wellbeing:
Healthy Environments
Safe, hazard and nuisance free environments. The new roads will eliminate dust and mud.
No council officers involved in this project or report have declared a direct or indirect interest in this matter.
Council has made a commitment to deliver this project by March 2017. There will be a risk to Council’s reputation if this project cannot be completed in time. It is also important to deliver the project within the current financial year to eliminate the problems associated with funding rollovers.
There is minimal risk to Council from a constructability perspective to allow delegation authority to the Chief Executive Officer. This is due to the well rehearsed standard construction methods employed by contractors during the road construction phase of the project that will require direct supervision and approval by Council works inspectors.
The provision of a properly constructed road network is aligned to Council’s City Plan as described above. Dust and mud is eliminated and a safe means of vehicle access is provided to all.
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 the 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.
There are no communication issues or requirements with acceptance of the proposed recommendation.
Source: |
Strategy & Performance - Financial Services |
Acting General Manager: |
William Tieppo |
Index Reference: |
Financial Management Reporting |
To seek approval to rename the north/south section of Benita Place, Leopold to “Saxbee Way, Leopold”.
Benita Place, Leopold runs off Melaluka Road in an easterly direction and includes a section of road that runs south of Benita Place to Stringers Lane. This section of road is disjointed and a no-through roadway (see Appendix A).
An incident occurred where an ambulance was unable to access a property quickly due to confusion over the street name.
It is proposed to rename the section of road running south from Benita Place and connecting to Stringers Lane, in three stages as development occurs.
The name chosen is in honour of a WWII nurse from Geelong, Sergeant Lilian Saxbee. Council was unable to locate any surviving family members of Sergeant Lilian Saxbee.
The renaming affects six property owners who will have a change to the street name.
The proposed renaming was advertised in the Independent newspaper on 8 July 2016 and the Geelong Advertiser newspaper on 9 July 2016.
P Dorling moved, L Gardner seconded -
That Council approve the renaming of the North – South section of Benita Place, Leopold to “Saxbee Way, Leopold”.
Carried.
Council is the responsible authority for naming and renaming roadways under the Local Government Act 1989. To administer this, Council is required to utilise the Guidelines for Geographic Names 2010 (the Guidelines).
The section of Benita Place running south of Benita Place and connecting to Stringers Lane is currently disjointed and a no-through roadway.
An incident occurred whereby a resident phoned an ambulance to attend their property in the section of Benita Place accessed off Stringers Lane. However, the ambulance attempted to access the property off the Melaluka Road entrance to Benita Place. Council was informed of the confusion, which has led to this renaming proposal.
As per principle 4(b) of the Guidelines for Geographic Names 2010 Version 2 a road name must not be applied in a way that is ambiguous or could cause confusion for road users. The road should be unobstructed leading from point “a” to point “b” in a clear and logical manner. The name should not be applied in a disjointed manner.
Letters have been sent to all adjoining and affected property owners and residents advising them of Council’s intention to rename this section of roadway.
It is proposed to rename the north/south section of Benita Place to “Saxbee Way, Leopold” and register the name with the Office of Geographic Place Names.
Due to a subdivision and development occurring, it is Council’s intention to rename the roadway in three stages (as per Appendix A).
The first stage, upon registration of the name “Saxbee Way”, will alter the addressing of properties accessed from Stringers Lane, Leopold. The second stage will be the title release of the subdivision which will remove the disjointed section of roadway. Once the roadway becomes a through road the third stage will be to readdress the properties at 35 & 50 Benita Place to Saxbee Way, Leopold.
The area being subdivided has no set completion date and therefore the disjointed section may cause further confusion for emergency services. Completing the renaming of this section of Benita Place will ensure that all properties are located in a timely manner should any further emergency arise.
The new name was chosen from Council’s ANZAC register, in honour of Sergeant Lilian Saxbee who served with the Australia Army during WWII in the Medical Women’s services area. Lilian was born in Geelong in 1942 and passed away in Melbourne in 1996.
The name “Saxbee” meets the Guidelines for Geographic Names 2010 naming criteria. Therefore, it is not necessary to consider any other naming options.
The proposed renaming was advertised in the Independent newspaper on 8 July 2016 and the Geelong Advertiser newspaper on 9 July 2016. No submissions were received on this proposal.
Council has been unable to locate any surviving members of Sergeant Lilian Saxbee’s family.
Council has communicated via letter and survey, with all five adjoining properties and six affected property owners (11 in total). The survey was issued in accordance with the Guidelines for Geographic Names 2010 and requested residents to advise if they agreed or disagreed to the renaming. Two surveys were returned with one in favour and one against due to the costs associated with change of address notification.
There are no environmental issues arising from this report.
The approximate cost to Council is $620.00. This includes advertising, notification to adjoining property owners and residents, notification to authorities and street signage.
The Local Government Act 1989, the Geographic Place Names Act 1998 and the Guidelines for Geographic Names 2010 have been followed.
The proposal aligns to City Plan with the encouragement of Community Wellbeing.
There is no Council Officer with direct or indirect interest involved in this report.
If an emergency situation occurred, Council’s proposal to rename this section of roadway could minimise the risk or failure to be able to access a situation in a timely manner.
The renaming of this roadway will allow for easier identification for the general public and emergency services.
It is the right of every resident and property owner for their property to have a unique address in order to receive services and reduce confusion or delay of emergency services.
Correspondence has been sent to the adjoining and affected property owners advising them of the proposed renaming and inviting submissions.
The proposal was advertised in the Independent newspaper on 8 July 2016 and the Geelong Advertiser newspaper on 9 July 2016. There were no submission received from the advertisement on the proposal.
The proposal was published on Council’s Geelong Australia website for 30 days as per the Guidelines for Geographic Names 2010.
Subject to Council and the Registrar of Geographic Names approval, the relevant authorities and abutting owners and resident will be notified of the official registration of this road renaming.
Source: |
City Services - Engineering Services |
Acting General Manager: |
Vicki Shelton |
Index Reference: |
Special Rates and Charge; Thompson Road North Geelong |
This report seeks a resolution by Council to consider an intention to declare a Special Charge Scheme to partially fund the construction of a footpath along Thompson Road between Morgan Street and Cowies Creek, North Geelong (See plan – Appendix 4).
It is proposed to construct 478 lineal meters of 1.5 metre wide footpath to provide for pedestrian access along Thompson Road, North Geelong.
There are thirty five (35) properties abutting the proposed footpath that will receive special benefit. There is one (1) Council owned property in the scheme.
The total estimated scheme cost is $198,394. Additional works to the value of $89,400 will be funded by Council to improve existing infrastructure.
A Benefit Ratio of 0.32 has been calculated in accordance with Section 163 of the Local Government Act, which equates to a Council contribution to the scheme of $134,100 and property owner contribution of $64,295.
Property owners are considered to receive benefit from the works by way of improved pedestrian access and general amenity including pedestrian safety improvements.
The scheme has been prepared in accordance with the Special Rate and Charges provisions of the Local Government Act 1989 along with the 2004 Ministerial Guidelines and Council’s Special Rates and Charges Policy.
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 completion of the works and scheme finalisation.
The Special Charge be declared for the purpose of defraying any expenses incurred by Council in relation to the construction of the footpath on Thompson Road, North Geelong between Morgan Street and Cowies Creek. Council considers the project:
Will provide proper pedestrian access, improved pedestrian safety and enhancement to the general amenity for each of the properties included in the scheme;
Will provide 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.
The total cost of project, be recorded as $287,799(Schedule A).
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 0.32 represents the special benefits to all persons liable to pay the special charge (Schedule B);
‘total cost’ (C) of performing the function described in part 1 (b) of this resolution based on estimated cost be recorded as $198,395; and
‘Maximum levy’ (S) be recorded as $64,295.
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 (Appendix 4).
the following be specified as the land in relation to which the special charge so declared:
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:
Each lot receives a primary access and amenity benefit;
The maximum levy is divided on a access and frontage share basis;
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 2 and 3 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 interest rate payable on the special charge which has not been paid by the specific 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 to make declaration in the form proposed.
Authorise the 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 charge in accordance with Section 163 (1C) of the Act.
Carried.
Council’s footpath network strategy identifies the footpath construction priorities of which the Thompson Road, North Geelong is listed as a high priority for construction. It is considered that the proposed new footpath will provide the missing pedestrian link between Morgan Street and Cowies Creek Reserve and become a valuable community asset.
The footpath will provide a pedestrian link to the Recreation reserves. It will also satisfy the requirement of the Planning Scheme for footpath provision on both sides of the road for roads with traffic volumes in excess of 1000 vehicle per day.
Council Officers have developed a detailed Special Charge Scheme proposal including a cost estimate, Benefit Ratio calculation and cost apportionment spreadsheet. The estimated charges, along with more detailed information on the scheme, were shown to all potentially affected property owners who were asked to respond to the proposal via survey.
The survey results had fifteen (15) property owners respond representing a 43% response rate with four (4) in favour, ten (10) opposed and one (1) non committal to the scheme proposal. Of those opposing the scheme, concerns raised included:
Method of apportionment is unclear and/or unfair;
The area is industrial and has a low volume of pedestrians;
Footpath will provide no benefit to businesses as the area is predominantly accessed by vehicles;
Reason of financial hardship.
This project involves the proposed construction of 478 metres total length of 1.5 metre wide footpath. It is expected to be a safety improvement for pedestrian movements along a moderately trafficked road (approx 6000 vehicles per day) and fulfil part of the footpath priority obligations for Council.
The section of Thompson Road, North Geelong between Morgan Street and Cowies Creek is relatively flat and the footpath construction should not pose any difficulty for the selected contractor.
Cost apportionment for the scheme has been divided into access and amenity benefits. 50% of the total benefit has been apportioned to access. It is considered that all abutting properties with direct frontages to the proposed new footpath, regardless of size and shape, receive the same access benefit. An exception to this rule is the corner property (407-411 Thompson Road) with more than double the frontage of neighbouring properties where an increase of the access benefit has been applied.
The access benefit includes the provision of an all weather sealed surface that reduces the risk of accidents caused by uneven and slippery surfaces. In simple terms, a new footpath improves accessibility for all abutting properties.
The remaining 50% of benefit is attributed to amenity and this can best be described as the benefit the pathway provides to an abutting property by way of improved aesthetics, safety, enjoyment, comfort and property value. The amenity benefit is based on the actual footpath frontage to a property when existing driveways and footpath extents are taken into consideration.
The provision of a sealed pathway surface provides a permanent and safe means of access. During the course of construction and the manufacture and procurement of materials, energy is expended resulting in some greenhouse gas emissions. This ceases when construction is complete.
The project does not create waste with the exception of some excavated material.
The proposal does not affect any natural habitats.
The proposal will require some nature strip trees and shrubs to be trimmed but removal of vegetation is not expected.
The project is a one off capital cost and there will be minimal ongoing maintenance costs. If approved, the scheme could proceed this financial year under the core footpath program C02303.
Financial details are as follows:
Maximum scheme levy to Property Owners (income) |
$64,295 |
Scheme levy to Council |
$134,100 |
Direct Funding by Council to reinstate existing footpath and driveways, new kerb and channel for a kerb return modification at Rodney Road, asphalt pavement reinstatement and reinforced concrete retaining wall and footing |
$89,404 |
Total Project Cost |
$287,799 |
From the table above, the net cost to Council for this project is estimated to be $223,504.
The scheme has been prepared in accordance with the Special Rate and Charge provisions of the Local Government Act 1989 along with the 2004 ministerial guidelines and Council’s Special Rates and Charges Policy.
This report aligns with the City Plan as follows:
Sustainably Built and Natural Environment
Support our Community to live sustainably – Encourage increased use of alternatives to car transport and seek efficient traffic movement throughout the municipality.
Advocate for and promote sustainable design and development – Promoting sustainable design and retrofitting.
Acknowledge the community’s desire to have their say and be involved in planning for the future of Greater Geelong.
No Council Officer involved with this process has any direct or indirect interest in the properties.
Provision of a sealed pathway will provide safer walking conditions for pedestrians by minimising the risk of personal injuries through conflict with vehicles and the elimination of uneven and slippery surfaces.
There are no identified risks for Council in making its intention to declare the scheme.
The provision of properly sealed and drained pathways is aligned to Council’s City Plan as described above and provides improved connectivity and safety for pedestrians. It is further considered that the footpaths will enhance the general amenity of the area.
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 the footpaths 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.
Informal consultation was carried out in March 2015 with an information pack to affected property owners that included an initiation letter, a plan showing the location of works, a Special Rates and Charge Scheme brochure, a detailed cost apportionment spreadsheet and informal survey form.
Further correspondence to the affected property owners will be sent should Council make its intention to declare a Special Charge Scheme.
The works for the construction of footpaths in Thompson Road, North Geelong which consist of excavation, footpath, reinstatement of nature strip and driveways, miscellaneous construction works, legal advice and professional services associated with survey, engineering design, drafting, supervision and administration of the project all as included in the cost estimate shown below.
ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF FOOTPATH CONSTRUCTION |
|||||
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. | 1 |
ITEM |
$17,711.00 |
$17,711.00 |
1.02 |
Traffic management costs. |
1 |
ITEM |
$6,000.00 |
$6,000.00 |
1.03 |
Setting out of works. |
1 |
ITEM |
$700.00 |
$700.00 |
1.04 |
Service/Cable locations |
1 |
ITEM |
$800.00 |
$800.00 |
1.05 |
Internal supervision fee (COGG construction) | 1 |
ITEM |
$8,359.00 |
$8,359.00 |
2.00 |
EARTHWORKS & DEMOLITION |
|
|
|
|
2.01 |
Excavation and disposal of all materials to limits of work as indicated on plan, including trimming for new road pavement, excavation of soft spots and removal of concrete. |
268 |
m3 |
$60.00 |
$16,080.00 |
2.02 |
Saw-cutting of Asphalt paving. |
64 |
m |
$10.00 |
$640.00 |
2.03 |
Saw-cut of concrete kerb and channel |
6 |
m |
$10.00 |
$60.00 |
3.00 |
PAVEMENT WORKS |
|
|
|
|
3.01 |
75mm compacted depth Class 3 40mm crushed rock, supplied, spread and compacted. |
34 |
m3 |
$100.00 |
$3,400.00 |
3.02 |
150mm compacted depth Class 2 20mm crushed rock, supplied, spread and compacted. |
27 |
m3 |
$120.00 |
$3,240.00 |
4.00 |
DRAINAGE |
|
|
|
|
|
PITS |
|
|
|
|
4.01 |
Modify existing Junction pit to match finished surface level and supply and fit Gatic type cover. |
3 |
No. |
$770.00 |
$2,310.00 |
5.00 |
CONCRETE WORKS KERBINB: |
|
|
|
|
5.01 |
Concrete pram crossing 1.5m wide, including fine crushed rock bedding. | 2 |
No. |
$250.00 |
$500.00 |
|
CONCRETE WORK PAVING: |
|
|
|
|
5.02 |
125mm (25 Mpa) concrete paving with SL72 mesh including crushed rock bedding and reinstate nature strip. | 457 |
m2 |
$135.00 |
$61,695.00 |
5.03 |
175mm (32 Mpa) concrete paving with SL82 mesh including crushed rock bedding and reinstate nature strip. |
182 |
m2 |
$140.00 |
$25,480.00 |
6.00 |
LANDSCAPING |
|
|
|
|
6.01 |
Top soiling and seeding nature strips. |
638 |
m2 |
$8.00 |
$5,104.00 |
7.00 |
SIGNING, LINE-MARKING AND FENCING |
|
|
|
|
7.01 |
Relocation of permanent signs and posts as per plan. |
1 |
No |
$250.00 |
$250.00 |
8.00 |
PROVISIONAL ITEMS |
|
|
|
|
8.01 |
Adjust level of existing telstra pit, electricity pit, sewer services lid and water services cover and replaced as needed. |
1 |
ITEM |
$13,000.00 |
$13,000.00 |
SUB-TOTAL |
$165,329 |
||||
10% Contingency |
$16,533 |
||||
Design |
$9,920 |
||||
Project administration |
$6,613 |
||||
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE |
$198,395 |
||||
COUNCIL FUNDED WORKS |
|||||
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. |
1 |
ITEM |
$7,985.00 |
$7,985.00 |
1.02 |
Traffic management costs. |
1 |
ITEM |
$2,000.00 |
$2,000.00 |
2.00 |
EARTHWORKS & DEMOLITION |
|
|
|
|
2.01 |
Excavation and disposal of all materials to limits of work as indicated on plan, including trimming for new road pavement, excavation of soft spots and removal of concrete. |
118 |
m3 |
$60.00 |
$7,080.00 |
2.02 |
Saw-cutting of Asphalt paving. |
124 |
m |
$10.00 |
$1,240.00 |
2.03 |
Saw-cut of concrete paving |
37 |
m |
$10.00 |
$370.00 |
2.04 |
Saw-cut of concrete kerb and channel |
27 |
m |
$10.00 |
$270.00 |
3.00 |
PAVEMENT WORKS |
|
|
|
|
3.01 |
150mm compacted depth Class 2 20mm crushed rock, supplied, spread and compacted. |
33 |
m3 |
$120.00 |
$3,960.00 |
3.02 |
150mm compacted depth Class 3 40mm crushed rock, supplied, spread and compacted. |
16 |
m3 |
$100.00 |
$1,600.00 |
3.03 |
30mm compacted depth 10mm nominal size type N Asphalt spread and compacted including emulsion prime & grit using a paver. |
140 |
m2 |
$35.00 |
$4,900.00 |
4.00 |
DRAINAGE PITS |
|
|
|
|
4.01 |
Modify existing Side Entry pit to Bike safe Grated Junction pit to match new finished surface level, supply and fit Grated cover. |
1 |
No. |
$800.00 |
$800.00 |
4.02 |
1set - of 2 pcs New Standard Weepa (weep holes) with 90mm Extension Dimension of weep holes 75W x 20H x 195D spaced @ 1.0m on center |
83 |
No. |
$6.00 |
$498.00 |
4.03 |
20mm aggregate backfill for drainage zone 250mm x 450mm (or 250mm) enveloped with geo-textile as per plan. |
7.3 |
m3 |
$110.00 |
$803.00 |
5.00 |
CONCRETE WORKS KERBING: ` |
|
|
|
|
5.01 |
Remove existing concrete kerb and construct modified SM2 Semi-mountable kerb and channel 600mm wide as per plan and reinstate nature strip. |
25 |
m |
$156.00 |
$3,900.00 |
5.02 |
Concrete pram crossing 1.5m wide, including fine crushed rock bedding. |
2 |
No. |
$250.00 |
$500.00 |
|
CONCRETE WORKS PAVING: |
|
|
|
|
5.03 |
175mm (32 Mpa) concrete paving with SL82 mesh including crushed rock bedding and reinstate nature strip. |
129 |
m2 |
$140.00 |
$18,060.00 |
5.04 |
Reinforced Concrete Retaining Wall and Footing with SL72 mesh including 75mm compacted depth Class 3 FCR bedding and reinstate nature strip as per plan. |
85 |
m |
$165.00 $14,025.00 |
|
6.00 |
SIGNING, LINE-MARKING AND FENCING |
|
|
|
|
6.01 |
Relocation of permanent signs and posts as per plan. |
1 |
No |
$250.00 |
$250.00 |
7.00 |
PROVISIONAL ITEMS |
|
|
|
|
7.01 |
Adjust level of existing telstra pit, electricity pit, sewer services lid and water services cover and replaced as needed. |
1 |
ITEM |
$2,000.00 |
$2,000.00 |
SUB-TOTAL |
$74,503 |
||||
10% Contingency |
$7,450 |
||||
Design |
$4,470 |
||||
Project administration |
$2,980 |
||||
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE |
$89,404 |
||||
A |
Purpose To construct a footpath in Thompson Road, North Geelong to provide all weather pedestrian access for property owners and the wider community. The project also includes kerb return modification works to improve vehicular and pedestrian safety |
||||||
B |
Coherence The works will provide a physical pathway connection between Morgan Street and Recreation Reserve and will provide a special benefit to adjoining and remote properties. |
||||||
C |
Total Estimated cost of works Direct funding by Council to reinstate existing footpath and driveways, new kerb and channel for kerb return modification at Rodney Road, asphalt pavement reinstatement and reinforced concrete retaining wall and footing. |
$287,799 $89,404 |
|||||
|
Total Cost of Footpath Construction |
$198,395 |
|||||
D |
Identify Special Beneficiaries 35 properties with frontages to the proposed footpath are considered to receive access and amenity benefits. |
||||||
E |
Properties to include The 35 abutting properties receive both access and amenity benefits. Therefore: Total Special Benefits (in) is apportioned to 35 properties There is one (1) Council owned property in the scheme. Therefore: Total Special Benefits out of the scheme is apportioned to one property. |
||||||
F |
Estimate of Total Special Benefits For this scheme, benefit will be apportioned on the basis of access and amenity by way of a Benefit Unit (BU). We shall assume that the makeup of the BU for each property comprises 1/2 BU of amenity and 1/2 BU for access benefits. The Council owned property shares the same access and amenity benefit as the private properties. A summary of the special benefits is shown in table form below: |
||||||
|
|
35 Private Properties TSB (in) |
1 Council Property TSB |
|
TSB (in) |
35 BU |
|
|
Access |
17.5 BU |
0.5 BU |
|
|
|
|
|
Amenity |
17.5 BU |
0.5 BU |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Special Benefits |
35 BU |
1.0 BU |
|
TSB (out) |
1 BU |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G |
Estimate of Total Community Benefit -TCB It is considered that people in the community will receive a benefit from the works as the pathway is used to access other areas. Estimated pedestrian use of the footpath is 20% for the abutting property owners and 80% for the wider community. There are no amenity benefits considered for the wider community. If 20% of access benefit represents a total of 18 BU, 80% will represent 72BU. |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
TCB |
72 BU |
|
H |
Calculate "Benefit Ratio" - R |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefits Ratio = |
TSB (in) |
= |
35 |
0.32 |
||
|
|
TSB (in) + TSB (out) + TCB |
|
35 + 1 + 72 |
|
||
I |
Maximum Total Levy (S) |
||||||
|
Maximum Total Levy S = R X C |
|
|
|
|
|
$64,295 |
|
Council Contribution to Special Charge Scheme |
|
|
|
|
|
$134,100 |
COLUMN 1 |
COLUMN 2 |
COLUMN 3 |
COLUMN 4 |
COLUMN 5 |
COLUMN 6 |
COLUMN 7 |
Prop Key |
Address |
Legal Details |
Apportionable frontage |
Access Benefit |
Amenity Benefit |
Footpath Cost |
280171 |
380 Thompson Road, NORTH GEELONG |
Lot 4 RP 15195 |
9.21 |
$518.50 |
$728.82 |
$1,247.33 |
280172 |
382 Thompson Road, NORTH GEELONG |
Lot 3 RP 15195 |
9.21 |
$518.50 |
$728.82 |
$1,247.33 |
280173 |
384 Thompson Road, NORTH GEELONG |
Lot 2 RP 15195 |
7.39 |
$518.50 |
$584.72 |
$1,103.23 |
280174 |
384A Thompson Road, NORTH GEELONG |
Lot 1 RP 15195 |
9.21 |
$518.50 |
$728.82 |
$1,247.33 |
348297 |
386 Thompson Road, NORTH GEELONG |
Lot 14 LP 93927 |
15.24 |
$1,037.01 |
$1,205.97 |
$2,242.98 |
298770 |
388 Thompson Road, NORTH GEELONG |
1/2 Share of CP 155275 |
0.00 |
$1,037.01 |
$0.00 |
$1,037.01 |
280177 |
390 Thompson Road, NORTH GEELONG |
1/2 Share of CP 155275 |
0.00 |
$518.50 |
$0.00 |
$518.50 |
280178 |
394 Thompson Road, NORTH GEELONG |
Lot 1 LP 117090 |
1.73 |
$518.50 |
$136.90 |
$655.40 |
280179 |
396 Thompson Road, NORTH GEELONG |
Lot 2 LP 117090 |
8.28 |
$1,037.01 |
$655.21 |
$1,692.22 |
280180 |
398 Thompson Road, NORTH GEELONG |
Lot 3 LP 117090 |
1.20 |
$1,037.01 |
$94.96 |
$1,131.97 |
280181 |
400 Thompson Road, NORTH GEELONG |
Lot 8 LP 93927 |
15.24 |
$1,037.01 |
$1,205.97 |
$2,242.98 |
280182 |
402A Thompson Road, NORTH GEELONG |
1/3 Share of Lot 18 LP 114984 |
3.02 |
$1,037.01 |
$238.98 |
$1,275.99 |
319642 |
402B Thompson Road, NORTH GEELONG |
Lot 26 LP 114984, 1/3 Share of Lot 18 LP 114984 |
3.02 |
$1,037.01 |
$238.98 |
$1,275.99 |
319643 |
402C Thompson Road, NORTH GEELONG |
1/3 Share of Lot 18 LP 114984 |
3.02 |
$1,037.01 |
$238.98 |
$1,275.99 |
280183 |
404-406 Thompson Road, NORTH GEELONG |
Lot 6 LP 93927, Lot 5 LP 93927 |
1.05 |
$1,037.01 |
$83.09 |
$1,120.10 |
280184 |
408-410 Thompson Road, NORTH GEELONG |
Lot 4 LP 93927, Lot 3 LP 93927 |
16.60 |
$1,037.01 |
$1,313.59 |
$2,350.60 |
280185 |
412 Thompson Road, NORTH GEELONG |
Lot 2 LP 93927 |
0.64 |
$1,037.01 |
$50.64 |
$1,087.65 |
280186 |
414 Thompson Road, NORTH GEELONG |
Lot 3 PS 503554 |
6.42 |
$1,037.01 |
$508.03 |
$1,545.04 |
280187 |
416 Thompson Road, NORTH GEELONG |
1/2 Share of Lot 4 PS 503554 |
4.58 |
$1,037.01 |
$362.03 |
$1,399.04 |
280188 |
418 Thompson Road, NORTH GEELONG |
1/2 Share of Lot 4 PS 503554 |
4.58 |
$1,037.01 |
$362.03 |
$1,399.04 |
280189 |
420 Thompson Road, NORTH GEELONG |
Lot 2 PS 503554 |
16.2; |
$1,037.01 |
$1,287.47 |
$2,324.48 |
280236 |
PARENT - 371 Thompson Road, BELL PARK |
Lot 1 TP 164072 Ppsd Lots 1& 2 PS 641441 |
0.00 |
$0.00 |
$0.00 |
$0.00 |
344759 |
371 Thompson Road, BELL PARK |
Pt Lot 1 TP 164072 Ppsd Lot 2 PS 641441 |
58.54 |
$518.50 |
$4,632.38 |
$5,150.88 |
280237 |
373-375 Thompson Road, BELL PARK |
Lot 1 LP 145062 |
15.03 |
$1,037.01 |
$1,189.35 |
$2,226.36 |
301812 |
377 Thompson Road, BELL PARK |
1/3 Share of Lot 2 LP 210814 |
12.70 |
$1,037.01 |
$1,004.97 |
$2,041.98 |
301813 |
1/379 Thompson Road, BELL PARK |
1/3 Share of Lot 2 LP 210814 |
6.35 |
$1,037.01 |
$502.49 |
$1,539.50 |
311847 |
2/379 Thompson Road, BELL PARK |
1/2 Share of Lot 2 LP 210814 |
6.35 |
$1,037.01 |
$502.49 |
$1,539.50 |
280239 |
1/381-383 Thompson Road, BELL PARK |
1/6 Share of Lot 2 PS 641531 |
5.00 |
$1,037.01 |
$395.66 |
$1,432.67 |
280240 |
2/381-383 Thompson Road, BELL PARK |
1/6 Share of Lot 2 PS 641531 |
5.00 |
$1,037.01 |
$395.66 |
$1,432.67 |
280241 |
3/381-383 Thompson Road, BELL PARK |
1/6 Share of Lot 2 PS 641531 |
5.00 |
$1,037.01 |
$395.66 |
$1,432.67 |
280242 |
4/381-383 Thompson Road, BELL PARK |
1/6 Share of Lot 2 PS 641531 |
5.00 |
$1,037.01 |
$395.66 |
$1,432.67 |
280243 |
5/381-383 Thompson Road, BELL PARK |
1/6 Share of Lot 2 PS 641531 |
5.00 |
$1,037.01 |
$395.66 |
$1,432.67 |
280244 |
6/381-383 Thompson Road, BELL PARK |
1/6 Share of Lot 2 PS 641531 |
5.00 |
$1,037.01 |
$395.66 |
$1,432.67 |
280245 |
385-387 Thompson Road, BELL PARK |
Lot 5 LP 208936 |
24.03 |
$1,037.01 |
$1,901.54 |
$2,938.55 |
278564 |
1 Kelly Court, BELL PARK |
Lot 6 LP 210814 |
45.77 |
$518.50 |
$3,621.86 |
$4,140.37 |
28024 |
7 407-411 Thompson Road, BELL PARK |
Lot 4 LP 208205 |
71.58 |
$1,037.01 |
$5,664.26 |
$6,701.27 |
Stage |
Status |
Description |
Approval to prepare scheme |
✓ |
Decision made to prepare scheme following consideration of surveys of residents and feed back from the community via informal survey. 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. |
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. |
Contents | Previous Page: Section A - Procedural Matters | Next Page: Section C - Assembly of Councillors
