Docstoc

MINUTES 27 SEPTEMBER 2010

Document Sample
MINUTES 27 SEPTEMBER 2010 Powered By Docstoc
					  MINUTES



27 SEPTEMBER
     2010
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                                             27 SEPTEMBER 2010



                                    TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM                                               SUBJECT                                          PAGE NO


1.     DECLARATION ........................................................................................... 20894 

2.     APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE ................................................. 20894 

3.     DECLARATION OF INTERESTS ............................................................... 20895 

4.     CLOSURE OF MEETING TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ..................... 20895 

      4.1  CONFIRMATION AND SIGNING OF MINUTES NOT
           PREVIOUSLY CONFIRMED ............................................................... 20895 
      4.2  BOUNDARY CHANGE ........................................................................ 20895 
      4.3  RE-OPENING MEETING TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ............... 20895

5.     CONFIRMATION AND SIGNING OF MINUTES NOT PREVIOUSLY
       CONFIRMED ............................................................................................... 20896 

6.     PETITIONS AND JOINT LETTERS ............................................................ 20896 

      6.1    GOULBURN RIVER HIGH COUNTRY RAIL TRAIL ........................... 20896 
      6.2    PLANNING PERMIT 305158/10 – WEST ROAD, PYALONG ............ 20897 
      6.3    SEYMOUR LEVEE BANK ................................................................... 20899 
      6.4    KILMORE EAST WALKING PATH ...................................................... 20899

7.     QUESTION TIME......................................................................................... 20900 

      7.1  A. VAN WEENEN AND J. STEPHENS - PLANNING PERMIT
           O305158/10 WEST ROAD, PYALONG ............................................... 20900 
      7.2  C. BRAUN – RAIL TRAIL FENCING ................................................... 20900 
      7.3  G. TAYLOR – RAIL TRAIL FENCING ................................................. 20900

8.     BUSINESS SERVICES ............................................................................... 20901 

  8.1  DUMP EZY POINT INVESTIGATION WANDONG, KILMORE, WALLAN 20901 
  8.2  GOULBURN RIVER VALLEY TOURISM – UPDATE AND
       CONSTITUTION ........................................................................................ 20904

9.     COMMUNITY AND RECREATION ............................................................. 20907 

  9.1  REVIEW OF ANNUAL COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM.................... 20907 
  9.2   BROADFORD SKATE PARK SITE ASSESSMENT ................................. 20909 
  9.3  CHANGES TO SECTION 86 COMMITTEE OF
        MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIVES ..................................................... 20912



                                                       Page i
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                                           27 SEPTEMBER 2010



10.  ENGINEERING & INFRASTRUCTURE ...................................................... 20914 

  10.1 DESIGNATING A NEIGHBOURHOOD SAFER PLACE – PLACES OF
       LAST RESORT .......................................................................................... 20914 
  10.2 LIGHTHORSE DRIVE / GOULBURN VALLEY HIGHWAY
       SEYMOUR INTERSECTION – PETITION ................................................ 20918 
  10.3 SEYMOUR NEIGHBOURHOOD RENEWAL TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT
       – PERRIN STREET, SEYMOUR............................................................... 20921 
  10.4 VICTRACK LEASE - TALLAROOK TO GRANITE – RAIL TRAIL ............ 20924 
  10.5 CREATION OF EASEMENT – CROWN ALLOTMENT 28, PARISH OF
  SEYMOUR NUMBER 470 SEYMOUR – TOOBORAC ROAD HILLDENE...... 20926 
  10.6   GOULBURN RIVER HIGH COUNTRY RAIL TRAIL ........................... 20928

11.  GOVERNANCE AND EXECUTIVE ............................................................. 20933 

  11.1 STANDING COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL - MINUTES ............................ 20933 
  11.2   MAYORAL AND COUNCILLOR ALLOWANCE REVIEW ................... 20934 
  11.3 CONTRACT 101104 FOOTBALL FIELD FLOODLIGHTING
       INSTALLATION AND PROVISION OF 3 PHASE POWER AT LB
       DAVERN RESERVE WANDONG ............................................................. 20936

12.  PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT.............................................................. 20939 

  12.1 DRAFT VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE
       BEVERIDGE RECREATION RESERVE ................................................... 20939 
  12.2 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION NO. P306169/10, TO USE THE LAND
  TO SELL OR CONSUME LIQUOR AT 6 ANDERSON ROAD KILMORE ....... 20941 
  12.3 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION NO. P306228/10, TO CONSTRUCT
       A DWELLING AND RE-SUBDIVIDE TWO EXISTING LOTS AT 60
       HIBBERDS LANE CLONBINANE ............................................................. 20949 
  12.4 SECTION 173 AGREEMENTS – 145 HOLLYMOUNT ROAD, PYALONG
       & 610 DOCKERYS ROAD, SUGARLOAF CREEK ................................... 20961 
  12.5 VICTORIAN CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HEARINGS
       AND MITCHELL PLANNING SCHEME UPDATE..................................... 20963

13.  DELEGATES REPORTS ............................................................................ 20967 

14.  NOTICE OF MOTIONS................................................................................ 20967 

  14.1 NOTICE OF MOTION: 711 – COUNCIL REPORTS ................................. 20967 
  14.2 NOTICE OF MOTION: 712– RESOURCE GV CONFERENCE ............... 20968

15.  GENERAL BUSINESS ................................................................................ 20970 

16.  DATE OF NEXT MEETING ......................................................................... 20970 

17.  CLOSURE OF MEETING ............................................................................ 20970 



                                                     Page ii
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                           27 SEPTEMBER 2010


            MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF THE
        MITCHELL SHIRE COUNCIL HELD AT THE CIVIC CENTRE
                        113 HIGH STREET
                        BROADFORD ON
                  MONDAY 27 SEPTEMBER, 2010
                     COMMENCING AT 6.30 PM


PRESENT:
Cr W. Melbourne (Chairperson)
Cr G. Coppel
Cr R. Parker

Cr D. Callaghan
Cr K. Stewart
Cr R. Lee

Cr S. Marstaeller
Cr T. Tobias

ALSO PRESENT:
Mr David Keenan          Chief Executive Officer
Mr Ian Scholes           General Manager Planning & Environment
Mr Peter Halton          General Manager, Engineering & Infrastructure
Mr Rob McVernon          General Manager Community & Recreation
Mrs Vicki Potts          Governance & Executive Services Coordinator




1. DECLARATION

The Declaration was read by Cr Lee.


2. APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Apologies were received from Cr Mulroney.


MOVED:              CR. G. COPPEL
SECONDED:           CR. T. TOBIAS

THAT: the apology from Cr Mulroney be accepted.
                                                                CARRIED
                                                                     8/0




                                Page 20894
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                     27 SEPTEMBER 2010




3. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

Under the Local Government Act, 1989, the classification of the type of
interest giving rise to a conflict is: a direct interest; an indirect interest (Section
77A and 77B). The type of indirect interest specified under Section 78, 78A,
78B, 78C or 78D of the Local Government Act, 1989 set out the requirements
of a Councillor or member of a Special Committee to disclose any conflicts of
interest that they may have in a matter being or likely to be considered at
meeting of the Council or Committee.

Cr Melbourne declared an indirect interest in the consideration of Item 10.3 –
Seymour Neighbourhood Renewal Traffic Calming Project, Perrin Street,
Seymour - in that “his father-in-law lives in Perrin Street”.

Cr Stewart declared an indirect interest in the consideration of Item 10.3 –
Seymour Neighbourhood Renewal Traffic Calming Project, Perrin Street,
Seymour - in that “the alternative motions proposes speed humps in Sinclair
Crescent Seymour where members of my extended family live”.


4. CLOSURE OF MEETING TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
In accordance with Section 89 of the Local Government Act, 1989 (as
amended)

MOVED:                CR. S. MARSTAELLER
SECONDED:             CR. K. STEWART
THAT: the meeting be closed to members of the public to consider the
following items:

4.1    CONFIRMATION AND SIGNING OF MINUTES NOT PREVIOUSLY
       CONFIRMED

4.2    BOUNDARY CHANGE

4.3    RE-OPENING MEETING TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

                                                                           CARRIED
                                                                                8/0


The meeting was closed to members of the public at 6.31pm.




                                     Page 20895
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                  27 SEPTEMBER 2010


ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING
In accordance with Clause 7.28 of Local Law No. 4 – Meeting Procedures.

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting to allow for commencement of the
meeting for the public as advertised at 7.00pm.

The meeting was adjourned at 6.6.35pm.

The Chairperson resumed the meeting at 7.00pm.


5. CONFIRMATION AND SIGNING                          OF     MINUTES        NOT
   PREVIOUSLY CONFIRMED

The minutes of the Ordinary meeting of Council held on 23 August, 2010, and
the Special Meeting of Council held on 13 September, 2010, as circulated, be
confirmed.

MOVED:                CR. D. CALLAGHAN
SECONDED:             CR. G. COPPEL
THAT: the recommendation be adopted.
                                                                      CARRIED
                                                                           8/0

6. PETITIONS AND JOINT LETTERS
      In accordance with clause 7.55 of Local Law No. 4 – Meeting Procedures.


6.1      GOULBURN RIVER HIGH COUNTRY RAIL TRAIL

         A petition was received by Council on 24 August, 2010 signed by
         approximately 16 residents which states:

         “When the Concept Design and Business Plan for the Goulburn river
         High Country Trail as prepared by Urban Enterprise Pty Ltd was
         accepted by the Shires of Mitchell, Murrundindi and Mansfield, it was
         stated that the costs of any fencing needed for the the trail would be
         covered by the Rail Trail Project. and that where existing fencing
         needed repair the cost of such repair would be undertaken as part of
         the project cost. (See Concept Design and Business Plan, Final Draft
         2006, 5.5)

         In June 2010, landholders were told by the Project Manager that this
         would not be the case and that all adjacent fencing costs would be the
         responsibility of the landholder. As a result of this the Shire of
         Murrundindi has:
         1) carried a resolution put by Councillors J,Walsh and C.Healy that the
         Shire of Murrundindi notify the shires of Mitchell and Mansfield that it

                                    Page 20896
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                  27 SEPTEMBER 2010


      will not support the condstruction of the trail on Murrundindi land unless
      the fencing costs be covered by project funding, and that
      2) efforts be made to pursue funding to cover such costs.
      (See Murrundindi minutes of June 23'd, page 25)

      In light of this it seems grossly unfair that the landholders in the shire of
      Mitchell who are impacted by the Rail Trail and who have been
      ratepayers here for many years are now called upon to subsidise a
      facility, mainly for use by outside groups. Under such circumstances
      we could reasonably feel forsaken by our own representatives.

      If the Murrundindi landholders have the question of funding dealt with
      in the above manner and gain project funding, the same conditions
      could apply to the affected Mitchell landholders, some of whom are
      experiencing considerable distress after becoming aware that the
      original business plan is not being adhered to. Many thousands of
      dollars are involved here.

      In August, 2010, a Project Office advised that quality, fencing is
      compulsory once any stock is on the landholding adjacent to the trail
      site. We the undersigned Mitchell landholders ask of the CEO and
      Councillors of the Mitchell Shire See that this inequity is corrected..”

      The petition should be considered in conjunction with Item 10.6 of this
      agenda.

6.2   PLANNING PERMIT 305158/10 – WEST ROAD, PYALONG

      A petition has been received on behalf of 27 residents from the area
      which states in part;

      “I strongly oppose the planning permit application as the date is now
      16/08/2010 and I feel Mitchell Shire Council Planning department has
      not followed proper procedure and have failed in their duty of care to
      the residents of West Road in Pyalong. My Partner and I & neighbours
      are yet been formally notified by mail from the Planning Department of
      Mitchell Shire Council about the planning application for the Strawberry
      Field Music Festival, I ask how such a major error can occur within the
      Department, the two residential properties 515 & 520 West Rd closest
      to the event were missed. We both have land that adjoins, 555 West
      Rd where the Festival is to be held. I know of residents, on Racecourse
      road some 5 km away on a different adjoining boundary got letters
      dated 31/7/10. The Mitchell Shire Planning Department did not have all
      the information for this event, I was asked by an officer a couple of
      questions, so I ask council as too exactly what information was given
      on the application? Neither ….. the owner of 555 West Rd Pyalong
      3521 nor the Promoter Strawberry Music Festival, reside at 555 West
      Road Pyalong. …. resides in……, and the Organiser only leases a
      section of the property for the festival. I feel neither of their quality of
      life will be affected by this festival as they don't live at the property.

                                   Page 20897
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                               27 SEPTEMBER 2010


    I feel The Mitchell Shire Council has been Misled in The application for
    a music festival this Music Festival as the applicant calls it, is better
    known as a Rave or dance party throughout Melbourne and country
    Victoria. I urge all The members of the Planning Department,
    councillors, CEO and The Mayor of Mitchell Shire to go onto the
    Internet and look up Strawberry Fields, they are very secretive, there is
    very limited information on these type of events. They are very
    secretive as to where these events are to be held quote from their
    website: all will be revealed, so locals cannot object. Please see
    attached copy of another Music festival site where directions only sent
    to those who RSVP via facebook, and where it states please don't post
    this info on any forums. We will be in the midst of Fire season and
    Pyalong will be tinder dry the Access road for this music event is very
    narrow a single vehicle track at best, it's quite rough, with tight corners,
    a fire truck would have trouble accessing this event, if there were a
    serious fire threat. Has anyone from Mitchell Shire Council or the
    Planning Department been out and investigated the site? A drive up
    Cullens lane would / should put an end to this event. This event Will be
    running 24hrs a day for 3 days from Fri 26th Nov until Sun 28th as
    promoted on the Strawberry Fields website and described in there
    interview attached, so it will greatly impact on the residents, local
    community and our animals etc. When do we get sleep? My partner
    and I are both Shift workers. I feel this event cannot be properly
    Policed as how are Police supposed to thoroughly search ever vehicle
    going into his event for drugs etc? When they are expecting 2,200
    party goers. These events have been known to attract well over the
    number they have put on their planning application. From what I have
    heard from local residents council should recall the events at Mt
    Disappointment wasn't it earthcore? And didn't it attract over 11,000
    people so the 2,200 on their Planning application seems a few patrons
    short of what may actually attend.
    I ask council what is in this for Pyalong? What does this event do for
    our community, locals and our town? The patrons too this event do not
    support the locals in any way they have their own bar at the venue so
    the local publican gets nothing, they have food stalls etc so the local
    shop receives nothing and the only two winners out of all this Festival
    are the Event organiser and Land owner who both don't even reside
    within Mitchell Shire. Ambulance Access is the same as the fire truck a
    very narrow track one way in and one way out and if there was a
    serious incident Kilmore hospital would almost certainly refer them to
    the Northern Hospital at Epping some I hrs drive away or Bendigo 45
    minutes away in which time the patron could be deceased.

    10. Who is going to take responsibility for the patrons if, or when they
    become unruly? Who is going to protect the neighbouring properties,
    and there livestock? If council recalls a similar event at The Melbourne
    showgrounds just last year when revellers released race horses from
    stables at Flemington who is to say they won't open gates on
    neighbouring properties and release there livestock.”.


                                Page 20898
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                27 SEPTEMBER 2010


      The petition has been considered an objection to the Planning Permit
      application and will be dealt with as an objection in accordance with the
      requirements of the Planning & Environment Act and will be considered
      when the planning application is considered by Council at a future
      meeting.


6.3   SEYMOUR LEVEE BANK

      A petition has been received on behalf of 57 residents which states in
      part;

      “we the undersigned, request that Mitchell Shire abandon the concept
      of a levee bank along the Whitehead’s Creek River in Seymour but
      rather pursue a reduction of the fictitious flood level applied by
      Goulburn Murray River Authority”.

      A report will be prepared in relation to this petition for the 25 October,
      2010 Council meeting.


6.4   KILMORE EAST WALKING PATH

      A petition was tabled by Cr Callaghan containing 123 signatories which
      states;

      “we, the undersigned, support the construction of a walking/cycle path
      in Kilmore East – from Harrington Street to O’Grady’s Road
      intersection”.

      A report will be prepared in relation to this petition for the 25 October,
      2010 Council meeting.




                                  Page 20899
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                27 SEPTEMBER 2010




7. QUESTION TIME

   In accordance with Clause 7.52 of Local Law No. 4 – Meeting Procedures.



7.1 A. VAN WEENEN AND J. STEPHENS - PLANNING PERMIT O305158/10
    WEST ROAD, PYALONG

   “My question is will there be further notification from Council to the neighbours
   of this application prior to the permit being presented to Council? Will this
   Planning Permit be presented at the October meeting as the event is to be
   held in November?”

   The General Manager Planning & Environment advised that the advertising
   period for this permit has now expired and no further notification will be
   provided to neighbours. It is expected the permit will be discussed at the
   meeting on 25 October, 2010.



7.2 C. BRAUN – RAIL TRAIL FENCING

   “My question is why is this Council not joining with Murrindindi Shire in saying
   they will not proceed until full funding for fencing is obtained?”

   The Chief Executive Officer advised that Council will discuss this as part of
   Item 10.6 of tonight’s agenda.


7.3 G. TAYLOR – RAIL TRAIL FENCING

   “My question is with the Concept and Business Plan, available at the Mitchell
   Shire Council offices. Final draft section 5.5 gives quite specific details of
   work to be performed. Now that the Fencing Act regarding fencing adjacent
   crown land is being quoted, why has Mitchell Council not brought this up until
   lately. Is this a way to enhance a claim for the grant from the State and
   Federal Government?”

   The Chief Executive Officer advised that Council will discuss this as part of
   Item 10.6 of tonight’s agenda.




                                  Page 20900
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                 27 SEPTEMBER 2010




8. BUSINESS SERVICES
8.1 DUMP EZY POINT INVESTIGATION WANDONG, KILMORE, WALLAN

Author:          Chris Guthrie, Economic Development Manager
File No:         EC/01/001
Attachment:      Nil
Reference:       Item 8.2, 24 May 2010



Summary
This report updates Council in relation to investigation into the feasibility and support
for a Dump Ezy Points in Wandong, Kilmore and Wallan.

Background
The Campervan & Motorhome Club of Australia (CMCA) is the largest Motorhome
Recreational Vehicle (RV) Club in Australia, offering many benefits, including
specially tailored motorhome insurance, a free monthly colour magazine, and social
events through 93 Local Chapters throughout Australia.

In December 2008, Council received correspondence from CMCA in relation to the
Dump Ezy program and RV Friendly Town scheme seeking support to establish and
promote Seymour as an RV Friendly Town under its RV Friendly Town Scheme.

At the Council meeting of 24 May, 2010 it was resolved that:

1.      “Council write to the Campervan & Motorhome Club of Australia (CMCA)
        applying for RV Friendly Town status for the township of Seymour.
2.      Council resolve to progress the installation of a Dump-Ezy Point unit in the
        car park of the proposed Vietnam Veterans Commemorative Walk, High
        Street, Seymour.
3.      Council approves works to be undertaken in the 2010/2011 Capital Works
        program.
4.      Council officers investigate the identification of Dump-Ezy sites in Kilmore,
        Wallan and Wandong”.

The purpose of this report is to update Council in relation to item 4 above.

In addition, and as directed above, Council officers have begun the process to have
an Ezy Dump Point installed in Seymour and have written to the CMCA seeking
support for recognition as an RV Friendly Town.




                                       Page 20901
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                         27 SEPTEMBER 2010
DUMP EZY POINT INVESTIGATION WANDONG, KILMORE, WALLAN (CONT’D)


Policy Implications
Council has a stated policy objective to support small business development in all
towns of the Shire. The draft Economic and Tourism Development Strategy,
identifies the location of a Dump Ezy Point in Seymour as a strategic location to
increase tourist visitation in the Shire.

Issues
CMCA advises that for all towns in the Shire to be declared RV Friendly does not
require the installation of more Ezy Dump Points to take waste from the RVs. The
current proposals, for installation of point in Seymour, are sufficient to meet and
accommodate their requirements for the whole of the Shire. However, the
identification of available 24 hour safe and secure parking sites is still required to
achieve RV Friendly status in each town.

In officer’s opinions and based on previous evidence, Ezy Dump points work best
when located near to Visitor Information Centres (VIC). Only then can the region’s
visitor services be easily promoted.

As Kilmore is the only other township with a VIC Centre, officers investigated the
possibility of a Dump Ezy point.

A Dump Ezy point site poses problems in Kilmore with the issues surrounding traffic
in the town centre, as the VIC is located within the Kilmore Library.

Officers also looked into areas at Wallan, Hadfield Park is a logical solution but
logistics issues in this vicinity are a problem.

Officers investigated the possibility of a second Ezy Dump Point in Wandong
Memorial Park, however it is not necessarily ideal, given it is some distance from a
VIC and possible issues surrounding no treatment plant in close proximity.

As it is a requirement that the Ezy Dump Points must be locked, the close proximity
to a VIC centre is paramount, therefore it is the officers opinion that no further site be
considered at this stage.

Financial and Resource Implications
Council has provided for installation of an Ezy Dump point in Seymour in this year’s
capital works budget.

The direct cost to Council in the installation of a Dump-Ezy Point is estimated at
$25,000. This cost includes labour and works, semi-sealed parking bay, connections
and purchase of two RV Friendly Town signs.

•        G.V.W costs include $403.40 for a new sewage connection in High Street to
         service the unit and ongoing trade waste service costs of $325.32 per year.

•        CMCA will contribute $1500 towards the cost of the Dump-Ezy Point where
         one is required. This contribution includes the supply of a front face unit and
         plaque acknowledging the CMCA contribution.



                                          Page 20902
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                         27 SEPTEMBER 2010
DUMP EZY POINT INVESTIGATION WANDONG, KILMORE, WALLAN (CONT’D)



Consultative Procedures
CMCA representatives have been consulted over this issue during the past 12
months and more.

Council officers in the Economic Development Unit have commenced liaising with
community and business groups to identify suitable locations for 24 hour parking for
RVs in the Shire.

The location and style of the VIC in the south of the Shire will be the subject of
further ongoing research and consultation with the community and relevant
authorities.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council not proceed with Ezy Dump Point at Kilmore, Wallan and Wandong
on the basis that a suitable site is unavailable at this time.


MOVED:                CR. D. CALLAGHAN
SECONDED:             CR. T. TOBIAS
THAT: the recommendation be adopted.
                                                                          CARRIED
                                                                               8/0




                                          Page 20903
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                     27 SEPTEMBER 2010




8.2   GOULBURN RIVER VALLEY TOURISM – UPDATE AND CONSTITUTION

Author:         Chris Guthrie, Economic Development Manager
File No:        EC/05/027
Attachment:     Constitution of Goulburn River Valley Tourism
Reference:      Item 8.3, 26 October, 2009 (CM09/316)



Summary
This report updates Council on the newly formed regional tourism organisation,
Goulburn River Valley Tourism, and presents the draft Constitution with a
recommendation that Council sign the document.

Background
The four municipalities of Mitchell, Murrindindi, Strathbogie and Shepparton joined
together to form the United Approach to Tourism group during 2009.                A
Memorandum of Understanding was signed in mid 2009 by all four Councils to
facilitate this outcome.

The objectives of this group, as stated in the Memorandum of Understanding, is to
“establish a Regional Tourism Board to oversee the holistic tourism development
and advocacy for the region, with specific functions including regional marketing,
industry development, skills development, mentoring, product development and
identifying investment opportunities to grow the economic return from tourism within
the region.”

Each Council has agreed to make the following annual financial contribution to the
project for the period 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2012:

Mitchell Shire Council             $50,000.00
Strathbogie Shire Council          $30,000.00
Murrindindi Shire Council          $30,000.00
Greater Shepparton City Council    $75,000.00
Total project cost per annum      $185,000.00

Following an extensive selection process, the Goulburn River Valley Tourism Board
has now also been formed. Candidates who expressed an interest were asked to
summit an application that addressed the key selection criteria. All Council
representatives who were nominated by the Councils (some staff, some Councillors)
reviewed applications based on how well they met the key selection criteria. The
short listed applicants were then interviewed before final endorsement was made. A
Regional Strategic Plan has been developed and adopted, a name and logo
adopted, and a Constitution for the organisation developed.




                                    Page 20904
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                           27 SEPTEMBER 2010
GOULBURN RIVER VALLEY TOURISM – UPDATE AND CONSTITUTION (CONT’D)


From 14 September 2009, Amanda McCulloch began work as the Executive Officer
of the now newly named Goulburn River Valley Tourism (GRVT) Board.

At its meeting of 26 October 2009, Council appointed Chris Guthrie Economic
Development Manager as Mitchell Shire’s representative on the Board of GRVT.

The brand and logo for the region as developed in consultation with the community
is:




At its meeting on 26 August 2010, the GRVT Board adopted a Constitution which, if
agreed to by all four member Councils, formally establishes the organisation as a
Company Limited by Guarantee.

Policy Implications
The formation of the GRVT Tourism Board and the development of the
organisation’s Constitution are in line with the following 2009-2013 Council Plan
strategic direction:

“Support the recommendations and actions contained in the ‘A United Approach to
Tourism’ study, particularly the formation of a regional tourism organisation to
support tourism in Mitchell, Murrindindi, Strathbogie and Greater Shepparton.”

A Company Limited by Guarantee is a sound legal structure which offers protection
to its members and Board Directors. Council’s exposure as a member of the
Company in this case is limited to a maximum of $100.00 as the amount of the
guarantee provided for in the Constitution.

Issues
The Board appointment process as designated under the Constitution of GRVT
allows for one representative from each member (members comprise the four
Councils) and the appointment by each member of a skills based industry
representative. The interim Board and Chair (as listed above), will remain in place
until the Annual General Meeting occurs in June/July 2011. At that time the GRVT
Board positions will be declared vacant and more permanent appointments will then
take place.

The process for the appointment of an independent Chair will be undertaken as soon
as this is practical and upon the adoption of the Constitution by all four member
Councils.

GRVT will be taking out professional indemnity insurance in order to protect its
Directors.

The choice of a Company Limited by Guarantee as the structure for the organisation
instead of an Incorporated Association was made on the basis that this would better
suit the operation and activities of GRVT. It offers a more stable base for Councils


                                         Page 20905
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                           27 SEPTEMBER 2010
GOULBURN RIVER VALLEY TOURISM – UPDATE AND CONSTITUTION (CONT’D)


as the sole members of the organisation whilst allowing the Company to operate in
an independent and professional manner.

Industry, skills based Directors, whilst having full voting rights, are not members of
the organisation.

Financial and Resource Implications
Council has committed to provide $50,000.00 per annum over three years to support
the newly formed Goulburn River Valley Tourism Board and its activities.

Consultative Procedures
In 2009, Tourism Alliance Victoria conducted tourism research within the Shires of
Mitchell, Murrindindi and Strathbogie, as well as the City of Greater Shepparton, to
formulate the United Approach to Tourism Report. In conducting this research,
Tourism Alliance Victoria interviewed over thirty stakeholders, experienced various
tourism products in a range of towns and attended at least one event in each Shire.

The United Approach to Tourism report made recommendations for improving the
current tourism industry within these regions. The foremost recommendation was to
form a Regional Tourism Organisation, which has been achieved with the
establishment of the GRVT group.

In conjunction with the tourism and business communities of the GRVT region, A
Regional Strategic Plan has now been developed and this document is available on
the organisation’s website at: www.goulburnrivervalley.com.au.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

    1. Council receives and notes this report.

    2. Council delegates the Chief Executive Officer to sign the GRVT Constitution
       as presented.


MOVED:                CR. T. TOBIAS
SECONDED:             CR. S. MARSTAELLER
THAT: the recommendation be adopted.
                                                                            CARRIED
                                                                                 8/0




                                         Page 20906
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                           27 SEPTEMBER 2010




9. COMMUNITY AND RECREATION
9.1       REVIEW OF ANNUAL COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM
Author:                 Mary-ann McCue, Recreation Officer
File No:                FN/07/035
Attachment 1:           Annual Community Grants Program Resource Kit;
Attachment 2:           Annual Community Involvement Grants Program Resource
                        Kit
Reference:              Nil



Summary
This report overviews the changes to the current Community Grants Program and
recommends that Council adopt the reviewed grants Resource Kits, as attached with
this report.
Background
Mitchell Shire Council’s Annual Community Grants Program, (which comprises the
Community Grants and Community Involvement Grants Schemes) is a highly
successful program that recognises the invaluable contribution made by volunteer
groups in the Shire. Demand for funding, particularly in the Community Grants
Scheme exceeds the annual budget allocation, and with changing needs of
community groups within Mitchell Shire the Resource kits are in need of review, to
ensure they are relevant to the needs and address issues discussed in this report.
Policy Implications
The review of the Community Grants Program is in line with the Council Plan 2009-
2013 strategic indicator “Review the Community Grants Program guidelines every 2
years”.
Issues
There are a number of changes proposed in the grants program. These changes
have arisen as a result of community group feedback, through satisfaction surveys
returned to Council, verbal feedback from groups before and after the grants
presentation and discussions with members of the community grants program
committee, who evaluate grant applications and provide a funding recommendation
to Council.
Items to address are:
      •   The highly scored criteria “Youth Focus” does not specifically encourage
          youth activities. Rather, it rewards groups who by nature are relevant to 12 -
          25 year olds.
      •   There is lack of clear advice regarding a group’s eligibility to apply for funding
          if they have auspiced an unincorporated group’s funding application.


                                          Page 20907
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                       27 SEPTEMBER 2010
REVIEW OF ANNUAL COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM (CONT’D)
   •   The weighted criteria “Community Development” is not specific in its
       description and needs to target groups who “broaden their horizons” to reach
       the general community.
   •   The Community Involvement Grants Scheme needs to more clearly define
       their purpose as grants for community activities that involve the wider Mitchell
       community, as opposed to individual club activities.
   •   The criteria “Project encourages participation for isolated or socially
       disadvantaged people” is ambiguous and can be addressed in the other
       existing criteria.
To address these matters the following changes have been made:
   •   The “Youth focus” criteria score has been reduced to 4.
   •   Clarity provided regarding a group’s eligibility to apply for funding regardless
       of whether they have auspiced an unincorporated group’s application.
   •   More clarity provided in the weighted criteria “Community Development”,
       another criteria “Club Development” introduced with a weighted score of 4.
   •   More clarity provided in the Community Involvement Grants Scheme in their
       purpose as grants for community activities that involve the wider Mitchell
       community, as opposed to individual club activities.
   •   The criteria “Project encourages participation for isolated or socially
       disadvantaged people” to be removed.
Financial and Resource Implications
There are no financial or resource implications with the review of the Annual
Community Grants Program, as the review has occurred within existing staff
resources.
Consultation
As previously stated in this report, feedback on the Community Grants Program has
been sought from community groups through the satisfaction surveys provided each
year, verbal comments and discussion from community groups before and after the
grants presentation and discussions with the community grants program committee,
comprising Council officers and three Councillors.


RECOMMENDATION


THAT: Council adopts the reviewed Annual Community Grants Program.


MOVED:               CR. S. MARSTAELLER
SECONDED:            CR. G. COPPEL
THAT: the recommendation be adopted.
                                                                            CARRIED
                                                                                 8/0



                                        Page 20908
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                        27 SEPTEMBER 2010




9.2    BROADFORD SKATE PARK SITE ASSESSMENT
Author:       Gerard Feain, Leisure and Wellbeing Manager
File No:      RE/02/001
Attachment: @Leisure Broadford Skate Park Site Assessment
Reference: CM10/122 - Notice of Motion 693


Summary

This report refers to the recently completed Broadford Skate Park Site Assessment.
The assessment considered three sites including Broadford Lions Park, Harley
Hammond Reserve and the Broadford Leisure Centre.

Whilst the Broadford Leisure Centre site scored slightly higher than the Broadford
Lions Park using weighted criteria, there is opposition to the Leisure Centre precinct
from the Broadford Secondary School, hence the site is not being considered.

Broadford Lions Park, therefore, is the preferred location for a future skate park
facility.

Background

At its Ordinary Council meeting on 27 April 2010, a Notice of Motion 693 – Broadford
Skate Park was adopted by Council. Council officers were requested to review and
report on an alternative site for a Broadford skate park, inclusive of the investigation
presented to the Ordinary Meeting of 28 April 2008. Officers were also requested to
advise indicative costs for a skate park.

An independent assessment of the Broadford Lions Park was undertaken by
@leisure (Sport, Recreation, Leisure and Open Space Strategy Consultants). Three
sites including Broadford Lions Park, Broadford Leisure Centre and Harley
Hammond Reserve were assessed. Councillor Callaghan and Council officers
participated in the site assessments on Tuesday 8 June 2010.

Site Assessment Findings

The site assessment report (refer to Attachment 1 for Broadford Skate Park Site
Assessment) concluded that whilst there is no site in Broadford that is prominent,
large enough and without constraints; it is possible to develop a skate park at any of
the three sites although there will be additional design and infrastructure relocation
necessary and potential additional management actions necessary.




                                      Page 20909
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                       27 SEPTEMBER 2010
BROADFORD SKATE PARK SITE ASSESSMENT (CONT’D)


Policy Implications
This report is consistent with the 2009-2013 Council Plan–‘Continue to provide and
facilitate quality recreation and leisure opportunities for our community’.

Issues

At its Ordinary Council Meeting, 28 April 2008, Council resolved to ‘endorse the
Crown Land, next to Broadford Leisure Centre as the preferred site for a potential
skate facility in Broadford.’

Council’s previous decision on the matter of a preferred location for a skate park in
Broadford is the Crown Land Reserve next to Broadford Leisure Centre.

The recent site assessment of the three sites draws the same conclusion as the
2008 Broadford skate park investigation.

As the preferred location is not supported by the Broadford Secondary College it
would be prudent for Council to abandon any further consideration of the site and
focus upon the Broadford Lions Park which scored marginally less than the Leisure
Centre, using the weighted criteria.

Financial and Resource Implications

Whilst a firm cost has not been developed due to the scope of works not being
known, it is worth noting that the cost of developing the Hudson Park skate park
(officially opened on 22 December 2006) was in the order of $167,000 (not including
project management costs).

In its 2010/2011 capital works budget, Council has allocated $30,000 and will seek a
grant of $30,000 for a combined funding pool of $60,000.

In the event that Council endorses a preferred location for a skate park facility in
Broadford it would be appropriate to engage the services of a skate facility design
consultant to assist in the development of a design and establish an indicative
project cost.

It is anticipated that a contract for consultative design and staged construction would
be the more effective way to progress the project.

Consultative Procedures

Over the past 15 months Council’s Youth Officers have been working with local
young skaters and parents in support of their vision of achieving a local skate park.
This renewed interest by young local skaters and parents in developing a skate park
in Broadford was the catalyst for undertaking a site assessment on an alternative site
for a Broadford skate park.

During this period Council officers and the Broadford Skate Park Committee
convened a number of meetings with all stakeholders to discuss a range of issues
including the development of a quality skate facility. Broadford Secondary College,


                                        Page 20910
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                    27 SEPTEMBER 2010
BROADFORD SKATE PARK SITE ASSESSMENT (CONT’D)


which was opposed to Council’s preferred location, was an active participant in the
stakeholder meetings.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT COUNCIL:

   1. Confirms that the Broadford Lions Park is the preferred site for a skate park
      facility;

   2. Engages the services of a skate facility design consultant to assist in the
      development of a design, staged construction and to establish an indicative
      project cost for each stage;

   3. Officers work with the community and the Broadford Skate Park Committee in
      the design and development of the skate facility;

   4. Officers report back to an Ordinary Council meeting once a design and cost is
      established.


   MOVED:             CR. D. CALLAGHAN
   SECONDED:          CR. K. STEWART
   THAT: the recommendation be adopted.
                                                                        CARRIED
                                                                             8/0




                                        Page 20911
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                      27 SEPTEMBER 2010




9.3       CHANGES TO SECTION            86    COMMITTEE        OF    MANAGEMENT
          REPRESENTATIVES

Author:         Mary-ann McCue, Recreation Officer
File No:        RE/03/014
Attachment: Nil
Reference: Nil



Summary
This report advises Council of changes to Section 86 Committee of Management
representatives, including new appointments to Office Bearer positions.
Background
Following recent Annual General Meetings, Council has received advice of the
following changes to committee representatives and office bearers:

      •   Enid Simpson has been elected the Chairperson of the Seymour Old
          Courthouse Committee of Management, replacing outgoing Chairperson,
          Martin Booth. Martin remains on the committee as a community
          representative.

      •   Rhonda Cole has been elected Secretary of the Wandong Heathcote Junction
          Sports and Community Centre Committee of Management, replacing outgoing
          Secretary and retiring committee member, Jane Ryan. Maree O’Toole has
          replaced Jane Ryan as Kilmore Adult Riding Club representative.
Policy Implications
Item 6d) “Membership” in the Instrument of Delegation states “Council must
immediately be advised in writing of all newly appointed members”.
Issues
There are no issues with the endorsement of this report.
Financial and Resource Implications
There are no financial and resource implications with the endorsement of this report.
Consultation
The Committees of Management, through their Annual General Meeting minutes
have been consulted and have endorsed these appointments.




                                      Page 20912
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                 27 SEPTEMBER 2010



RECOMMENDATION
THAT: the changes to the Committee of Management representatives be noted.


MOVED:            CR. R. LEE
SECONDED:         CR. G. COPPEL
THAT: the recommendation be adopted.
                                                                     CARRIED
                                                                          8/0




                                  Page 20913
10.     ENGINEERING & INFRASTRUCTURE
10.1 DESIGNATING A NEIGHBOURHOOD SAFER PLACE – PLACES OF LAST
     RESORT
Author:      Stephen Richards, Municipal Emergency Resource Officer
Attachments:       Nil
File:              EM/05/013
Reference:         CM10/191 Item10.5 28 June 2010


Summary
The outcome of the report is to recommend that Hadfield Park (Open Space)
Northern Highway Wallan be designated as a Neighbourhood Safer Place – Places
of Last Resort.

Background
Council was advised at its June meeting that officers had forwarded a list of places
to Country Fire Authority for assessment as Neighbourhood Safer Place – Places of
Last Resort.

The assessment for Hadfield Park in Wallan has been returned.

Policy Implications
The outcome of this report is consistent with the 2009-2010 strategic indicator.
“Council review the municipal emergency arrangement in light of the royal
commission.”

Issues
Council considered a draft Neighbourhood Safer Places Plan at its June 2010
meeting. Section 3 of this plan lays out matters Council should consider prior to
designating a Neighbourhood Safer Place – Place of Last Resort.

Following are comments in relation to each of the criteria prior to designating a
Neighbourhood Safer Place:

a. Consents and Rights of Access
Council owns the land on which Hadfield Park has been established. As the owner
of the land Council has the right to use the place as a Neighbourhood Safer Place,
access the site and area for maintenance and is able to erect the appropriate
signage.

b. Access and Egress
Hadfield Park is of sufficient size and is accessible by a number of roads to allow the
potential number of people to move to and from the area. Country Fire Authority and
Police are located at the southern edge of Hadfield Park. Other emergency services
are able to attend the area for asset and personal protection activities via an
adequate road network servicing the site.



                                      Page 20914
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                            27 SEPTEMBER 2010
DESIGNATING A NEIGHBOURHOOD SAFER PLACE – PLACES OF LAST RESORT (CONT’D)


c. Maintenance of Potential Neighbourhood Safer Place with Country Fire Authority
   Assessment Criteria
Council currently maintains Hadfield Park (Open Space) as Wallan’s major town
centre park. This level of maintenance easily satisfies Country Fire Authority
assessment criteria.

d. Opening of the Neighbourhood Safer Place
As Hadfield Park (Open Space) is the town centre park for Wallan it is already
accessible and available for use on a 24 hour basis.

e. The Defendable Space and Fire Suppression Activities
Hadfield Park (Open Space) according to Country Fire Authority assessment criteria
has sufficient defendable space around it.

f. Defendability of Buildings
This is for consideration for use of a building in Hadfield Park (Open Space),
therefore this item does not apply.

g. Signage
Appropriate signage can be installed at the entrance and around Hadfield Park
(Open Space), Northern Highway Wallan;

h. Maintenance and Maintainability
Maintenance of Hadfield Park (Open Space) and the surrounding area is both
possible and practical given that Council has budgeted to maintain Hadfield Park as
a town centre park. This makes Hadfield Park (Open Space) suitable as a proposed
Neighbourhood Safer Place.

i. Alternative Usage of Potential Neighbourhood Safer Place
The regular use of Hadfield Park (Open Space) as a town centre park does not
compromise the potential for the space to be used and properly function as a
Neighbourhood Safer Place.

j. Communication with the Community
As Hadfield Park (Open Space) is also Wallan town centre park, the visibility of
signage will be in the form of communication with the community. Community
awareness of the location will also be placed on councils Website and included in
Councils Municipal Fire Prevention Plan and Council Municipal Emergency
Management Plan. Both of these documents are publicly available.

k. Public Liability Insurance
The identification, assessment, designation and maintenance of the nominated
Neighbourhood Safer Place –Places of Last Resort is part of the business of
Council. As such activities in the same way as it responds to the other business of
Council, subject of course to the same requirements, restriction and limitations that
currently apply under the Policy.

Neighbourhood Safer Places – Places of Last Resort may only be designated by a
resolution of the Council. Following the designation of a Neighbourhood Safer Place


                                         Page 20915
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                            27 SEPTEMBER 2010
DESIGNATING A NEIGHBOURHOOD SAFER PLACE – PLACES OF LAST RESORT (CONT’D)


– Places of Last Resort, Council’s Municipal Fire Prevention Officer must provide an
updated list of all designated Neighbourhood Safer Places within the municipality to
the Country Fire Authority under section 50(K) of the Country Fire Authority Act
1958. This update must be provided no later than 30 September each year.

Council is responsible for maintaining all designated Neighbourhood Safer Places
within the municipal district.      Maintenance activity must include appropriate
vegetation management and maintenance of any infrastructure such as signage
required for the functioning of the site as a Neighbourhood Safer Place – Places of
Last Resort.

Financial, Resource and Asset Management Implications
Council has budgeted to maintain Hadfield Park (Open Space) as Wallan town
centre park in its 2010-2011 budget. The necessary maintenance for Hadfield Park
(Open Space) as a Neighbourhood Safer Place – Places of Last Resort has been
accommodated within this park maintenance budget.

Accordingly Council has allocated the appropriate resources to support the
designation of Hadfield Park (Open Space) as a Neighbourhood Safer Place –
Places of Last Resort. This includes the cost of signage that may be applicable in
this instance.

There are no Asset Management implications arising from this recommendation.
The activities required of an annual maintenance nature and will have negligible
affect on the life of the asset and the capital financing to maintain the condition of the
asset.

Consultation Procedure
Country Fire Authority has provided advice that Hadfield Park (Open Space) located
at High Street Wallan has been determined as compliant with the Country Fire
Authority guidelines (October 2009) as a Neighbourhood Safer Place – Place of
Last Resort and has been discussed with Councils Municipal Emergency
Management Planning Committee at its last meeting on 23 June 2010.

Following the designation of the Neighbourhood Safer Place – Places of Last Resort,
communication with the community will be carried out in accordance with Section
3.1(J) of Mitchell Shire Draft Municipal Neighbourhood Safer Place Plan.




                                         Page 20916
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                            27 SEPTEMBER 2010
DESIGNATING A NEIGHBOURHOOD SAFER PLACE – PLACES OF LAST RESORT (CONT’D)


RECOMMENDATION:
THAT: Council designate Hadfield Park (Open Space) High Street Wallan as a
Neighbourhood Safer Place – Places of Last Resort in accordance with Section
50(G) of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958.


MOVED:                CR. T. TOBIAS
SECONDED:             CR. S. MARSTAELLER
THAT: the recommendation be adopted.
                                                                             CARRIED
                                                                                  8/0




                                         Page 20917
10.2 LIGHTHORSE DRIVE / GOULBURN VALLEY HIGHWAY SEYMOUR
     INTERSECTION – PETITION

Author:         Matthew Irving, Infrastructure Engineer
File No:        Goulburn Valley Hwy 8
Attachments: Nil
Reference:      INW10/7388, CM10/214 Item 6. 4 June 2010


Summary
Council resolve that no further action is warranted as existing intersection is in
accordance with current standards.

Background
On 2 June 2010 Mitchell Shire Council received a petition outlining safety concerns
with the Lighthorse Drive / Goulburn Valley Highway Intersection Seymour. The
following report outlines the findings of an investigation conducted at the above
intersection by Council and VicRoads.

Policy Implications
The outcome of this report is consistent with the 2009-2013 Council Plan
“Develop, maintain and manage the Shire physical assets”.

Issues
Lighthorse Drive (Minor Road) is managed by Mitchell Shire Council and has a
designated speed limit of 60 kph. The road services heavy vehicles and local traffic
accessing the premises located within the Industrial Estate.

Goulburn Valley Highway (Major Road) is managed by VicRoads and has a
designated speed limit of 100 kph. The road services heavy vehicles and through
traffic and is defined as an arterial road designated as a major transport route. This
section of road is straight with two rises existing either side of the Lighthorse Drive
intersection.

VicRoads have been consulted in relation to this matter due to their management of
the major road. A separate investigation into the intersection was also conducted by
Council officers.

The Lighthorse Drive / Goulburn Valley Highway intersection is located
approximately 2.1 km south-east of Seymour.

Along the Goulburn Valley Highway a right turn lane is provided for traffic travelling
south east towards Yea and a left slip lane is provided for traffic travelling north- west
towards Seymour.

At the intersection with Lighthorse Drive wire rope safety fencing is provided on the
north east side of the Goulburn Valley Highway. Lighthorse Drive is controlled by
give way, with signs placed on both sides of the carriageway at the intersection.


                                       Page 20918
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                                27 SEPTEMBER 2010
LIGHTHORSE DRIVE/GOULBURN VALLEY HWY INTERSECTION – PETITION (CONT’D)




Along the Goulburn Valley Highway trucks entering warning signs are situated on
either approach to Lighthorse Drive. This adequately warns motorists that slow
moving heavy vehicles may be entering the carriageway.

All line markings meet the Australian Standards and are clearly visible for motorists.

The approximate intersection sight distance for Lighthorse Lane to the north- west is
290.0m and to the south east is 340.0m. Both are well in excess of the requirement
of 95.0m for a road designated at 100 kph.

Figure 1.1 represents the intersection setup which is deemed to meet all current road
and traffic design standards.

Figure 1.1 Plan of Lighthorse Drive / Goulburn Valley Highway Intersection




                                          Page 20919
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                                27 SEPTEMBER 2010
LIGHTHORSE DRIVE/GOULBURN VALLEY HWY INTERSECTION – PETITION (CONT’D)


Council officers consulted with Vic Roads in regards to the above intersection, due to
their management of the major road.

VicRoads investigation revealed “that there are ‘Trucks Entering’ advance warning
signs and ‘Industrial Estate 300m’ signs on both the approaches to the Lighthorse
Drive Intersection on Goulburn Valley Highway. At this intersection, for south-east
bound traffic, there is a combined through and right turn lane and passing lane. For
north-west bound traffic, there is a through traffic lane and a lane for turning traffic.”

The intersection has also recently undergone safety improvement measures carried
out in September 2008 by VicRoads. Since that period only one severe injury
casualty crash has occurred. VicRoads “advises that the intersection in its current
capacity is operating safely”. VicRoads “will continue to monitor the operation of this
intersection and if the need for further improvements arises, will pursue this.”

Both Council and VicRoads officers are in agreement that the intersection of
Lighthorse Drive and Goulburn Valley Highway meets current road and traffic design
standards.

Financial, Resource and Asset Management Implications
There are no Financial, Resource and Asset Management Implications for Council.

Consultation Procedure
Council officers consulted with VicRoads officers in regards to the following
intersection investigation and will write to the petitioner.

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT: Council resolve that no further action is warranted as existing intersection is
in accordance with current standards.



The resolution for Item 10.2 – Lighthorse Drive / Goulburn Valley Highway Seymour
Intersection - Petition, is found at the end of this section.




                                          Page 20920
10.3   SEYMOUR NEIGHBOURHOOD RENEWAL TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT
       – PERRIN STREET, SEYMOUR

Author:         Matthew Irving, Design & Development Engineer
File No:        Perrin 7
Attachments: Nil
Reference:      CM10/73


Summary
This report to council is to recommend that the speed hump in Perrin Street,
Seymour should not proceed.

Background
As part of Council’s Capital Works Program a Local Area Traffic Management
Proposal was developed for Seymour. The intended proposal involved the
installation of a speed hump in Perrin Street, Seymour.

After numerous meetings and letter drops a consensus on the locality of the speed
hump could not be reached by residents. A strong majority of residents were
aggrieved with the installation and the positioning of the speed hump.

At the last consultation meeting held on 19 April 2010 it was resolved with the
residents that a traffic investigation would be held into the warrant for a speed hump
in Perrin Street. Once the results were finalised all residents in attendance at the
meeting would be notified of the outcome.

Policy Implications
The report is consistent with the strategic objective in the Council
Plan 2009/2013 to: “Develop, maintain and manage the Shire’s physical assets.”

Issues
The traffic investigation was conducted in June 2010 with the results as follows:

   •   Perrin Street services 139 vehicles per day. This figure indicates that the
       majority of traffic is servicing the abutting properties, with very limited through
       traffic movements;
   •   The investigation found that 95% of vehicles were observed to be under the
       designated speed limit of 50 Kph. This result indicates that excessive speed
       from motorists is not a problem along Perrin Street.

The above results coupled with residents dissatisfaction with the implementation of
the speed hump, suggests that the construction should not proceed.

Financial, Resource and Asset Management Implications
The non-construction of the speed hump in Perrin Street will be a saving in Council’s
Capital Works Budget.



                                       Page 20921
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                           27 SEPTEMBER 2010

SEYMOUR NEIGHBOURHOOD RENEWAL TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT – PERRIN ST (CONT’D)


Consultation Procedure
Council Officers have had ongoing consultation with local residents affected by this
design proposal, through public consultation meetings and letter drops. The effected
residents will be notified through correspondence on the resolved outcome of this
issue.

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT: Council resolve to not install the speed hump in Perrin Street, Seymour.

Cr Melbourne having declared an interest in the consideration of this item left
the Council Chambers at 7.20pm.

Cr Melbourne, having declared an interest in this Item left the Chair.            Cr
Stewart as Deputy Mayor, became the Temporary Chairperson.


MOVED:                CR. G. COPPEL
THAT:


   1. Council resolve to not install the speed hump in Perrin Street, Seymour.
   2. Officers investigate the installation of a speed hump at an appropriate site at
      the northern end of Sinclair Street, subject to community consultation.


Cr Stewart declared an interest in the consideration of this alternative motion
and left the Council Chambers at 7.21pm.

ELECTION OF TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON

In accordance with Local Law No 4, Item 2.2 the Chief Executive Officer called for
nominations of a temporary Chairperson.

MOVED:                CR. D. CALLAGHAN
SECONDED:             CR. R. PARKER
THAT: Cr Lee be appointed temporary Chairperson.

As no other nominations were received, Cr Lee assumed the role of temporary
Chairperson.




                                        Page 20922
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                           27 SEPTEMBER 2010

SEYMOUR NEIGHBOURHOOD RENEWAL TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECT – PERRIN ST (CONT’D)


MOVED:                CR. G. COPPEL
SECONDED:             CR. S. MARSTAELLER

THAT:
   1. Council resolve to not install the speed hump in Perrin Street, Seymour.
   2. Officers investigate the installation of a speed hump at an appropriate site at
      the northern end of Sinclair Street, subject to community consultation.

                                                                             CARRIED
                                                                                  8/0

Cr Melbourne and Cr Stewart returned to Council Chambers at 7.23pm.

Cr Melbourne resumed the role of Chairperson.




                                        Page 20923
10.4   VICTRACK LEASE - TALLAROOK TO GRANITE – RAIL TRAIL

Author:         Stephen Richards, Manager Asset Services
File No:        PP/04/004
Attachments: Map
Reference:      Item 10.6, 24 May 2010 (CM10/148)



Summary
This report recommends that Council sign and seal a lease agreement with Vic
Track for railway lots 23, 24, 34, 39, 40 & 41 at Tallarook, railway lots 17, 18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31 & 32 at Trawool, and railway lots 3, 4 & 5 at Granite
for the purpose of the construction of the Goulburn River High Country Rail Trail
(GRHCRT).

Background
Council signed and sealed a lease for fewer railway lots in relation to this matter at
its meeting of 24 May 2010.

Since then and subsequent to a request from the Goulburn River High Country Rail
Trail project, VicTrack have written to all leaseholders of former rail reserve land and
cancelled those leases. They are now offering Council those lots in addition to the
rail formation lots already leased.

As a result, a new lease offer dated 9 August 2010 has been received which
“replaces the former offer made on 23 March 2010, and incorporates the new leased
areas (former grazing leases) and other minor changes.”

Policy Implications
The outcome of this report is consistent with the 2009-2013 Council Plan strategic
objective “provided infrastructure appropriate to the communities needs, managed in
a sustainable way.”

Issues
The lease is the tool provided by Vic Track to allow access to the former rail corridor
for the purpose of constructing the Goulburn River High Country Rail Trail.

The lease is offered generally on the following terms:
• Full length of the rail corridor in Mitchell Shire from Tallarook to Granite;
• Rent of $800 per annum;
• No fixed percentage annual increase in the rent;
• Five (5) year term;
• One further term of five (5) years;
• A rent review after 5 years to $1600 per annum.
• Permitted use of passive recreational use by pedestrians and cyclists.




                                       Page 20924
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                       27 SEPTEMBER 2010

VICTRACK LEASE TALLAROOK TO GRANITE – RAIL TRAIL (CONT’D)


It is the opinion of the Goulburn River High Country Rail Trail Technical Committee
that Vic Track be requested to transfer the rail corridor to Department of
Sustainability and Environment (DSE) as already approved by the Minister for
Transport in 1998. If this action were to occur, it would be completed prior to the
lease expiring and would see DSE appoint Council as a Committee of Management
over the rail corridor conveying occupation and management rights to Council.

Financial, Resource and Asset Management Implications
Council will need to budget $800 per annum for 5 years from the date of execution of
the lease agreement to meet its financial obligation as a result of signing and sealing
the lease.

As Mansfield Shire holds the Federal funds on behalf of the three Shires they will
provide the resources for implementing the construction of the trail and any
necessary documentation pertinent.

There will be Asset Management implications for Council in terms of meeting the
future maintenance and upkeep for the trail within our municipal boundary and to
provide a level of maintenance and management services required to support this
important tourism infrastructure.

Consultation Procedure
VicTrack has formally cancelled all former abutting leases by writing to each of the
leaseholders and those leases are now offered to Council for the GRHCRT project.
Individual landowner contact is being made as the planning for the project continues.

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT: Council sign and seal the lease agreement with Vic Track for railway lots 23,
24, 34, 39, 40 & 41 at Tallarook, railway lots 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27,
28, 29, 31 & 32 at Trawool, and railway lots 3, 4 and 5 at Granite for the purpose of
the constructing of the Goulburn River High Country Rail Trail.


The resolution for Item 10.4 – VicTrack Lease – Tallarook to Granite – Rail Trail, is
found at the end of this section.




                                           Page 20925
10.5   CREATION OF EASEMENT – CROWN ALLOTMENT 28, PARISH OF
       SEYMOUR NUMBER 470 SEYMOUR – TOOBORAC ROAD HILLDENE

Author:          Peter Halton, General Manager Engineering & Infrastructure
Attachments:     Nil
Reference:       104378


Summary
This report recommends that council authorise the signing of the electricity supply
easement creation Memorandum of Understanding in respect of crown allotment 28,
Parish of Seymour Number 470 Seymour – Tooborac Road Hilldene.

Background
Agreement has been reached with SP Ausnet for an easement over the subject land
for the purposes of an electricity supply. The land is owned by the Council and is
part of the land comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 10766 Folio 973. The plan
of easement creation is set out below.


               Approximate line location
               of required underground
               easement




Policy Implications
This report is consistent with the Council Plan (2009-2013) strategic objective to:
“Develop, maintain and manage the Shire’s physical assets”.

Issues
For the completion of the project the Electricity Authority requires the creation of an
easement over the site.




                                      Page 20926
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                       27 SEPTEMBER 2010
CREATION OF EASEMENT HILLDENE (CONT’D)


Financial, Resource and Asset Management Implications
This report represents no financial or resource implications to Council.

The creation of this easement is on the basis of a peppercorn payment from SP
Ausnet to Council in the order of 10 cents.

Consultation Procedure
As Council has allowed the Country Fire Authority to construct a new facility, the
request to create an easement to allow the supply of electricity is also required.

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT:
1.    The report be received and noted.

2.     Council authorise the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding to grant
       SP Ausnet the creation of an easement.


The resolution for Item 10.5 – Creation of Easement – Crown Allotment 28, Parish of
Seymour Number 470 Seymour – Tooborac Road, Hilldene, is found at the end of
this section.




                                         Page 20927
10.6   GOULBURN RIVER HIGH COUNTRY RAIL TRAIL
Author:         Peter Halton, General Manager Engineering & Infrastructure
Attachments: Nil
Reference:      EC/05/018-02 (INW10/12178)


Summary
This report relates to the issues around fencing and the construction of the Goulburn
River High Country Rail trail and proposes to respond to the petition as per item 6.1.

Background
Mitchell Shire Council has been working in partnership with the Shires of Murrindindi
and Mansfield to deliver a rail trail that will provide economic stimulus through large
numbers of tourists that will no doubt use this facility in the coming decades. This
project is supported by all three levels of government, with a total budget to be
expended in the order of $13 million.

Mansfield Shire Council is delivery the project and is in receipt of all the government
grant funding associate with the project.

The project has been the subject of extensive community consultation including the
preparation of a concept design and business plan titled ”Goulburn River High
Country Rail Trail Concept Design and Business Plan July 2006”. The concept
design sort of address the issue of fencing and made the statement in section 7.7
Fencing “where the rail reserve is no longer fenced a standard level of fencing will be
provided as part of the project cost”

The application for the federal funding did not include the provision of rural boundary
fencing for the crown land (rail corridor). The grant application was signed by the
Chief Executive Officers of each municipality and excluded the provision for
boundary fencing and a recent review of the costs to complete the other elements in
the project have confirmed that the funding cannot be extended to include this cost.

The project does provide for fencing of occupational crossings and safety railing for
bridge crossings. The funding also provides for the refurbishment of bridges and
gravel and signage associated with the project.

It should be noted that the Fencing Act under section 31 states:

“Act not to apply to unaliented Crown lands
This Act except as in sections 12 and 23 otherwise provided shall not apply to any
unalientated Crown lands; nor shall the Crown the Governor the Minister
administering section 19 nor any public officer appointed by the Governor or by the
Governor in Council for the administration management or control of the Crown
lands or public works or who by virtue of his office however styled has any such
management or control be liable under this Act to make any contribution towards the



                                      Page 20928
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                     27 SEPTEMBER 2010
GOULBURN RIVER HIGH COUNTRY RAIL TRAIL (CONT’D)


construction or repairing of any dividing fence between the land of any occupier and
any Crown land.”

Mitchell Shire has received several enquires relating to the issue of construction of
fencing as part of the project and are in receipt of a petition signed by eleven
landowners. The petition refers to the concept plan and asked Council to address the
inequity in funding the fencing.

Policy Implications
The outcome of this report is consistent with the 2009-2013 Council Plan strategic
objective “provided infrastructure appropriate to the communities needs, managed in
a sustainable way.”

Issues
A committee of management was formed following the announcement of the funding.
The committee has discussed at length the issue of construction of boundary fencing
including passing a resolution to seek a solution. The committee have been advised
that no State or Federal funds are available within project timelines despite
approaches made at Council request.

The project manager has also reviewed the costing to deliver the project to
determine if saving might be possible or contingencies could be used to address the
fencing issue. This assessment has deduced that funding will not be available
outside of interest earned on funds which have been received from the project.

In a discussion between the three Chief Executive Officer’s on 3 September 2010 it
was discussed that subject to achieving milestones for the project the funds already
received in the form of progress payment would result in available funds. The
Mansfield Shire Council has made an offer that this funding can be made available to
the project. This is an extremely generous offer as this is not an obligation of the
grant.

The boundary fencing of the crown land (rail corridor) is in various conditions. Some
sections are in good condition and will not require any improvement being that it has
been maintained in good condition by the adjoining property owner to date. Some
sections are in poor condition and will require replacement and some sections are
non existent having been removed at some stage in the past. The crown land also
runs adjacent to road reserve which will not require fencing.

An assessment is still to be completed of the condition of all fencing along the
alignment, therefore the exact quantity is not known.

Financial, Resource and Asset Management Implications
Mansfield Shire Council has advised that interest on investment for the payment
received subject to achievement of milestones will be in the order of $469k.

This is an estimate assuming that milestones on the project are met and the project
stages are completed in accordance with the program of works. The funding may




                                          Page 20929
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                        27 SEPTEMBER 2010
GOULBURN RIVER HIGH COUNTRY RAIL TRAIL (CONT’D)


increase or vary and in particular if milestone are not met by the delay in receiving
funds will affect the available fund earning interest by approximately $15k per month.

The letter of offer by Mansfield Shire Council Chief Executive Officer is for this cost
to be divided equally between the shires according to track length and distributed
according to a formula decided by the VFF representative and Council.

Based on this Mitchell Council if likely to receive $45.5K from interest earned.

The likely cost of the fencing is unknown however assuming the 134km being the
total length of the rail corridor is to be fenced on one side only this will cost in the
order of $1.474M assuming a cost of $11k per kilometre. This is a conservative worst
case cost. Based on track length of 13km the total cost for Mitchell Shire Council is
likely to be $143K

It is anticipated that the best option would be to use the funds from interest earned to
fund a grant program. This would allow the property owners to apply for funds to
cover some of the costs associated boundary fencing costs. The grant would need to
be capped to ensure equity and subject to conditions including the standard for
construction and subject to completion of the fencing works. It is likely to be capped
at $4000 per kilometre which is estimated to be the cost of material for the fencing.

Mitchell Shire would be responsible for administering the grant and would need to
agree to fund any shortfall in the grant program.

There will be Asset Management implications for Council in terms of meeting the
future maintenance and up keep for the trail within our municipal boundary and to
provide a level of maintenance and management services required to support this
important tourism infrastructure.

Consultation Procedure
Extensive consultation was undertaken prior to the preparation of the concept plan
(prior to 2006). The project manager and the committee have prepared numerous
media releases and newsletters associated with the project.

Subsequent to the funding announcement only consultation following customer
enquiries has occurred with residents within the Mitchell Shire Council section of the
rail trail.




                                          Page 20930
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                       27 SEPTEMBER 2010
GOULBURN RIVER HIGH COUNTRY RAIL TRAIL (CONT’D)


RECOMMENDATION:

THAT:
1.    Council write to Mansfield Shire Council thanking them for the offer of
      contributing interest earned on the funds received to address the issue of
      boundary fencing for the project.

2.      Council accept the offer of allocating an equal contribution to Mitchell Shire
        Council based on track length to Mitchell anticipated to be $45,500.

3.      Council in collaboration with the Committee of Management and Victorian
        Farmers Federation representative establish a Goulburn River High Country
        Rail Trail fencing grants program. This program is to be capped at $4000 per
        kilometre.


MOVED:                 CR. R. PARKER
SECONDED:              CR. R. LEE
THAT:

1.      Council write to Mansfield Shire Council thanking them for the offer of
        contributing interest earned on the funds received to address the issue of
        boundary fencing for the project.

2.      Council accept the offer of allocating an equal contribution to Mitchell Shire
        Council based on track length to Mitchell anticipated to be $45,500.

3.      Council in collaboration with the Committee of Management and Victorian
        Farmers Federation representative establish a Goulburn River High Country
        Rail Trail fencing grants program. This program is to be capped at $4000 per
        kilometre.

4.      The adjacent landholders be not asked to contribute.

                                                                                LOST
                                                                                  2/6
Cr. Lee called for a DIVISION:
      FOR            AGAINST
Cr. Lee            Cr. Melbourne
Cr. Parker         Cr. Tobias
                   Cr. Marstaeller
                   Cr. Callaghan
                   Cr. Coppel
                   Cr. Stewart




                                          Page 20931
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                               27 SEPTEMBER 2010
GOULBURN RIVER HIGH COUNTRY RAIL TRAIL (CONT’D)




MOVED:                 CR. G. COPPEL
SECONDED:              CR. S. MARSTAELLER
THAT: the recommendation be adopted.
                                                                 CARRIED
                                                                      6/2


ENGINEERING AND INFRASTRUCTURE REPORTS – ITEMS NOT OTHERWISE
DEALT WITH:

MOVED:                 CR. D. CALLAGHAN
SECONDED:              CR. G. COPPEL
THAT: the recommendations contained within Item 10.2, 10.4 and 10.5 of the
Engineering and Infrastructure Reports, be adopted.
                                                                CARRIED
                                                                       8/0




                                          Page 20932
11.    GOVERNANCE AND EXECUTIVE
11.1   STANDING COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL - MINUTES

Author:             David Keenan, Chief Executive Officer
File No:            CL/04/001
Reference:          Nil




The following Standing Committee of Council has met and distributed Minutes since
a previous Ordinary Meeting of the Council:


   •   Audit Committee           18 August, 2009
   •   Audit Committee           17 November, 2009
   •   Audit Committee           16 February, 2010
   •   Audit Committee           18 May, 2010
   •   Audit Committee           17 August, 2010

The distribution of the minutes to Council forms part of the reporting mechanisms in
accordance with the Committee’s Instrument of Delegation.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT: the Minutes of the Committee listed above, be received.



The resolution for Item 11.1 – Standing Committees of Council - Minutes, is found at
the end of this section.




                                    Page 20933
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                      27 SEPTEMBER 2010




11.2   MAYORAL AND COUNCILLOR ALLOWANCE REVIEW

Author:             Vicki Potts, Governance & Executive Services Coordinator
File No:            CL/01/002-02
Attachment:         Nil
Reference:          Item 11.1, 24 August, 2009 (CM09/242)



Summary
This report overviews the notice received from the Department of Planning and
Community Development regarding the annual adjustment and rates set as part of
the 2010/2011 Budget preparation.

Background
On 24 August, 2009, Council resolved to adopt the order in Council limit applicable
for Category 2 Councils as:

Councillors   $22,568.45
Mayor         $69,827.58

Policy Implications
Councillor and Mayoral Allowances are set in accordance with Section 73 of the
Local Government Act, and any Order in Council published in the Government
Gazette.

Issues
On 24 August, 2009, Council set the maximum level for Category 2 Councils.

The 2010/2011 Budget has been prepared having regard to the allowances and
superannuation payments as follows:

                    Allowance           9%                  TOTAL
                                        Superannuation      PAYABLE
                                        Equivalent
Councillors         $20,705             $1,863.45           $22,568.45
Mayor               $64,062             $5,765.58           $69,827.58

As part of the Budget advertising, submissions were sought.           There were no
submissions in respect to the allowances to be paid to Councillors.

Council has been advised of the recent Order in Council published on 26 August,
2010, which provides for a 3% adjustment to apply to all Mayoral and Councillor




                                     Page 20934
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                     27 SEPTEMBER 2010
MAYORAL AND COUNCILLOR ALLOWANCE REVIEW (CONT’D)

allowances effective from 1 December, 2010. Annual adjustments are not subject to
reviews or Section 223 Community submissions.

Financial and Resource Implications
Council has previously set the adjustment at the maximum level allowed for
Category 2 Councils. This would mean that for Mitchell Shire Council the
calculations for allowances plus superannuation effective from 1 December, 2010,
would be as follows:

                     Allowance             9%               TOTAL
                                           Superannuation   PAYABLE
                                           Equivalent
Councillors          $21,326               $1,919.34        $23,245.34
Mayor                $65,984               $5,938.56        $71,922.56

Officers made an allowance in the 2010/2011 Budget based on estimates to cover
the increases. An adjustment will be made in the Mid Year Budget review to comply
with the Order in Council which comes into effect on 1 December, 2010.

Consultation Procedure
There is a statutory process for the preparation of the Budget and the Councillor and
Mayor allowances were part of the 2010/2011 Budget.

The Local Government Act requires that the Minister must, at least once every year,
review the limits and ranges of Councillors and Mayoral allowance.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

   1. Council set the Mayor and Councillors allowances to the maximum level for
      Category 2 Councils as set in the Order of Council published on 26 August,
      2010; and

   2. An adjustment be made in the Mid Year Budget review to reflect the actual
      allowances.


The resolution for Item 11.2 – Mayoral and Councillor Allowance Review, is found at
the end of this section.




                                        Page 20935
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                      27 SEPTEMBER 2010




11.3   CONTRACT 101104 FOOTBALL FIELD FLOODLIGHTING INSTALLATION
       AND PROVISION OF 3 PHASE POWER AT LB DAVERN RESERVE
       WANDONG

Author:                 Vicki Potts, Governance & Executive Services Coordinator &
                        Gerard Feain, Leisure and Wellbeing Manager
File No:                CT/02/101104
Attachment:             Score Sheet
Reference:              Nil


Summary
This report recommends awarding Contract 101104 being Football Floodlighting
Installation and Provision of 3 Phase Power at LB Davern Reserve to Cable &
Trench Australia Pty Ltd for the Lump Sum Price of $228,437.00 (incl GST).

Background
Advertisements calling for tenders were placed in the following:

       •         The Melbourne Age         7 August, 2010
       •         North Central Review      10 August, 2010

Tenders were also available on Council’s website.

Tenderers were required to make submissions, in accordance with the specifications
by 2 September, 2010.

The tender box was opened at 4.20pm on 2 September, 2010, by:
• Vicki Potts, Governance & Executive Services Coordinator
• Gerard Feain, Leisure & Wellbeing Manager

Submissions as recorded in the Tender Register were:

                                 (Incl GST)
1          Prompt Industries     $265,550.50
2          Commlet Services      $268,515.50
3          Cable & Trench        $228,437.00
4          Ultralet Electrical   $281,215.00
5          Parkinson Group       $308,578.60
6          HIM Electrical        $331,478.00




                                        Page 20936
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                       27 SEPTEMBER 2010
CONTRACT 101104 (CONT’D)

Policy Implications
Redevelopment of the reserve is in line with the 2009-2013 Council Plan strategic
indicator “to renew, upgrade and replace the Shire’s assets to acceptable
comparative Local Government standards”.

Issues
An evaluation panel was appointed by the Chief Executive Officer to evaluate
tenders in accordance with the selection criteria listed in the tender documents. The
evaluation panel consisted of:

           •   Mr Gerard Feain           Leisure & Wellbeing Manager
           •   Mr Nick Haslinghouse      Bushfire Recovery Engineer
           •   Mr Wes Cole               Asset & Building Maintenance Officer
           •   Mr Mark Szekely           Consultant - Floodlighting
           •   Mrs Vicki Potts           Governance & Executive Services Coordinator

All members of the evaluation panel have signed a conflict of interest declaration in
respect to the tenders received and have no interests.

The panel discussed the tenders received against the selection criteria of:

   •   Tendered Lump Sum                                     55%
   •   Previous Experience and ability to undertake          20%
       works
   •   Demonstrated ability to deliver project on            15%
       time and within budget
   •   Ability to undertake works in accordance with          5%
       OH&S Standards and requirements
   •   Support for local business                             5%

Officers used Council’s normal formula to award scores to tenderers based on the
Budget estimated against the lump sum submitted by each tenderer.

The panel discussed the selection criteria of previous experience and ability to
undertake works and based on previous projects, scores were assigned. Cable &
Trench undertook the project at Kings Park in Seymour, and although there was a
requirement to undertake more supervision of the contract it was completed with
minimal variations.

All tenderers have sufficent OH&S Procedures in place to undertake the contract.

Only Prompt and Cable & Trench addressed the selection criteria of support for local
business. Cable & Trench are a Seymour based company.

This contract is a 16 week project. Each tender indicated that they could achieve the
timeframes allocated.




                                      Page 20937
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                   27 SEPTEMBER 2010
CONTRACT 101104 (CONT’D)

Based on the scores detailed in attachment 1 global score sheet, the panel favour
awarding the contract to Cable & Trench Australia Pty Ltd as the highest score.

Financial and Resource Implications
Council has allocated an amount of $213,000 (excl GST) for the construction phase
of this contract and an allocation has been made in the 2010/2011 Budget. The
tender submission received from Cable & Trench Australia Pty Ltd excluding GST is
$207,670 and is within the Budget allocation.

Consultation Procedure
This project is part of the 2010/2011 Budget and as such has been advertised in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

The LB Davern Reserve Committee was involved in the design phase and has
signed off on the floodlight component.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT: Council award Contract 101104 being Football Floodlighting Installation and
Provision of 3 Phase Power at LB Davern Reserve to Cable & Trench Australia Pty
Ltd for the Lump Sum Price of $228,437.00 (incl GST) and the contract be signed
and sealed.



MOVED:                 CR. S. MARSTAELLER
SECONDED:              CR. D. CALLAGHAN
THAT: the recommendation be adopted.
                                                                       CARRIED
                                                                            8/0
.


GOVERNANCE AND EXECUTIVE REPORTS – ITEMS NOT OTHERWISE DEALT
WITH:

MOVED:                 CR. G. COPPEL
SECONDED:              CR. R. PARKER
THAT: the recommendations contained within Item 11.1 and 11.2 of the Governance
and Executive Reports, be adopted.
                                                                      CARRIED
                                                                            8/0




                                       Page 20938
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                        27 SEPTEMBER 2010



12.    PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT
12.1 DRAFT VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE BEVERIDGE
     RECREATION RESERVE
Author:       Vivian Pasic, Senior Environmental Officer
File No:             RE03/034-03
Reference:           Item 12.2 - 27 April 2009



Summary
This report presents the Draft Vegetation Management Plan for the Beveridge
Recreation Reserve and recommends the document be placed on public exhibition.
A copy of the Plan is available for Councillors inspection if required.

Background
In April 2009 Mitchell Shire Council entered a funding agreement with Melbourne
Water for the development of a Vegetation Management Plan. The Merri Creek
Management Committee was appointed to prepare the draft plan.

Policy Implications
Various policies and strategies supporting the plan include the:

   •   Mitchell Shire Recreation and Open Space Strategy 2005
   •   Mitchell Shire Environment Strategy 2008
   •   Spring Street Swamp Habitat Assessment 2009
   •   Merri Creek Environs Strategy 2009

Issues
The wetland is unique to the Merri Creek Catchment and its dynamics are not yet
fully understood. It is a biodiversity site of regional significance in Victoria (BioSite
5046, Department of Sustainably and Environment). Some of the specific details
contained in the report are summarised as follows:

The Swamp Tigertail Dragonfly Synthemis eustalacta was observed during the
production of the report. This is an unusual record and the only other record for the
same species in the same bioregion was in Meredith, 1959.

The site is likely to support wintering species for migratory birds as locally
uncommon birds have been observed at the reserve.

The remnant stony knoll in the north section of the reserve supports a high number
of indigenous species and further restoration is desirable.

Appropriate management actions for the plant “common reed” has also been
recommended.




                                       Page 20939
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                           27 SEPTEMBER 2010
DRAFT VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE BEVERIDGE RECREATION RESERVE (CONT’D)




Financial and Resource Implications
Ongoing commitment to specialised weed eradication is required to increase the
vegetation quality.

This report recommends a hydrological assessment be undertaken to gain greater
understanding of the dynamics of the reserve.

Consultation Procedure
Several on site meetings were undertaken during the preparation of the plan with
representatives from the Committee of Management, Shire Recreation and
Environmental Programs staff, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Crown
Lands and Parks Victoria.

The Draft Vegetation Management Plan was presented to the Committee of
Management at the September 2010 meeting.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT: the Draft Vegetation Management Plan for the Beveridge Recreation Reserve
be placed on exhibition for a period of four weeks for public consultation.


The resolution for Item 12.1 – Draft Vegetation Management Plan for the Beveridge
Recreation Reserve , is found at the end of this section.




                                        Page 20940
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                        27 SEPTEMBER 2010




12.2   PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION NO. P306169/10, TO USE THE LAND
       TO SELL OR CONSUME LIQUOR AT 6 ANDERSON ROAD KILMORE

Author:       Victoria Mack – Statutory Planner
File No:      P306169/10 / 108308



Applicant:    Poldem Management Pty Ltd
Property:     Lot 8 on LP83699
Address:      6 Anderson Road KILMORE VIC 3764
Zoning:       Residential 1 Zone
Overlays:     Nil
Proposal:     To use the land to sell or consume liquor

                                                Objectors X 4
                                                Subject site
                                                                         N




Summary
This report recommends that Council issue a Notice of Decision to grant a planning
permit for application number P306169/10, which seeks permission to use the land
to sell or consume liquor at 6 Andersons Road, Kilmore.

The application has been presented to a Council meeting in accordance with the
deed of delegation which specifies that where there are more than three objectors, a
planning permit is required to be determined at a Council meeting.

Proposal
A description of the proposal is as follows:


                                       Page 20941
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                        27 SEPTEMBER 2010
PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION NO. P306169/10 (CONT’D)

•     The application is for a change of liquor licence at the Kilmore Golf Club from a
      Full Club Licence and a Limited Licence to a General Liquor Licence.
•     The reason provided for the change of licence is that the Kilmore Golf Club Inc.
      has leased the management of the Golf Club to a private entity who cannot trade
      under a Full Club Licence.
•     The proposed hours of operation are proposed to be:

            o 7am to 1am Monday to Saturday
            o 10am to 11pm Sunday
            o 12 noon to 11pm ANZAC Day and Good Friday.

      Presently the Kilmore Golf Club operates Wednesday to Sunday opening at 7am
      and closing on Wednesdays and Thursdays at 11pm, Fridays and Saturdays at
      1am and Sundays at 5pm.
•     The number of patrons would be a maximum of 200.
•     The applicant proposes that the facility would only be open between Wednesday
      and Sunday initially but anticipates, as the business grows, that it could
      potentially become a 7 day a week operation providing alcohol to the restaurant
      and function centre and also for golf members, their guests and green fee
      players.

History
A search of Council records revealed that three applications on the land have been
determined:

•     Planning Permit PLA303193/02 for a dining area was issued in 2002.
•     Application No. 5513 for advertising signage was refused on 4 February 1994.
•     Application No. 5313 for an extension to the existing club house for a
      professional golf shop and committee room was issued on 8 September 1992.

Site details
The Kilmore Golf Club venue currently has a dining room which can seat up to 150
people and a members type lounge that can seat up to 50 people. Other services
provided include conference and bar facilities.

The site is located on the south side of Andersons Road, to the east of the
intersection with Club Parade. The site is irregularly shaped and has the following
approximate dimensions:

    North boundary – frontage                            161m
    South boundary – sideage                             118m
    East boundary – sideage                              116m
    West boundary – sideage                              120m
    Total site area                                      1.6187ha

The subject site is generally flat with the club house located to the north-west corner
of the site. The balance of the land consists of an open area to the east of the club


                                            Page 20942
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                            27 SEPTEMBER 2010
PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION NO. P306169/10 (CONT’D)

house which is used for parking and which is surfaced with gravel. Car spaces are
not marked. The site is landscaped at the front of the club house with lawn, hedges
and a few shrubs. The site is well covered with native trees and shrubs which
generally ring the perimeter of the land.

The existing club house, including ancillary buildings and works associated with the
club house, is setback at a minimum of 17m from the front boundary, 17m from the
west side boundary, 55m from the south side boundary and approximately 84m from
the east side boundary. The car parking area is set back approximately 50m from
the east side boundary and 80m from the south side boundary.

Existing vehicle access is provided from Andersons Road at the north-west corner of
the site and also at the north-east corner of the site.

There are no easements contained on site.

The surrounding area is established residential land characterised by predominantly
single storey detached dwellings and covered by a mix of native trees and
established gardens. Immediately to the north of the subject site is the Kilmore golf
course greens and fairways.

The centre of the township of Kilmore is located approximately 1.7km to the north
west of the subject land.

Referrals
The application was referred to the following referral authorities and internal
departments:

Agency             Section     Date Sent         Response      Objection (O);
                   referred                      Date          Conditional Consent
                   under                                       (CC); Unconditional
                                                               Consent (UC)
Victoria           52          20 Jul 2010       31 Aug 2010   CC
Police
Local Laws         52          20 Jul 2010       22 Jul 2010   UC

Victoria Police expressed concern about the extension of trading hours during week
days and recommended that the trading times should not exceed 11pm between
Sunday to Thursday due to the potentially adverse effect to the amenity of the
neighbouring residential area.

The Local Laws Department of Council expressed no concerns with the extension to
the trading hours as proposed.

State Planning Policy Framework
The proposed development is consistent with State Planning Policy Framework in
regard to:-

Clause 17.02 –Business



                                            Page 20943
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                           27 SEPTEMBER 2010
PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION NO. P306169/10 (CONT’D)

•    To encourage developments which meet community’s needs for retail,
     entertainment, office and other commercial services and provide net community
     benefit in relation to accessibility, efficient infrastructure use and the aggregation
     and sustainability of commercial facilities

Local Planning Policy Framework and the Municipal Strategic Statement
The proposed development is consistent with Local Planning Policy Framework in
regard to:-
Clause 21.04 - Vision
• Our Vision is to continue to build a prosperous and progressive Shire which is
   widely known as the place to live, work, invest and visit, in a manner in which our
   residents enjoy ownership and participate in this vision.

Zoning provisions
Residential 1 Zone
Pursuant to the Residential 1 Zone of the Mitchell Shire Planning Scheme, a
planning permit is not required to change a liquor licence if the premise has an
existing permit to use the land for a retail premises. There is no evidence of such
permit but existing use rights are likely to apply.

Overlay provisions
The subject land is not affected by any overlays.

Particular provisions
Pursuant to Clause 52.27 of the Mitchell Planning Scheme a planning permit is
required to use land to sell or consume liquor if any of the following apply:

•    A licence is required under the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998.
•    A different licence, or category of licence, is required from that which is in force.
•    The hours of trading allowed under any licence are to be extended.
•    The number of patrons allowed under any licence is to be increased.

All of the above conditions apply to this application and the application requires a
planning permit.

Notification
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987,
notice of the application was provided.

Notification was carried out in the following manner:

♦     Letters were sent to adjoining owners on 21 July 2010; and
♦     A sign was erected on the site for a period of 14 days.

Four objections were received. The key points raised by the objectors were:

1)    Noise from patrons particularly when leaving the premises is already excessive
      when the premises close at 1.00am on Fridays and Saturdays and there are
      concerns that this would get worse if the days of operation are extended



                                            Page 20944
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                        27 SEPTEMBER 2010
PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION NO. P306169/10 (CONT’D)

      beyond 11pm. There are minimal noise buffers between the Golf Club and the
      residential areas which abut three sides of the subject land. Noise from bands
      is particularly invasive.
2)    The risk that the Golf Club with later trading hours may attract undesirable
      clientele to those who would normally frequent the premises after other venues
      in the Kilmore area have closed for the night.
3)    Increased traffic at all hours and up to 18 hours a day if the trading hours are
      extended.
4)    Bad language and behaviour could escalate in the precinct if the hours of
      operation are increased with potential for increased property damage late at
      night.
Planning Officer Assessment
The Kilmore Golf Club Inc has leased the management of the Golf Club premises to
a private entity. This has required that the existing liquor licence which is a full club
licence be changed to a general liquor licence.

Currently the Golf Club is closed on Monday and Tuesday, trades on Wednesday
and Thursday until 11pm, trades on Friday and Saturday until 1am and trades on
Sunday until 5pm.

The applicant has requested that the trading hours be extended to 1am Monday to
Saturday.

Pursuant to Clause 52.27 of the Mitchell Planning Scheme a permit is required for
licenced premises to use land to sell or consume liquor. In principle, State and Local
planning policies support developments that provide for the social and commercial
infrastructure needs of both residents and visitors to ensure a vibrant, prosperous
and progressive Shire. Facilities such as Golf Clubs provide important services and
facilities for their communities and also attract visitors to the area which enhances
the region’s tourist economy.

However, for the residents who abut such developments there are important amenity
considerations to be also taken into account. The impact of extended trading hours
on weekdays would mean that as the business grows there is likely to be an
increase in patronage and associated amenity considerations such as increased
traffic volumes late at night and into the early hours of the morning and also the
noise associated with patrons leaving the premises late at night.

The setback distances of the Golf Club building from the residential areas is 17m
from the western boundary, 55m from the southern boundary and 84m from the
eastern boundary. The car parking area is located in approximately the middle of the
site with setback distances from residential areas being between approximately 50–
70m.

While some objectors stated that there are inadequate buffers between residences
and the Club House, the site does have significant native trees and vegetation which
would certainly provide some buffering of noise from the Golf Club site.



                                            Page 20945
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                     27 SEPTEMBER 2010
PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION NO. P306169/10 (CONT’D)

While it is not considered that a maximum of 200 patrons is excessive, objectors
raised the issue that there are already amenity concerns caused by patrons using
the Golf Club venue.

It is therefore suggested that the management of the Golf Club provides a noise and
amenity plan and a patron management plan for the site to ensure that amenity
concerns do not increase in the future. The plan should cover such matters as
signage to be used to encourage responsible off-site patron behaviour; the training
of staff in the management of patron behaviour; staff communication arrangements;
measures to control noise emissions from the premises; and measures to control
noise from traffic arriving and departing the site.

Generally objectors were concerned that extended hours from Monday to Thursday
would cause significant loss of amenity to neighbouring residential properties on
week days and objectors expressed an opinion that they did not object to the trading
hours being limited to 11pm during week days. This view concurred with comments
from Victoria Police who also recommended that the trading hours between Monday
and Thursday be restricted to 11pm in a residential area.

In the light of objector concerns, the comments from Victoria Police and that the
residents would be more significantly affected on weekdays than the weekend, which
could limit sleep during the working week, it is recommended that:

•    the extension of trading hours from Monday to Thursday inclusive to 1am is not
     supported,
•    the trading hours on Friday and Saturday to 1am as requested be unchanged
     and the change of liquor licence be supported.

Subject to such changes it is considered the proposal is appropriate and would
afford a balance between the needs of the Golf Club to provide services to the
community and the amenity of the neighbouring residents.

Objectors’ concerns
The objectors’ concerns have been considered as follows:

1)      Noise from patrons particularly when leaving the premises is already
        excessive when the premises close at 1.00am on Fridays and Saturdays and
        there are concerns that this would get worse if the days of operation are
        extended beyond 11pm. There are minimal noise buffers between the Golf
        Club and the residential areas which abut three sides of the subject land.
        Noise from bands is particularly invasive.
As discussed in the assessment section concerns were raised regarding potential for
later operating hours affecting sleep and it is recommended that the operating hours
up to 1am be restricted to Fridays and Saturdays only. Three objectors generally
implied that they would tolerate the closing time being 11pm during the week but the
request to extend hours to 1am Monday to Thursday has caused concern. Subject
to condition that the proposal does not operate later than 11pm Monday to Thursday
it is considered that this concern has been addressed.



                                            Page 20946
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                        27 SEPTEMBER 2010
PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION NO. P306169/10 (CONT’D)

2)      The risk that the Golf Club with later trading hours may attract undesirable
        clientele to those who would normally frequent the premises after other
        venues in the Kilmore area have closed for the night.
The potential movement of patrons between different venues after 11pm has been
addressed and is unlikely to impact on the precinct given the trading hours will
remain as existing.

3)      Increased traffic at all hours and up to 18 hours a day if the trading hours are
        extended.

The potential impact of traffic movement late at night has been addressed and is
unlikely to impact on the precinct given the trading hours will remain as existing.


4)    Bad language and behaviour could escalate in the precinct if the hours of
      operation are increased with potential for increased property damage late at
      night.
Unruly behaviour from patrons leaving the premises is a concern and the Golf Club
Management must mitigate such behaviour with an appropriate noise, amenity and
patron management plan which is proposed to be conditioned.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT:        a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit be issued for
application number P306169/10 to use the land to sell or consume liquor in
accordance with endorsed plans on the following conditions:

1.    Before the use (i.e. trading via a general liquor licence) starts amended plans to
      the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and
      approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be
      endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to
      scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided (with at least one set
      of plans at A4 or A3 size). The plans must be generally in accordance with the
      plans submitted with the application but modified to show:

            a) A noise and amenity plan / patron management plan in accordance
               with condition 4 of this permit.
            b) A plan drawn to scale showing the internal layout of the club rooms
               including room names with the licenced area highlighted.

      Such plan must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and when
      approved, will be endorsed and form part of this permit.

2.    The layout of the site as shown on the endorsed plan, shall not be altered or
      modified (whether or not in order to comply with any Statute, Statutory Rule or
      Local Law or for any other reason) without the prior consent of the Responsible
      Authority.

3.    The hours of operation must only be between the hours of:


                                            Page 20947
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                         27 SEPTEMBER 2010
PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION NO. P306169/10 (CONT’D)

      a)    7am to 11pm Monday to Thursday
      b)    7am to 1.00am Friday and Saturday
      c)    10am to 11pm Sunday
      d)    12 noon to 11pm ANZAC Day and Good Friday.
      Any extension of these hours of operation must only be with the prior written
      consent of the Responsible Authority.

4.    Prior to the use commencing, a noise and amenity plan/patron management
      plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. All
      activities forming part of the use must comply with the endorsed plan. The plan
      must include:

      a)    Staffing and other measures which are designed to ensure the orderly
            arrival and departure of patrons;
      b)    Signage to be used to encourage responsible on/off-site patron behaviour;
      c)    The training of staff in the management of patron behaviour;
      d)    Staff communication arrangements;
      e)    Measures to control noise emissions from the premises;
      f)    Measures to control traffic arriving and departing the site.

      This plan must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and when
      approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.

5.    The amenity of the area must not be detrimentally affected by the use to the
      satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, through:

      a)    Transportation of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land.
      b)    Appearance of any building, works or materials.
      c)    Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour,
            steam, soot ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil.
      d)    Presence of vermin.
      e)    Or in any other way.

6.    No more than 200 patrons may be present on the premises at any one time
      unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

7.    This permit will expire if the following circumstance applies:

      a)    The use is not started within two years of the date of this permit

      The responsible authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is
      made in writing before the permit expires, or within three months.


The resolution for Item 12.2 – Planning Permit Application No. P306169/10, to use
the land to sell or consume liquor at 6 Anderson Road, Kilmore, is found at the end
of this section.




                                            Page 20948
12.3 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION NO. P306228/10, TO CONSTRUCT A
     DWELLING AND RE-SUBDIVIDE TWO EXISTING LOTS AT 60 HIBBERDS
     LANE CLONBINANE

Author:       Victoria Mack – Statutory Planner
File No:      P306228/10 - S007838P / 116433
Reference: Item 12.7 – 23 August, 2010 (CM10/267)



Applicant:    Eric Salter Pty Ltd
Property:     CA 2B and CA 2C Section A, Parish of Clonbinane
Address:      60 Hibberds Lane CLONBINANE VIC 3658
Zoning:       Farming Zone
Overlay(s):   Salinity Management Overlay
Proposal:     To construct a dwelling and re-subdivide two existing lots.




Summary
Council received a late report on this item at its meeting on 23 August, 2010. An
alternative recommendation for approval was lost however the original determination
to refuse the permit was not discussed and a further report to Council is required.

This report recommends that Council issue a Refusal to grant a planning permit for
application number P306228, which seeks permission to construct a dwelling and re-
subdivide two existing lots at 60 Hibberds Lane, Clonbinane.




                                      Page 20949
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                      23 AUGUST 2010
PLANNING PERMIT P306228/10 (CONT’D)


The application has been presented to a Council meeting in accordance with the
deed of delegation which specifies that a decision to refuse a planning permit is
required to be determined at a Council meeting.

Proposal
A description of the proposal is as follows:
•      A single storey dwelling would be constructed on the proposed Lot 2 which
       would be setback 10m from the north-east (rear boundary), 10m from the north
       boundary and approximately 750m from the front of the land.
•      The dwelling would be constructed of weatherboard with a colorbond steel roof.
•      The dwelling would comprise a large open plan living, dining and kitchen area,
       two bedrooms, a bathroom, separate laundry and separate WC and would be
       surrounded by a veranda on the northern, southern and western sides.
•      The single story dwelling would be 21m long and 8m wide. In addition the
       veranda would be 4m wide on the north side, 2m wide on the south side and
       1.8m wide on the west side.
•      A new access would be created to the proposed Lot 2 from Hibberds Lane.
       The driveway would be approximately 80m in length.
•      The internal boundary between the two crown allotments would be realigned to
       create two new lots. No additional lots would be created.
•      Each lot created would be 4054m2.
•      The re-subdivision would involve a boundary realignment which would contain
       the existing dwelling, shedding and effluent field on the proposed Lot 1, with the
       new dwelling to be constructed on the proposed Lot 2 which is currently vacant.
•      The application did not provide a justification for the proposal in terms of the
       impact of the use and development on the surrounding rural land uses for
       agriculture.
•      A land capability assessment was not provided with the application.

History
Council records show that no previous permit applications have been made on the
land. The land was burned during the Black Saturday bushfires. The fire destroyed
native vegetation and sundry shedding, however, the existing dwelling and two other
sheds on the proposed Lot 1 were saved.

Site details
The site comprises two crown allotments, with a total area of less than one (1)
hectare, and is located on the east side of Hibberds Lane, approximately 440m north
east of the intersection with Clonbinane Road.

The site is rectangular and has the following approximate dimensions:

    North east boundary – sideage                       80.47m
    South east boundary – sideage                       110.58m
    South east boundary – frontage                      80.47m


                                        Page 20950
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                     23 AUGUST 2010
PLANNING PERMIT P306228/10 (CONT’D)


 North west boundary – sideage                        110.93m
 Total site area                                      8098m2

The subject site slopes from the north east to the south west. On the south eastern
boundary a series of small ponds, or dams, have been constructed in a natural gully
or drainage line. However, the gully is not a designated watercourse.

Existing vehicle access is provided along the west side of the site from Hibberds
Lane to an existing small weatherboard dwelling on the proposed Lot 1. The
dwelling was originally constructed in about 1925 as the Wilson’s General Store
servicing the goldfields. Since then it has been reclad with weatherboard and
significantly modified. It currently comprises one bedroom, one lounge and kitchen
area, a bathroom and laundry and a veranda / pergola at the rear of the dwelling.
The dwelling is setback approximately 3.63m from the front of the site on the south
west title boundary.

In addition to the dwelling there is one small single car space garage, two older-style
galvanised steel sheds and a newly constructed carport for a light truck.

Prior to the Black Saturday bushfires the land was covered with significant stands of
native vegetation as well as plantings of native shrubs and understory and some
open grassed spaces. Much of this vegetation was destroyed by the fires but a
proportion has survived and is regenerating. The owner of the land since the fires
has extensively replanted the site.

There are no easements contained on site.

The surrounding area is established rural land characterized by large farm
allotments, covered by a mix of native trees and open grazing areas. Approximately
123m to the south west of the subject site is the Sunday Creek.

Adjacent to the site on the western and southern boundaries are seven small
allotments of similar size most in the same ownership. There were five houses in
this area before the Black Saturday bushfires. Two were destroyed. The nearest
surviving dwelling is approximately 90m to the west of the proposed dwelling site.

The Hume Highway is approximately 6.4km to the north-west of the site. The Hume
Highway provides access to the surrounding townships of Broadford, Tallarook,
Wandong and Wallan. The township of Wandong is located approximately 15.2km to
the south west.

Referrals
The application was referred to Council’s Engineering Department regarding the
establishment of a new cross over to Hibberds Lane and it was felt that standard
conditions would be adequate to meet engineering requirements.          Council’s
Environmental Health Coordinator stated that a Land Capability Assessment may be
required depending on the system to be used and this should be conditioned if a
permit was issued.

The application was referred to the Department of Sustainability and Environment.


                                      Page 20951
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                     23 AUGUST 2010
PLANNING PERMIT P306228/10 (CONT’D)



State Planning Policy Framework
The proposed development is not consistent with the State Planning Policy
Framework in regard to:

12.03-2 Regional Development

Strategies include delivering networks of high-quality settlements including:

•     Preserving and protecting features of rural land and natural resources and
      features to enhance their contribution to settlements and landscapes.
•     Siting and designing new development to minimise risk to life, property, the
      natural environment and community infrastructure from natural hazards such as
      bushfire and flooding.
•     Limiting new housing development in rural areas, including:
      −     directing housing growth into existing settlements.
      −     discouraging development of isolated small lots in the rural zones from use
            for single dwellings, rural living or other incompatible uses.
      −     encouraging consolidation of existing isolated small lots in rural zones.
•     Restructuring old and inappropriate subdivisions.
•     Maintaining the long-term sustainable use and management of existing natural
      resource attributes in agricultural and productive rural land use activities.

Clause 14 –Settlement
•   To ensure a sufficient supply of land is available for residential, commercial,
    industrial, recreational, institutional and other public uses.
•   To facilitate the orderly development of urban areas.

Clause 19.01 - Subdivision
•   To ensure the design of subdivisions achieves attractive, liveable and sustainable
    neighbourhoods.
•   Creating compact neighbourhoods that have walkable distances between
    activities and where neighbourhood centres provide access to services and
    facilities to meet day to day needs.
•   Integrating housing, work, shopping, recreation and community services to
    provide a mix and level of activity that attracts people, creates a safe
    environment, stimulates interaction and provides a lively community focus.

Local Planning Policy Framework and the Municipal Strategic Statement
The proposed development is not consistent with Local Planning Policy Framework
in regard to:

Clause 21.05-1 - Natural Resources and the Environment

Objectives include:




                                      Page 20952
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                            23 AUGUST 2010
PLANNING PERMIT P306228/10 (CONT’D)


•   To protect and manage the natural attributes and features of the Shire, including
    the foothills and ranges, the river catchments, particularly the Goulburn River and
    its tributaries, and the variety of flora, fauna and forested areas of the Shire;

•   To assist in the sustainable and productive use of land for agriculture, forestry
    and stone and gravel extraction.

Clause 22.04-4 - Construction of dwellings on small lots in the farming zone

It is policy that inappropriate development of existing allotments with dwellings in the
rural area can cause a de facto rural residential environment. It is policy that broad
scale farming land should be maintained for agricultural operations and that the
construction of dwellings unconnected with agricultural activities on adjoining land
can cause adverse effects, for example:

        −      the distortion of land values against its agricultural value.
        −      conflicts over farming practices.
        −      demand for services and infrastructure.

•       The construction of dwellings should be planned so that the existence of the
        dwelling does not adversely affect agricultural production of adjacent land. The
        dwelling should be sited so that adequate distances are maintained from
        boundaries.
•       The construction of dwellings in locations which lead to a concentration of
        developed lots in the midst of a rural area will be discouraged.
•       The construction of dwellings in such locations as to require the upgrading of
        adjacent road access or other infrastructure will be discouraged.
•       Council will request that the applicant demonstrate that the construction of a
        dwelling will not adversely affect the capacity of the surrounding land to be used
        for farming purposes.

Zoning provisions
Farming Zone
Pursuant to Clause 35.07 of the Mitchell Shire Planning Scheme, a planning permit
is required as follows:
    •       to use the land for accommodation on land that is less that 40ha (Section 2
            use);
    •       to subdivide land;
    •       to construct and carry out buildings and works associated with a use in
            Section 2.

Salinity Management Overlay
Pursuant to Clause 44.02 of the Mitchell Shire Planning Scheme, a planning permit
is required:
    •       to construct a building or construct or carry out works;
    •       to subdivide land.




                                            Page 20953
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                       23 AUGUST 2010
PLANNING PERMIT P306228/10 (CONT’D)


Notification
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 52(1A) of the Planning and Environment Act
1987, if the responsible authority proposes to refuse the application, the requirement
for notification may be waived.

Planning Officer Assessment
The proposal is for the development of land for a dwelling on a small lot of 4054m2 in
the Farming Zone, which would be facilitated by a parallel application to re-subdivide
the two existing crown allotments such as to realign the internal title boundary to
better accommodate the siting and development of a second dwelling on the
proposed Lot 2.

The proposal has been considered in light of State and Local Planning Policies as
follows:

Assessment against Zoning, State and Local Planning Policies
The surrounding land use is predominantly for “low key” agriculture and farming and
the proposed development and subdivision is inconsistent with rural zoning of the
land.

The intention of Clause 12.03 of the State Planning Policy Framework and Clause
22.04 of the Local Planning Policy Framework is to limit and discourage the growth
of dwellings in locations which lead to a concentration of developed lots in the midst
of rural areas, so as to maintaining the long-term sustainable use and management
of existing natural resource attributes in agricultural and productive rural land use
activities.

The intention of these policies is also to direct housing growth into existing
settlements and discourage development of isolated small lots in the rural zones
from use for single dwellings, rural living or other incompatible uses as well as
encouraging consolidation of existing isolated small lots in rural zones and
restructuring old and inappropriate subdivisions.

Any intensification of development in the area of Hibberds Lane on small crown
allotments would subject extra development pressure and such intensification
generally should be discouraged in these rural areas. It is acknowledged that one
additional dwelling in this particular area will have almost no impact on the
surrounding rural land use.
The proposal is also contrary to specific State Planning Policy. The intent of Clause
14 of the State Planning Policy Framework is to ensure that there is sufficient supply
of land available for residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, institutional and
other public uses and to facilitate the orderly development of urban areas. This
policy is designed to ensure that development occurs in areas set aside for specific
uses and that the Farming Zone is not intended for residential development which is
what the application proposes.

The intent of Clause 19.01 of the State Planning Policy Framework is to ensure that
the design of subdivisions achieves attractive, liveable and sustainable
neighbourhoods. The policy aims to ensure that land is not subdivided where these



                                       Page 20954
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                     23 AUGUST 2010
PLANNING PERMIT P306228/10 (CONT’D)


policy objectives cannot be achieved and met such as in isolated areas in the
Farming Zone.

The zoning of the land is Farming Zone and its intent is to retain agricultural land so
it is not used for urban development. This proposal is at odds with the zoning and
hence should not be supported. The proposal would not encourage the retention of
productive agricultural land, given that such small lots are too small to productively
be used for agricultural purposes. In accordance with the Practice Note “Applying
the rural zones” produced by the Department of Planning and Community
Development, dated March 2007:
•   “Farms are becoming bigger to achieve the economies of scale for farm
    investment and to maintain productivity…
•   (Farming) is becoming more industrialised. Modern farming practices may involve
    the use of heavy machinery and large scale irrigation and plant equipment, all-
    hours operation, and the application of chemicals and fertilizers …
•   More people are living in rural areas for lifestyle reasons not related to farming.
    This increases the potential for land use conflicts because people pursuing a
    rural lifestyle often have amenity expectations that conflict with modern farming
    practices”

Furthermore this document about the Farming Zone from the State Government
specifies that non-farm dwellings and land uses not related to farming must be
discouraged, to reduce their impact on decision making by farmers to make land
purchases for farm investment. Uses that could lead to the loss or fragmentation of
productive agricultural land, or which could be adversely affected by farming
activities should be prohibited. It must also be said, however, that it is hard to image
a situation where this particular block could be used for a significant agricultural
purpose.

Further issues caused by this proposal are that the minimum lot size allowed for
subdivision in the Farming Zone, of 40ha, is a clear indication of the need to retain
large lot areas to allow for productive farming purposes, rather than allow
urbanization in rural areas.

The purpose of constructing a dwelling on a lot subdivided to allow a dwelling is not
consistent with the State Planning Policy Framework, Local Planning Policy
Framework, zoning and overlays of the Mitchell Planning Scheme, in particular the
proposal does not comply with the Farming Zone. The proposed lots are
inappropriately sized and separated from existing townships.

Assessment against the Salinity Management Overlay
The land is sloped and not visibly subject to salinity. In addition the land has a
significant cover of native trees, shrubs and ground covers and it is not anticipated
that the proposed use and development would increase the risk of salinity on the
site. It is not considered that the proposed use and development would create an
increased risk of salinity.




                                      Page 20955
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                    23 AUGUST 2010
PLANNING PERMIT P306228/10 (CONT’D)


Conclusion
In conclusion the Planning Scheme makes it clear that intensification of small lots in
the Farming Zone as proposed should not be encouraged or supported. The
proposed use and development is not required to support the agricultural or farming
uses and may increase the requirement for services and infrastructure. It is
acknowledged, however, that there are few adverse individual impacts from this
proposal.

It is submitted that Planning Application P306228 for the re-subdivision of land and
the use and the development of a reconfigured lot for a dwelling, be refused. The
intent of the State and Local Planning Policies is to conversely encourage residential
development in townships where appropriate services, facilities and infrastructure
are provided.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT: a Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit be issued for application number
P306228 to construct a dwelling and re-subdivide two existing lots on the following
grounds:

    1. The proposal is contrary to the intent of the Farming Zone and Clause 21.05-1
       of the Local Planning Policy to preserve the sustainable and productive use of
       land for agriculture, forestry and related uses.

    2. The construction of a new dwelling is contrary to the intent of Clause 12.03 of
       the Mitchell Planning Scheme. The proposal would create an intensification
       of development in an isolated rural area without access to services or other
       community or social infrastructure.

    3. The proposed subdivision is contrary to Clause 12.03 of the Mitchell Planning
       Scheme which encourages consolidation of existing isolated small lots in rural
       zones and the restructuring of old and inappropriate subdivisions.

    4. The proposal is incompatible with State and Local Planning Policies which
       aim to limiting new housing development by directing housing growth into
       existing settlements.

    5. The proposal is contrary to Clause 22.04-4 of the Mitchell Planning Scheme
       which discourages development of isolated small lots in the rural zones from
       use for single dwellings, rural living or other incompatible uses.

    6. The proposal fails to comply with Clause 21.04 of the Mitchell Planning
       Scheme which relates to discouraging development of rural residential
       development within established agricultural areas and protecting farming and
       agricultural practices from the encroachment of urban growth.




                                      Page 20956
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                       23 AUGUST 2010
PLANNING PERMIT P306228/10 (CONT’D)



MOVED:                  CR. R. LEE
SECONDED:               CR. R. PARKER
THAT:

A Notice of Decision to grant a planning permit be issued for application number
P306228 on the following grounds:

1.      Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, three (3)
        copies of a plan drawn to scale, with at least one plan at A3 or A4 size,
        dimensioned and submitted to the Responsible Authority. Such plan shall be
        generally in accordance with the plan submitted with the application but
        modified to show:
        a)          Site plan modified to show:
                    i) effluent envelope for proposed Lot 2, the location of which must
                       be supported by a Land Capability Assessment report prepared
                       by a qualified practitioner and submitted with the amended plan;
                    ii) accessway for proposed Lot 2, sited so as to avoid the removal
                        of native vegetation.
        b)          Elevations for the proposed dwelling on Lot 2, designed in
                    consultation with Council’s Building Department. The external walls
                    must not be weatherboard.
        c)          North arrow on the floor plan for proposed dwelling on Lot 2.

        Such plan shall be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and when
        approved, shall be endorsed and form part of this permit.
2.      The layout of the site, and the size of the proposed buildings and works as
        shown on the endorsed plan, shall not be altered or modified (whether or not
        in order to comply with any Statute, Statutory Rule or Local Law or for any
        other reason) without the prior consent of the Responsible Authority.
3.      The owner of the land must enter into agreements with the relevant authorities
        for the provision of electricity and telecommunication services to each lot
        shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with the authority’s requirements
        and relevant legislation at the time.
4.      All existing and proposed easements and sites for existing or required utility
        services and roads on the land must be set aside in the plan of subdivision
        submitted for certification in favour of the relevant authority for which the
        easement or site is to be created.
5.      The plan of subdivision submitted for certification under the Subdivision Act
        1988 must be referred to the relevant authority in accordance with Section 8
        of that Act.
7.      Prior to the issue of the Statement of Compliance, the owner must enter into
        an agreement with the Responsible Authority made pursuant to Section 173
        of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and the agreement must be



                                        Page 20957
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                       23 AUGUST 2010
PLANNING PERMIT P306228/10 (CONT’D)


        registered on the title/s to the land under Section 181 of the Act. The applicant
        must ensure:
        a. The house proposed on Lot 2 must be constructed in accordance with
            Planning Permit P306228.
        b. This agreement is not required should the works for a dwelling have been
            completed up to lock up stage prior to the issue of the statement of
            compliance.
        c. The agreement may be removed from the title(s) in the event the
            development approved by the aforementioned Planning Permit has
            already constructed on the land, to the satisfaction of the Responsible
            Authority.
        d. The owner must pay the reasonable costs for the preparation, execution
            and registration of the Section 173 Agreement.
        e. A copy of the Titles Office registration number (dealing number) for the
            Section 173 Agreement must be provided to Council as proof of
            registration prior to the issue of the statement of compliance.

8.      All external materials to be used in the construction of the buildings hereby
        permitted shall be of muted toning and less reflective and shall not result in
        any adverse visual impact on the amenity of the surrounding area to the
        satisfaction of the responsible authority.

9.      The site is to be drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

10.     The owner/developer is required to provide an on-site detention system to
        retain and treat storm-water wholly within the boundaries of the subject land.
        The detention system must be designed and installed to the satisfaction of
        Council.

11.     Vehicular crossings must be constructed to the road to suit the proposed
        access-way to the satisfaction of Council and any existing crossing or
        crossing opening must be removed and replaced and reinstated with footpath,
        nature strip, and kerb and channel as appropriate to the satisfaction of
        Council.
12.     Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance, driveway access across the
        nature strip must be provided to each allotment, to the satisfaction of the
        Responsible Authority.
13.     Before any vehicle crossover/drainage works, kerb and channel upgrade
        works associated with the development start; detailed construction plans must
        be submitted to and approved by the Mitchell Shire Council’s engineering
        department. All works constructed or carried out must be in accordance with
        those plans and specifications and completed to the satisfaction of Council
        prior to the occupancy of the development.

14.     The owner/developer must construct the access-way for all weather access to
        enable fire fighting and other emergency vehicles to traverse between
        dwelling and water supply point for fire fighting with ease and safety by



                                       Page 20958
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                       23 AUGUST 2010
PLANNING PERMIT P306228/10 (CONT’D)


        incorporating adequate turning circles and passing bays to the satisfaction of
        Council.

15.     Prior to any construction works associated with the development and
        subdivision starting, the owner/developer must submit a construction
        management plan to Council and approval obtained to the satisfaction of
        Council. The construction management plan must address issues such as
        environmental issues, dust control, soil erosion, traffic management, mud on
        roads, warning signs, construction plant movement areas and storage areas.

16.     All works must be undertaken in a manner that minimizes soil erosion, and
        any exposed areas of soil must be stabilised to prevent soil erosion to the
        satisfaction of Council.

Department of Sustainability and Environment conditions

17.     The buildings and access sites are to be restricted to slopes of not more than
        15% and drainage from the hard surfaces must be disposed of in a manner
        that minimizes the potential for soil erosion and sediment movement.

18.     At the completion of the building/works all areas of disturbed ground shall be
        stabilised and re-vegetated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

19.     The owner/developer must ensure that the site be developed and managed to
        minimise the risk of stormwater pollution through the contamination of run-off
        by sediments, chemicals or gross pollutants in accordance with currently
        accepted best practice.

20.     Culverts of suitable capacity area to be used where the access track crosses
        drainage lines. All culverts shall have concrete end walls. Culverts are to be
        located and constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and
        be designed by a suitably qualified engineer

21.     All batters must have a maximum slope of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical and
        properly drained to minimise batter erosion and slumping.

22.     All batters and disturbed areas are to be top soiled with a minimum of 75mm
        of topsoil and revegetated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

23.     Any plants removed from the site shall be replaced at a ratio of 100 plants
        planted for every plant removed (100:1 ratio). All plants shall be:-

        a)      indigenous to the area

        b)      maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and

        c)      planted prior to the commencement of the use and development of the
                land.

Time condition

24.     This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:


                                         Page 20959
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                        23 AUGUST 2010
PLANNING PERMIT P306228/10 (CONT’D)


        a)      the development and the use are not started within two years of the
                date of this permit.

        b)      the development is not completed within four years of the date of this
                permit.
        c)      the plan of subdivision is not certified within two years of the issue date
                of this permit; or
        d)      the statement of compliance is not lodged at the titles office within five
                years of the date of certification of the plan of subdivision.

        The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is
        made in writing before the permit expires, or within three months afterwards.

Notes:
Relevant             Information provided to assist the applicant or owner
Authority
Council’s            Please note that this approval does not constitute a
Building Unit        Building Permit. You should enquire with Council’s
                     Building Services Unit on 5734 6230 to ascertain if a
                     building permit is required for this proposal.

                                                                                    LOST
                                                                                      2/6

Cr. Lee called for a DIVISION:
      FOR            AGAINST
Cr. Lee            Cr. Melbourne
Cr. Parker         Cr. Tobias
                   Cr. Marstaeller
                   Cr. Callaghan
                   Cr. Coppel
                   Cr. Stewart


MOVED:                  CR. S. MARSTAELLER
SECONDED:               CR. T. TOBIAS
THAT: the recommendation be adopted.
                                                                                CARRIED
                                                                                     6/2




                                         Page 20960
12.4   SECTION 173 AGREEMENTS – 145 HOLLYMOUNT ROAD, PYALONG &
       610 DOCKERYS ROAD, SUGARLOAF CREEK

Author:       Diane Butt, A/g Subdivision Officer
File No:      P305998/09 & P305158/08
Reference: Nil



Summary
This report recommends Council sign and seal the Section 173 Agreements between
Mitchell Shire Council and the owner/s of the land known as:

1.     P305998/09 – 145 Hollymount Road, Pyalong, Lot 2, LP222064A.

2.     P305158/08 – 610 Dockerys Road, Sugarloaf Creek, Portion 71 Parish
       Lowry.

Background
1.   Planning permit P305998/09 was issued for a five lot subdivision. Condition 4
     of the permit requires the registered owner/s of the land to enter into a Section
     173 Agreement which provides for:

       a.     That no building be located within 25m of the hilltop on Lot 4. Any
              variation to the restriction will require the prior written consent of
              Council.
       b.     There must be no more than one dwelling constructed on each lot
              created.
       c.     The land will not be further subdivided.
       d.     Prior to the development of the proposed Lots 1, 2, 3 or 4 of the
              subdivision, the owner of the land must provide a vehicle crossing to
              each of the above lots at the locations indicated on the endorsed plan
              for the permit at no cost to Council, and to the satisfaction of Council.

       The owner must pay the reasonable costs for the preparation, execution and
       registration of the Section 173 Agreement.

2.     Planning permit P305158/08 was issued for a two lot subdivision. Condition 3
       of the permit requires the registered owner/s of the land to enter into a Section
       173 Agreement which provides for:

       a.     The lots created as part of this subdivision must not be further
              subdivided so as to increase the number of lots.
       b.     The land subject to the Land Management Plan must be maintained
              free of stock by any future owner/occupiers of the land.




                                      Page 20961
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                      27 SEPTEMBER 2010
SECTION 173 AGREEMENTS (CONT’D)

       c.      Any construction of a dwelling, effluent envelope and outbuildings on
               the land must be within the building envelope in accordance with the
               endorsed plan.
       d.      These requirements cannot be varied except with the written consent
               of the Responsible Authority.

       The owner must pay the reasonable costs for the preparation, execution and
       registration of the Section 173 Agreement.

The documents have been provided, hence the subject of the Council report to
finalise the Section173 Agreements.

Policy Implications
Council must comply with the requirements of Section 174 of the Planning &
Environment Act 1987.

Issues
The documents reflect the ongoing development of the subject properties and have
no outstanding issues.

Consultation Procedure
The applicants have been consulted in relation to the permit conditions.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT:        The Section 173 Agreements be signed and sealed between Mitchell
Shire Council and the owners of the land known as:

1.       P305998/09 – 145 Hollymount Road, Pyalong, Lot 2, LP222064A.

2.       P305158/08 – 610 Dockerys Road, Sugarloaf Creek, Portion 71 Parish of
         Lowry


The resolution for Item 12.4 – Section 173 Agreements – 145 Hollymount Road,
Pyalong and 610 Dockerys Road, Sugarloaf Creek, is found at the end of this section




                                      Page 20962
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                     27 SEPTEMBER 2010



12.5   VICTORIAN CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HEARINGS AND
       MITCHELL PLANNING SCHEME UPDATE

Author:         Ian Scholes, General Manager Planning & Environment

File No:        CL/04/004-01

Reference:      Nil



Summary
The following is a summary of the current VCAT and Planning Scheme Amendment
activities being dealt with by the Planning and Development Unit.

Planning & Development
1.1    Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) Hearings Update

Proposal                  Appealed By               Hearing Update
P305855/09                Application for Review at Mediation was held on
Use of land for sawmill   VCAT has been made        14 September 2010.
225 Mahadys Road          by the applicant          The applicant advised
Upper Plenty              following Council         that they would like to
                          Refusal.                  amend the application
                                                    to include all aspects
                                                    of    the    operations.
                                                    Tribunal ordered that
                                                    applicant must lodge
                                                    the         amendment
                                                    application to VCAT by
                                                    24 September 2010.
                                                    Further hearing date
                                                    TBA.
P305709/09                Application for Review at Hearing date 6 Sept
To use and develop        VCAT has been made        2010. Deferred to a
the land for the          by the applicant          new date - TBA.
purpose of animal         following Council
keeping (10 dogs)         Refusal.
240 Sunday Creek
Road Broadford
P305477/08                Application for Review at Practice   Day          17
To subdivide the land     VCAT has been made        September 2010.
into 49 lots (2 stages)   by the applicant against
and to remove and         SP AusNet condition.
replace an existing
S173 agreement
(Poultry Farm)
180-190 Darraweit
Road Wallan


                                     Page 20963
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                              27 SEPTEMBER 2010
VICTORIAN CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HEARINGS AND MITCHELL PLANNING SCHEME UPDATE (CONT’D)

 Proposal                     Appealed By               Hearing Update
 P304973                      Application for Review at Practice   Day               17
 Development of the           VCAT has been made        September 2010.
 land as an 866 lot           by the applicant against
 staged subdivision &         SP AusNet condition.
 vegetation removal
 625 Northern Highway
 Wallan
 P303767                      Application for Review at Practice   Day               17
 Subdivision into 550         VCAT has been made        September 2010.
 Lots (Wallan Airfield        by the applicant against
 Estate)                      SP AusNet condition.
 170 Wallan Whittlesea
 Road Wallan
 P305730                      Application for Review at Mediation held on 12
 To construct buildings       VCAT has been made         August 2010. Decision
 and works (wholesale         by Vic Roads seeking       awaited.
 nursery) and erect           extra conditions to be
 floodlit signage in          included in the permit for
 accordance with              upgrade of access to
 endorsed                     Hume Highway.
 plans.(Signage)
 295 Hume Highway
 Beveridge

 P306042/09                   Application for Review at Hearing date 21 Jan
 Five (5) lot subdivision     VCAT has been made        2011.
 81-89 Dudley Street          by the applicant against
 Wallan                       permit conditions.

 P306079/09                   Application for Review at Mediation date               18
 To subdivide land into       VCAT has been made        October 2010.
 sixty (60 ) lots in two      by the objectors
 stages and to remove         following Council’s
 native vegetation in         decision to issue a
 accordance with              Notice of Decision to
 endorsed plans               Grant a Permit.
 55 Darraweit Road
 Wallan
 P1919/2010/99                Application for review         Practice   Day          17
 Subdivision (Sunny           has been made by the           September 2010.
 Glenn)                       applicant against
 North Mountain Rd,           Council Refusal (time
 Wandong                      extension).
 P1939/2010                   Application for review         TBA. Consent order
 Retirement Village           has been made by the           being discussed.
 2-4 William St, Wallan       applicant against
                              Council Refusal (time
                              extension).


                                          Page 20964
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                              27 SEPTEMBER 2010
VICTORIAN CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HEARINGS AND MITCHELL PLANNING SCHEME UPDATE (CONT’D)

 Proposal                     Appealed By               Hearing Update
 P2418/2010                   Application for Review at TBA. Consent order
 Subdivision                  VCAT has been made        being discussed.
 141-149 William              by the applicant against
 Street, Wallan               permit conditions.

1.2  Planning Scheme Amendments Update
Amendment No. Description                              Amendment Update
Amendment C45 DHS Helipad Amendment                    Council is negotiating with the
                 for Seymour and Kilmore               objectors.
                 Hospital.
Amendment C55 Road Rezoning Pyalong                    Council advised Minister for
                                                       Planning that it contests this
                                                       amendment for which VicRoads
                                                       is the planning authority.
Amendment C61         Implementation of the            Awaiting further advice from
                      Kilmore Strategy Plan            Department of Planning &
                                                       Development.
Amendment C62         Implementation of the            Awaiting further advice from
                      Wallan Structure Plan            Department of Planning &
                                                       Development.

Enforcement Update
225 Mahadys Road            Sawmill Operation                   VCAT order issued on 14
P305855                                                         September 2010 that
                                                                within 28 days of the date
                                                                of this order, the use of
                                                                the subject land for the
                                                                purpose of a sawmill, the
                                                                sale of second hand
                                                                timber and as a depot for
                                                                an arboriculture tree
                                                                felling business must
                                                                cease.
Hidden Valley Blvd          Fencing dispute                     VCAT hearing held 22
Wallan                                                          July 2010 - The Tribunal
                                                                found that the colorbond
                                                                structure has been
                                                                erected in breach of the
                                                                Section 173 Agreement
                                                                and ordered that the
                                                                Respondents remove it
                                                                within 60 days of the date
                                                                of these orders, at their
                                                                own expense.


Please note there are a number of other outstanding enforcement matters currently
being pursued by Officers.


                                          Page 20965
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                              27 SEPTEMBER 2010
VICTORIAN CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HEARINGS AND MITCHELL PLANNING SCHEME UPDATE (CONT’D)

Activities Carried out Under Delegation

A list of planning permit applications for the month has been circulated separately
and discussed at the Planning Briefing.


RECOMMENDATION

THAT: the report be received and noted.



The resolution for Item 12.6 – Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Hearings and
Mitchell Planning Scheme update, is found at the end of this section



PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REPORTS – ITEMS NOT OTHERWISE DEALT
WITH:

MOVED:                 CR. K. STEWART
SECONDED:              CR. G. COPPEL
THAT: the recommendations contained within Item 12.1, 12.2, 12.4 and 12.5 of the
Planning & Environment Reports, be adopted.
                                                                      CARRIED
                                                                             8/0




                                          Page 20966
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                               27 SEPTEMBER 2010



13.    DELEGATES REPORTS

       Nil Reports

14.    NOTICE OF MOTIONS
14.1   NOTICE OF MOTION: 711 – COUNCIL REPORTS

Author:              Cr Coppel
File No:             CL/04/001-03


MOVED:               CR. G. COPPEL
SECONDED:            CR. S. MARSTAELLER

THAT: the standard reporting format for Council reports to include a new paragraph
titled “Environmental and Sustainability Implications”.
                                                                         CARRIED
                                                                               7/1
Cr. Coppel called for a DIVISION:
       FOR           AGAINST
Cr. Coppel        Cr. Parker
Cr. Stewart
Cr. Callaghan
Cr. Melbourne
Cr. Tobias
Cr. Marstaeller
Cr. Lee

Councillors Comment
The purpose of this new paragraph is advise Council as to the environmental and
sustainability implications or any action or policy taken or developed by Council as a
consequence of a Council report within the local and/or wider community. Where it
is considered that there is no impact on the community, the report is to note this
accordingly.

Officers comment:
If this proposal is successful, the Environmental Programs Unit can provide a briefing
session and assistance to Council staff on how to access this component. This will
include reference to relevant Council strategies and policies such as the;
Environment Strategy, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, Sustainable Water Use
Plan, Waste Management Strategy, Stormwater Management Plan, Rural Roadside
Code of Practice and Procurement Policy.

The procedure in relation to Council agenda preparation will also be required to be
reviewed.



                                     Page 20967
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                                 27 SEPTEMBER 2010



14.2    NOTICE OF MOTION: 712– RESOURCE GV CONFERENCE

Author:              Cr Tobias
File No:             WM/04/001 (INW10/13040)




MOVED:               CR. T. TOBIAS
SECONDED:            CR. S. MARSTAELLER

THAT:
  a)       Cr Tobias be considered for nomination as the Resource GV delegate in
           attending the “BioCycle Global 2011 International Conference” from the 11
           to 14 April, 2011 in San Diego, California.

   b)      If selected this will require a contribution for flights and accommodation in
           the order of ($1000-1200) for attendance at the subsequent “Coffs
           Harbour Waste Conference 2011” as the participant would be expected to
           provide feedback at the annual conference.

                                                                             CARRIED
                                                                                  7/1

Officer comment
A Resource GV submission for the Inaugural Local Government innovation in Waste
Awards was shortlisted from 38 entries as one of five to present at the Coffs Harbour
Waste Convention Conference on Wednesday 5 May 2010.

The subject of the submission was the ‘Recycled Annie / Rubbish Ronnie’
campaigns and their subsequent uptake across the region.

A presentation at the conference was delivered by the Regional Education Officer
and was subsequently announced as the recipient of $4,000 for the purpose of
attendance at an international waste management conference.

The Group has determined that the BioCycle Global 2011 International Conference
on composting, renewable energy & organics recycling on April 11-14 in San Diego,
California is the best fit for our region and we have adopted a process by which a
delegate will be selected.

Whilst not yet defined, there will be some expectation of feedback to the annual
Coffs Harbour Waste Conference in May 2011 (3days). The level of this
commitment would be guided by the preference of the participant.

In regards to costs, it is expected that the recipient’s Council would only be required
to cover the flights and accommodation ($1,000-$1,200) for attendance at the Coffs



                                       Page 20968
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                             27 SEPTEMBER 2010


Harbour conference as Resource GV will supply registration, and the international
conference appears at this stage to be fully funded.

and

It should be noted that Council does not have a separate budget allocation for cost
associated with the flights and accommodation and the councillor should be using
the education allowance to attend the conference.




                                    Page 20969
ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES                             27 SEPTEMBER 2010




15.    GENERAL BUSINESS
In accordance with Clause 7.43 of Local Law No. 4 Meeting Procedures.


Nil.


16.    DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next Ordinary meeting of Council is proposed to be scheduled to be held
on 25 October, 2010, at the Civic Centre, Broadford, commencing at 6.30pm.


17.    CLOSURE OF MEETING

There being no further business the meeting was declared closed at 8.03pm.




                                Page 20970

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:8
posted:8/12/2011
language:English
pages:81