ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING (TOWN PLANNING) OF THE … · 2015-01-23 · 4.1 Brunei Halal Food Brand 4.1.1 In February 2007, Cr Atmaca and Mr David Keenan participated in a delegation

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING (TOWN PLANNING) OF

THE HUME CITY COUNCIL

MONDAY, 28 APRIL 2008

7:00 PM

COUNCIL CHAMBER, HUME GLOBAL LEARNING CENTRE, BROADMEADOWS

OOUURR VVIISSIIOONN:: Hume – A prosperous, sustainable and vibrant City: renowned for social justice, lifelong learning and community inclusion.

Hume City Council PAGE 1

HUME CITY COUNCIL

____________________________________________________________________________ Notice of an ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING (TOWN PLANNING) OF THE HUME CITY COUNCIL to be held on Monday, 28 April 2008 at 7:00 PM at the Council Chamber, Hume Global Learning Centre, Broadmeadows ____________________________________________________________________________

To: a: Council Cr Mohamad Abbouche

Cr Moya White Cr Adem Atmaca Cr Drew Jessop Cr Gary Jungwirth Cr Jack Ogilvie Cr Geoff Porter Cr Ann Potter Cr Chris Stock

Mayor Deputy Mayor

b: Officers

Mr Domenic Isola Mr Daryl Whitfort Mr Wal Lawson Mr Mike Webb Mr David Keenan Ms Joy Nunn

Chief Executive Officer Director City Governance and Information Director City Infrastructure Director City Communities Director City Sustainability Director Public Relations and Learning

ORDER OF BUSINESS 1. PRAYER

Almighty God, we humbly beseech Thee to vouchsafe Thy blessing upon this Council. Direct and prosper its deliberations to the advancement of Thy glory and the true welfare of the people of the Hume City.

Amen

2. APOLOGIES

3. DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS, CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS AND PECUNIARY

INTERESTS: Councillors' attention is drawn to the provisions of the Local Government Act 1989 in relation to the disclosure of interests, conflicts of interest and pecuniary interests. Councillors are required to disclose any interest and to declare any conflict or pecuniary interest immediately before consideration or discussion of the relevant items.

28 APRIL 2008 NOTICE OF MEETING ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF COUNCIL


4. OFFICERS REPORTS

The Mayor will ask the Councillors and gallery at the commencement of this section, which reports they wish to speak to. These reports will then be discussed in the order they appear on the notice paper. Reports not called will be dealt with in a block resolution at the end. Item No Title Page ECONOMY AND EMPLOYMENT EC23 Malaysia International Halal Showcase and World Halal Food Forum

in Kuala Lumpur from 10 - 13 May 2008 ............................................................... 4

ENVIRONMENT EN24 Multicultural Planting Day 2007 ............................................................................ 8 EN25 State of the Environment Report - 2006/07 Financial Year Reporting .............. 13

APPEARANCE OF THE CITY AP17 Olsen Place Shopping Centre ............................................................................. 16

TRANSPORT TR52 Sunbury South Local Area Traffic Management Study...................................... 25

COUNCIL CN335 Statutory Planning Delegated Report April 2008 .............................................39 CN336 VCAT Status Report April 2008......................................................................... 43 CN337 12 Buchan Street, Meadow Heights - Development of a double storey

dwelling to the rear of an existing dwelling ..................................................... 45 CN338 43 Waranga Crescent, Broadmeadows - Development of a double storey

dwelling to the rear of an existing dwelling ..................................................... 59 CN339 18-20 Somerton Park Drive, Campbellfield - Use of an existing building for a

materials recycling facility ................................................................................ 69 CN340 250 Dalrymple Road, Sunbury - One evening only musical event.................. 81 CN341 Hume Planning Scheme Amendment C71 - Mt Ridley Road Public Acquisition

Overlay - Approval of Certified Amendment .................................................... 88 CN342 Hume Planning Scheme Amendment C105 - Rezoning of land at 1 Cooper

Street and 810 Cooper Street, Somerton.......................................................... 90 CN343 S173 Agreements-Building Over Easement-April 2008................................... 96 CN344 Council Plan 2006-2010 Revised 2007 Third Quarter Progress Report July

2007-March 2008 ................................................................................................ 98 CN345 Documents for Sealing - April 2008 ................................................................ 100 CN346 Quarterly Financial Report - March 2008........................................................ 102

28 APRIL 2008 NOTICE OF MEETING ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF COUNCIL


5. CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

The Meeting may be closed to members of the public to consider confidential matters. RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Council close the meeting to the public pursuant to Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 to discuss any matter which the Council or special committee considers would prejudice the Council or any person.

6. CLOSURE OF MEETING

DOMENIC ISOLA CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

24 April 2008

28 APRIL 2008 REPORTS – ECONOMY AND EMPLOYMENT ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF COUNCIL


COUNCIL PLAN THEME – ECONOMY AND EMPLOYMENT REPORT NO:

EC23

REPORT TITLE:

Malaysia International Halal Showcase and World Halal Food Forum in Kuala Lumpur from 10 - 13 May 2008

SOURCE:

David Keenan, Director City Sustainability

DIVISION:

City Sustainability

FILE NO:

HCC06/580; HCC07/137; Personnel

POLICY:

-

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE:

A Council engaging with and advocating on behalf of its community

1. SUMMARY OF REPORT:

1.1 It is proposed that Cr Adem Atmaca and the Director City Sustainability attend the 5th

Malaysia International Halal Showcase (MIHAS) and subsequent World Halal Food Forum (WHF) to be held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in May 2008. It is recommended that Hume representatives attend as a number of senior representatives from Brunei will also be in attendance. This will allow the actioning of the Memorandum of Understanding that was signed in August 2007 to be undertaken.

1.2 Furthermore, Hume’s attendance at these events will allow Hume to explore other

Halal opportunities that may be applicable to businesses within Hume. 2. RECOMMENDATION:

That: 2.1 Cr Adem Atmaca and the Director City Sustainability be registered for the 5th

Malaysia International Halal Showcase and the 4th World Halal Food Forum to be held in Kuala Lumpur between 10 and 13 May 2008.

2.2 Cr Adem Atmaca and the Director City Sustainability meet with senior members of the delegation from Brunei, as well as investigating other opportunities for investment.

2.3 a written report be provided to Council on the outcomes of the conference and the forum. This report will include an update on negotiations with the Brunei Government.

28 APRIL 2008 REPORTS - ECONOMY AND EMPLOYMENT ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF COUNCIL REPORT NO: EC23 (cont.)


3. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The estimated costs for Cr Adem Atmaca and Director City Sustainability attending the conference and forum are as follows: Airfares & Accommodation $2,483.00 per person 5th Malaysia International Halal Showcase No cost 4th World Halal Food Forum $460.30 per person Out of Pocket Expenses $ 400.00 ----------- APPROXIMATE TOTAL: $6,286.60

4. BACKGROUND:

4.1 Brunei Halal Food Brand

4.1.1 In February 2007, Cr Atmaca and Mr David Keenan participated in a

delegation to Brunei to explore the possibility of Hume becoming the Australian headquarters for the Brunei Halal Food Branding program being developed by the Government of Brunei Darussalam in conjunction with a number of Bruneian companies.

4.1.2 The following month a senior delegation led by Dato Hamid Jaafar, Permanent

Secretary, Ministry of Industry and Primary Resources, Government of Brunei Darussalam visited Victoria and Hume City to further progress the establishment of the program.

4.1.3 Post these events, Hume City Council accompanied a number of other key players in the Halal food sector on a further Trade Delegation to Brunei in August 2007 where a major MOU was signed. This MOU related to the Brunei Government establishing a significant presence in Hume as well as interacting with both the Plenty Food Group and Kangan Batman TAFE. The MOU also supported the introduction of Royal Brunei Airlines flights into Melbourne International Airport.

4.1.4 This initiative has the potential to create jobs through the expansion of the

Hume economy and indications of impending investment continue to be positive with decisions likely to be forthcoming from the Brunei Government. This will include the potential establishment of a Halal Centre of Excellence facility and a Distribution Centre, as well as the accreditation of a number of Hume businesses under the Brunei Halal Branding initiative.

4.1.5 It is important that the relationship with senior officials from Brunei be

maintained and fostered to ensure tangible investment outcomes, for companies operating in Hume and the Melbourne International Airport.



4.2 Itinerary

4.2.1 The following itinerary is proposed:

(a) 9 May 2008 Travel to Kuala Lumpur

(b) 10 -11 May 2008 Attend 5th Malaysia International Halal Showcase

(c) 12-13 May 2008 Attend 4th World Halal Food Forum

(d) 14 May 2008 Return to Melbourne

5. DISCUSSION:

5.1 514 companies from 256 countries exhibited at MIHAS 2007 and the event attracted a

total of 36,792 visitors from 64 countries. MIHAS is a major Halal exhibition in the region and attracts significant food and beverage buyers from many ASEAN countries.

5.2 In 2007, a number of Victorian companies exhibited at MIHAS. As a result, it was reported anticipated sales of between $1.4 to $2.4 million by mid 2009.

5.3 Halal is a growing market sector of the food industry and Hume has been proactive in promoting it to food companies in Victoria as a means of potentially increasing growth.

5.4 Both the WHF and the MIHAS trade show in Malaysia are seen as the major global Halal events. The WHF attracts a number of prominent international speakers and people of influence within the Halal industry and has provided a useful platform for Australian / Victorian food companies to present before an international audience Australia’s position on Halal accreditation and integrity, domestic food regulation and animal humane issues that may affect Halal meat exports.

5.5 At the 11th Organisation of Islamic Councils (OIC) Summit in Dakar, the OIC gave the responsibility for the implementation of Halal initiatives to the Islamic Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ICCI). Its president, Sheikh Saleh Kamel will announce the global Halal programme, which involves standards and certification, at the 3rd World Halal Forum held on 12 May 2007 in Kuala Lumpur. It is important that Hume be present to understand the potential ramifications, including opportunities of this new Halal programme.

5.6 Meetings have been arranged at the WHF between Hume and Government officials from Malaysia and Brunei Darussalam.

5.7 Whilst in Kuala Lumpur, Hume City Council will: 5.7.1 report on events from the WHF 5.7.2 strengthen existing relationships and network with Government Officials, Halal

industry leaders and buyers from countries in the region 5.7.3 encourage partnership / investment in the Hume food industry and the Plenty

Food Group



5.7.4 promote Hume / Victoria / Australia as the largest predominantly non-Muslim food producing nation and its very strong understanding and ethical approach to the Halal food industry.

5.8 Apart from the above, it is important that Hume understands how the new global Halal program will be managed, delivered and importantly interpreted by other Halal countries. Hume’s attendance will be seen as enthusiastic and supporting of the previous work that has been undertaken with countries such as Brunei Darussalam and Malaysia.

6. CONCLUSION: The 5th Malaysia International Halal Showcase Halal Forum 2008 and subsequent World Halal Food Forum being held in Kuala Lumpur from 10 - 13 May 2008, there will be representatives from the key Brunei agencies attending both of these events. It is suggested that Cr Adem Atmaca and Director City Sustainability attend these events to reaffirm Hume City Council’s support for the Bruneian venture and to further develop relationships with key decision makers. This is consistent with the MOU that was signed in August 2007. It will also allow Hume City Council to be promoted as a destination for major investment to other attendees at the event.

28 APRIL 2008 REPORTS – ENVIRONMENT ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF COUNCIL


COUNCIL PLAN THEME – ENVIRONMENT REPORT NO:

EN24

REPORT TITLE:

Multicultural Planting Day 2007

SOURCE:

Rebekah Ritchie, Environment Officer

DIVISION:

City Sustainability

FILE NO:

HCC06/235

POLICY:

-


An environmentally aware community


This report details the response to resolution ABB082 raised 10 September 2007 “that Council assess and reviews the success of the Multicultural Planting Day (MPD) that took place on 9 September at Jack Roper Reserve”.

2. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council endorses the 2008 Multicultural Planting Day to be held at the Broadmeadows Valley Park, Sunday 17 August 2008.

3. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

3.1 The 2007 MPD had a budget allocation of $19,200.00. The actual expenditure for the

Planting Day was $20,567.00. 3.2 The 2008 MPD is estimated to cost $24,000 and this has been proposed in the

2008/09 budget. 4. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

The first Multicultural Planting Festival was held in 1996, with 10 community groups and 200 participants. The activity grew in popularity as the Community Greening Program engaged with more people across Hume, peaking in 2003 and 2004, when over 1000 people from over 20 community cultural groups attended and planted over 6,000 plants.

28 APRIL 2008 REPORTS - ENVIRONMENT ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF COUNCIL REPORT NO: EN24 (cont.)


The program was reviewed in 2006 when Council determined to return the focus to celebrating planting and decided to include more environmental education. Whilst the overall numbers of attendees have reduced in recent years, feedback on the environmental education and experience of those attending has been generally positive.

Figure 1. Participants, Community Groups and plants planted at MPD 2002 – 2007.

4.1 The 2007 MPD was attended by approximately 600 people from 23 community groups.

This is a decrease in attendance from the 2006 MPD that was attended by 900 people from 28 community groups. The following comments were made by the 23 Community Leaders during community consultation after the 2007 planting day: 4.1.1 Planting

The participants’ first priority on the day was planting – the community expressed a concern that not enough plants were planted on the day and that there was not enough water to water all the plants. This followed an earlier decision made by Council that each community member would plant one plant each in an attempt to achieve a higher vegetation survival rate. The community’s comments have been passed on to Council’s Greening Officer, and plants numbers will be increased. The community stated that the planting site was too physically disconnected from the rest of the activities. Planting sites are chosen for a variety of reasons, particularly ease of access and safety for community members and maintenance crews, however, the community’s opinion has been considered in the selection of the site for the 2008 MPD. On a positive note, the survey results showed that the pre-dug holes made the planting easy and more enjoyable.



4.1.2 Environmental Education

The community members surveyed stated that the environmental education was beneficial and practical. Some community members stated that people want to have more multicultural activities appropriate to the communities. These comments have been noted and will be further investigated through the 2008 community consultation process.

4.1.3 Community Participation

Those surveyed felt that community participation on the day was excellent and that everyone worked well together. However, they also stated that they felt there was less interaction on the day than in previous years (no community dancing or cooking) and that the Community Leaders needed to be more active in promoting this back to the Council. Community participation and involvement will be addressed during the 2008 community consultation process.

The community members surveyed felt the connection and mingling of the different communities was an important part of the day’s success. Many community members worked as volunteers on the day.

Some of those surveyed were concerned about the restricted entrance to the park, complaining that people had to walk a long distance to get to the event and that many people went back home. A complaint was also made that the registration table was not clearly visible. Both these issues have been noted and will be addressed for the 2008 MPD. Survey results showed that the buses were well received and those unable to drive really appreciated being picked up as there is limited public transport on Sundays.

4.1.4 Food

Many community members expressed an interest in preparing and serving sweets to the community.

Some community members expressed a concern that “the food labelled Halal made non-Halal communities feel rejected”. Both these issues have been noted and will be addressed for the 2008 MPD.

4.1.5 Promotion of the event

Survey results showed that there needs to be increased promotion of the event amongst the multicultural community, with a stronger commitment from the Community Leaders. There was limited publicity in the local newspapers and the attendance was decreased from previous years. This has been noted and will be addressed for the 2008 MPD.

5. DISCUSSION:

5.1 The Multicultural Planting Day provides Council with a unique opportunity to interact

with and experience other cultures, while creating cohesion and unity within the environment and our community.



5.1.1 Council is committed to increasing the level of environmental awareness and

understanding of Hume’s population including Hume’s Culturally Linguistically Diverse Communities (CALD). Hume City Council strives to provide an active leadership role amongst the ethnic communities. The annual MPD is well attended and recognised by the CALD community and achieves substantial Local Government commitments.

5.1.2 The Hume Greening Strategy was developed in 1996 to “Work with the people

of Hume to create a healthy, interesting and beautifully environment”. In 2006 the Natural Heritage Strategy superseded the Greening Strategy, and now governs Council-run community greening events. Since 1996, Hume City Council has held the annual MPD to celebrate the connection between community, culture and nature. The MPD combines environmental education with culturally diverse foods and entertainment. The Day helps Council forge strong links with local CALD communities, especially migrant refugees and new arrivals.

5.1.3 This annual event promotes a greater understanding of the natural

environment through environmental education, and the encouragement of community ownership of public and open space in Hume.

5.2 Proposed 2008 Multicultural Planting Day

5.2.1 It is proposed that the 2008 MPD be held at Broadmeadows Valley Park, Broadmeadows, on Sunday 17 August 2008.

5.2.2 Onsite parking is readily available at this site and the site is highly visible from

Johnston Street. The site is serviced by public transport and is within walking distance from the Broadmeadows train station.

5.2.3 The event will cater for Halal, non-Halal and vegetarian. Catering will be provided using on-site barbeques (BBQ), run by staff with a current Food Handling Certificate. Community members, supervised by qualified staff, will be able to participate in cooking the BBQ if they wish. Opportunities for the community to provide sweets, whilst complying with regulations, will be further explored.

5.2.4 The project team within Sustainable Environment Department will work in conjunction with the Marketing and Communications Department to ensure a broad and effective communications strategy is developed. Council officers will attend CALD community meetings to ensure the community is receiving relevant information about the MPD.

5.2.5 Council will act on issues arising from the surveys as outlined above.



6. CONCLUSION:

6.1 The Multicultural Planting Day is an important event that allows Council to engage

members of the Hume community that are otherwise not engaged with Council activities. The event is proposed to be held again in 2008, taking into account feedback from the community. The success of the MPD has led to large number of attendees, and it is proposed that the Multicultural Planting Day and its promotion be organised in conjunction with Council’s Marketing and Communications Department to ensure a successful event.

28 APRIL 2008 REPORTS – ENVIRONMENT ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF COUNCIL


REPORT NO:

EN25

REPORT TITLE:

State of the Environment Report - 2006/07 Financial Year Reporting

SOURCE:

Rebekah Ritchie, Environment Officer

DIVISION:

City Sustainability

FILE NO:

HCC04/416-02

POLICY:

-


An environmental sustainable City


1.1 The State of the Environment Report 2006/07 Financial Year (SoE) documents the

condition of the environment within Hume City, by providing information on the municipality’s water, waterways, native vegetation, fauna, pest plants and animals, greenhouse and waste. The SoE outlines the response by Council, the community and other agencies to these areas.

1.2 This year, a new format is proposed to be introduced. The format consists of a continued commitment to annual SoE reporting, however a condensed report will be printed for limited distribution (please see attached 2006/07 Financial Year SoE summary report). The comprehensive SoE, including case studies, links and where to obtain further information will be contained in the accompanying compact disc (CD).

2. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

2.1 adopts the State of the Environment Report 2006/07 Financial Year (as circulated

separately)

2.2 launches the State of the Environment Report on 29 May 2008

2.3 considers the future format of State of the Environment reporting in the context of the Environmental Sustainability Framework (ESF) review.


Costs associated with the SoE are covered by the existing budget.



4. LEGISLATIVE POWERS:

The Environment Protection Act 1970, Water Act 1989, Local Government Act 1989, Planning Environment Act 1987, Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994.

5. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

The Hume Sustainability Taskforce was provided with a draft copy of the SoE and invited to comment at its meeting held on 1 April 2008. Comments were provided by Cr Jessop, as the portfolio Councillor for Sustainability and Environment.

6. DISCUSSION:

6.1 Background

6.1.1 Hume City Council undertakes SoE reporting on an annual basis as part of its

commitment to environmental sustainability. This SoE is the sixth annual document of its kind to be prepared by Council.

6.1.2 The SoE aims to identify and report on the condition of key aspects of the municipality’s environment and actions being undertaken by Council, other agencies and the community to address the issues.

6.2 Data Collection 6.2.1 The Water, Waterways and Greenhouse chapters in the 2006/07 Financial

Year SoE report have more enhanced report and analysis. The improvement in data collection is a direct result of the new data tracking system created by Corporate Research and Sustainable Environment.

6.3 Printed and Electronic Format 6.3.1 The 2006/07 Financial Year SoE document will be produced in a condensed

format, with the full document, case studies and accompanying links on a CD, which can be readily reproduced as required.

6.3.2 It is proposed that the 2006/07 Financial Year SoE document and accompanying disc be printed in a limited run (200) with reprints created as necessary. This format ensures more efficient resource usage.

6.4 SoE Launch 6.4.1 It is proposed that the 2006/07 Financial Year SoE be launched on Thursday

29 May 2008 at 6pm in the foyer of the Council Municipal Offices.

6.5 SoE Review in conjunction with the ESF review 6.5.1 Council has embarked on a review of the ESF and it is expected that the

structure of SoE reporting be reviewed as part of the process.



7. CONCLUSION:

Hume has undertaken annual State of the Environment reporting for the past six years. Adoption of the 2006/07 Financial Year SoE and commitment to the new format is an important demonstration of Council’s commitment to pursuing sustainability and triple bottom line reporting.

28 APRIL 2008 REPORTS – APPEARANCE OF THE CITY ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF COUNCIL


COUNCIL PLAN THEME – APPEARANCE OF THE CITY REPORT NO:

AP17

REPORT TITLE:

Olsen Place Shopping Centre

SOURCE:

Danny Eaton, Manager Services

DIVISION:

City Infrastructure

FILE NO:

-

POLICY:

-


An attractive and liveable City


1.1 This report provides information and recommends alternatives available to remedy the

illegal dumping issues occurring at Olsen Place Shopping Centre.

1.2 The alternatives considered include additional street lighting, improved CCTV surveillance and monitoring, installation of temporary closures on the laneways and application of a levy for collection and cleansing operations within the shopping precinct.

2. RECOMMENDATION:

2.1 That Council resolves to close the southern laneway of the Olsen Place

shopping precinct due to the ongoing illegal dumping activities and unsightliness of the laneway. The closure will involve the installation of lockable gates at an estimated cost of $10,000 which will be locked between 8pm and 4am daily.

2.2 That the process to close the Laneway be commenced to accord with the Road Management Act 2004.

2.3 That Council improves the chainmesh fencing at an estimated cost of $9,500,

and establishes a recyclable enclosure in the northern laneway.

2.4 That the works above be carried out and funded from Council’s recurrent budget. 3. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

3.1 The works as required can be funded from Council’s recurrent budget.

28 APRIL 2008 REPORTS - APPEARANCE OF THE CITY ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF COUNCIL REPORT NO: AP17 (cont.)



Local Government Act 1989 Infringements Act 2006

5. DISCUSSION:

5.1 Olsen Place Shopping Centre and adjacent laneways has been used for illegal

dumping for sometime. A variety of strategies and services have been introduced to remedy the problems, however success has been varied and the dumping problem continues to be a major amenity issue.

5.2 The 2003 Urban Renewal Plan for the Dallas – Broadmeadows area identified many of the issues raised in this report relating to the Olsen Place Shopping precinct.

5.3 An analysis of the actions to remedy the issues faced in this area included the potential use of gates on the laneways to prohibit access during night-time hours. Traders still operating after the gates are closed will have pedestrian access to the laneway via their premises.

5.4 At the Council meeting of October 8, 2007 a Notice of Motion was carried in response

to community concern regarding the illegal dumping of rubbish at Olsen Place Shopping Centre. Council resolved to: 5.4.1 Prepare a report on the feasibility of closing both laneways that service the

site;

5.4.2 Prepare a report on the feasibility of introducing an annual waste management levy charged on all properties located at the site; and

5.4.3 Write to the Environment Protection Authority requesting that they launch an investigation into the constant large scale dumping of rubbish at the site.

5.5 Council is required to comply with the following procedure as outlined in Section 12

Discontinuance of Roads of the RMA 2004 to close the laneways. Section 12 states:

5.5.1 A road can be discontinued in accordance with this section.

5.5.2 The relevant coordinating road authority may in accordance with this section discontinue a road, or part of a road, by a notice published in the Government Gazette.

5.5.3 If a road is discontinued and the land is not Crown land, the land vests in the

coordinating road authority.

5.5.4 Subject to Subsection (11), the coordinating road authority:



(a) Advertise a public notice stating that submissions in respect of the proposed discontinuance of the road specified in the public notice will be considered in accordance with this section; and

(b) Give a copy of the public notice to each infrastructure manager which is

responsible for any infrastructure, of which the coordinating road authority is aware, installed in, on, under or over the road.

5.5.5 The coordinating road authority must consider any written submission which is

received by the coordinating road authority within 28 days after the publication of the public notice under Subsection (4).

5.5.6 Any person who has made a written submission to the coordinating road

authority and requested that the person be heard in support of the written submission is entitled to appear in person or by a person acting on behalf of that person at a meeting with the coordinating road authority.

5.5.7 The coordinating road authority must:

(a) fix the day, time and place of the meeting for the purpose of Subsection

(6); and

(b) give reasonable notice of the day, time and place of that meeting to every person who has lodged a separate submission and in the case of a submission lodged on behalf of a number of persons, to the person specified in the submission as the person to whom notice is to be given.

5.5.8 The coordinating road authority must take into consideration all the

submissions made under this section.

5.5.9 If Subsection (4) (b) applies, the coordinating road authority must have regard to the works and infrastructure management principles.

5.5.10 After the coordinating road authority has made a decision, the coordinating

road authority must notify in writing – (a) every person who has lodged a separate submission; and

(b) in the case of a submission lodged on behalf of a number of persons, to

the person specified in the submission as the person to whom notice is to be given - of the decision and the reasons for the decision.

5.5.11 Therefore if Council resolved to close the laneways, the following process would apply: (a) Resolution to discontinue road.

(b) Notice placed in Government Gazette.

(c) Public Notice placed seeking submissions regarding proposal to

discontinue road & Notice to Authorities / Agencies / companies with services within / under / above road.



(d) Meeting held to consider / hear submissions.

(e) Council to make decision and advise all submitters of decision and reasons.

5.5.12 The Road Discontinuation proposal would involve:

(a) Erection of 2.0 High metres gates within the southern laneway.

(b) The gates would be closed at dusk (by security patrol staff), and opened in the mornings by street sweeping staff when they attend the centre around 4.00 am or by cleaning contractors attending the public toilets. Additionally works would be carried out to secure adjacent chain mesh fencing along the laneway.

(c) The principle of closing the lane follows the practice in the UK where

“alley gates” are installed. An alley gate is basically a gate placed in an alleyway that when locked will prevent access. They are installed as a crime prevention measure to reduce dwelling burglaries, where access was gained from the rear, arson, casual dumping and anti-social behaviour. This can also lead to improved community spirit giving a sense of ownership of the alleys.

(d) Northern Laneway

(i) The Northern Laneway has been maintained in a reasonable condition with the traders regularly using the recycling collections provided. Discussions with the Caltex service station owner indicate improved cleanliness would be achieved by:

• fixing the chainmesh fencing • establishing an enclosure for containment of the recyclables • blitz the graffiti within the specific lane, and • establishing landscaping.

(e) The cost of implementing the associated fencing works is $9,500.

5.5.13 An Annual Waste Management Levy

(a) The Local Government Act 1989 Act No. 11/1989 – Clause 162 states that: (i) A Council may declare a service rate or an annual service charge

or any combination of such a rate and charge for any of the following services –

• the provision of a water supply;

• the collection and disposal of refuse;



• the provision of sewage services; • any other prescribed service

(ii) a service rate or service charge may be declared on the basis of

any criteria specified by the Council in the rate or charge. (b) This charge could apply for an enhanced waste collection regime to be

applied to the Olsen Place Shopping Centre traders bounded by Widford Street, Freda Street, Jacana Avenue and Nepean Street. Alternatively it could apply directly to those traders abutting the locations of significant (extra) cleansing.

(c) The waste collection program would include: (i) Recycling – the provision of a cardboard bailer positioned at a

location in the northern and southern laneways.

(ii) Waste – the provision of lockable 660litre mobile garbage bins at selected locations.

(iii) Manual cleaning of the precinct following the lunch time peak

period.

(iv) Additional reactive mechanical sweeping conducted following inspection by the manual cleaning crew.

(v) Provision of a quarterly hard waste service for the commercial area

between the northern and southern laneways.

(vi) Allocation and servicing of telephone book recycling station.

(vii) Provision of collection points for bread and milk crates.



(viii) Scheduling of quarterly RID squad covert surveillance operations to identify illegal dumpers.

(d) Council currently provides programmed cleansing services and reactive

dumped waste and litter removal and disposal at Olsen Place Shopping Centre.

(e) Annual cleansing related services at Olsen Place Shopping Centre cost

$69,400 as follows:

Service Frequency Cost ($) Manual Cleaning 6 Days per week $19,100 Mechanical Sweeping 6 Days per week $ 5,400 Litter Bin Collection 6 Days per week $18,700 Waste Collection Additional Services $ 2,600 Dumped Rubbish Reactive (26 per annum) $13,500 City Laws Investigations Reactive $ 3,600 Disposal As Required $ 6,500 TOTAL (Per Annum) $69,400

5.5.14 A summary of the services provided indicate that annual programmed services

cost $43,200 with reactive cleansing costing $26,200. Based on these figures, the Waste Management Levy would recover $935 from 28 properties (Total $26,200).

5.5.15 The levy proposal would be a second stage treatment if the laneway works

above were unsuccessful in reducing the amenity issues.

5.5.16 EPA / Litter

(a) Dealings with EPA have identified a preferred hierarchy of works when dealing with illegal dumping that is attributed to both shopkeepers and landowners. The hierarchy is to primarily concentrate on illegal land fills, and matters impacting on a large scale on the environment.

(b) In terms of localised illegal dumping issues the EPA recommend the

following staged approach for Local Government to action. EPA will not action enforcement within a local shopping precinct. The recommended approach has been implemented by Citylaws & Waste Services;

. (i) Extend waste / recycling collection capacity

This commenced approximately 18 months ago with the

engagement of a contractor, at no cost to the traders, or Council, to collect the trader’s waste cardboard twice weekly, and has been very effective to date.

(ii) Bin Infrastructure

An audit was conducted of the existing bins within the shopping centre, which resulted in new bins being allocated to the traders.



(iii) Apply increased enforcement Litter abatement notices have been served on four properties. The area is now constantly patrolled, including after hours surveillance via the RID squad.

(iv) Engender partnerships with landowners / shopkeepers

Officers have attended many traders meeting to discuss these issues, and the items above were implemented accordingly.

5.5.17 Additional Activities

(a) Street lighting of Olsen Place was improved with streetscape works

carried out in February 2003 with a capital works budget of $150,000. This involved the removal of the existing pavement, structures and street furniture from the central part of the mall. New surface, drainage, raised grass beds, trees, new street furniture and bins were installed throughout the length of the shopping area. The current lighting arrangements appear satisfactory.

(b) In 2005, an additional $50,000 was allocated for the installation of the

shade sails and a notice board.

(c) CCTV

(i) The CCTV equipment installed within the southern laneway at Olsen Place is a digital system incorporating a monitor and recorder with three (3) cameras covering the entire laneway.

. (ii) The installation of shouting surveillance at Olsen Place could

reduce the need for reactive cleansing activities and potentially reduce the need for the current six days per week programmed maintenance regime. Potential drawbacks relate to the shouting surveillance usage being in this area which is highly residential in nature and hence may not be the most desirable location for a trial installation of this type.

(d) A plan of the proposed treatments is attached for information.

5.6 It is considered that the range of recommendations contained in this report may have a

significant impact on traders and residents within the precinct around Olsen Place. Therefore it is proposed that the recommendations of this report be circulated to all residents and traders in the area bounded by Meredith Street, Graham Street, Ernest Street, Cooper Street and Jacana Avenue.



6. CONCLUSION:

The Illegal dumping activities and general unsightly appearance of Olsen Place Shopping precinct has been the focus of Councils activities for sometime. It is evident that a different (more targeted) approach using Gated laneways / surveillance and the potential of a waste management levy may be appropriate to resolve and minimise the detrimental impacts of illegal dumping.



Northern Laneway “New” Galvanised Chain mesh Fencing & Landscaping works

Southern Laneway Gated Barriers

28 APRIL 2008 REPORTS – TRANSPORT ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF COUNCIL


COUNCIL PLAN THEME – TRANSPORT REPORT NO:

TR52

REPORT TITLE:

Sunbury South Local Area Traffic Management Study

SOURCE:

Douha Khodr, Traffic Engineer

DIVISION:

City Infrastructure

FILE NO:

HCC08/54

POLICY:

-


A safe and effective freight and road network


This report discusses the Local Area Traffic Management study for Sunbury South area – bounded by Gap Road, Vineyard Road, Horne Street, Calder Freeway and the Urban Growth Boundary and makes recommendations for future traffic treatments.

2. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council: 2.1 adopts the Sunbury South Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) report.

2.2 refers the Sunbury South LATM traffic treatments to Council’s Capital Works

Program for consideration (as listed in Table 1).

2.3 informs the residents in the study area of the traffic treatments proposed for the area.


3.1 The total estimated cost to install the traffic management devices recommended in

Table 1 is $1,636,000.

3.2 The Victorian State Government through VicRoads has allocated funding to duplicate Vineyard Road and as part of the project it will include the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Mitchells Lane, Horne Street and Vineyard Road, at an estimated cost of $500,000. The road duplication is scheduled to commence early 2008 and be completed by late 2009.

28 APRIL 2008 REPORTS - TRANSPORT ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF COUNCIL REPORT NO: TR52 (cont.)


3.3 Developers of the Aldi Shopping Centre site are required to fund the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Gap Road and the access into the Aldi site at an estimated cost of $250,000.

3.4 The 2008/09 Capital Works Budget has not been finalised, however the following

projects at an estimated total cost of $140,000 will be considered for funding in the LATM works program. 3.4.1 Mitchells Lane, between Wilsons Lane and Horne Street – Install rubber road

cushions at an estimated cost of $130,000.

3.4.2 Charter Road East and Charter Road West, between Wilsons Lane and Elizabeth Drive – Line mark centre line with road reflective pavement markers at an estimated cost of $7,000.

3.4.3 Wilsons Lane, between Mitchells Lane and Learmonth Street – Linemark parking lane on east side and install ‘No Stopping’ parking restrictions on the west side at an estimated cost of $3,000.

3.5 The estimated cost of the balance of the projects is $746,000. These projects will be

referred for funding consideration in Council’s Capital Works Program.

4. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

4.1 A questionnaire was distributed to residents, schools, businesses and community

facilities in the Sunbury South LATM study area in November 2007. The questionnaire sought comments on a proposed traffic management plan for the area.

4.2 Approximately 3,000 questionnaires were issued with 397 responses received, representing a 13% return rate.

4.3 Resident responses to the proposed traffic management treatments are shown in Table 2.

4.4 Residents were asked if they experience any other traffic issues within the area; 85% replied they had concerns. Table 3 summarises their traffic issues responses.

4.5 The survey asked if there were any other parking issues within the area; 45% replied they had concerns. Table 4 summarises their parking issues responses.

4.6 A public LATM consultation and information meeting was held at the Sunbury Aquatic Centre in November 2007 during the LATM consultation period. Approximately 30 residents attended the meeting. Table 5 summarises the resident’s feedback.

4.7 The proposed rubber road cushions on Mitchells Lane, between Wilsons Lane and Horne Street received a low number of resident responses in favour of the proposal (59%). Further consultation was undertaken to affected properties to determine the views of the residents on Mitchells Lane only. Approximately 150 questionnaires were sent with 69% of responses indicating they were in favour of the proposed rubber road cushions. Table 6 summarises the resident responses to the proposal.



4.8 Sunbury Bus Lines (SBL) was consulted with Council’s proposed traffic treatments. The response indicated concerns as outlined below:

4.8.1 Wilsons Lane and Keith Avenue – Proposed Roundabout

SBL showed concern on the proposed roundabout as it would be detrimental to the traffic flow on Wilsons Lane. The proposed roundabout is not within the current bus route; however it will be designed to accommodate bus movements. It will also reduce traffic speeds on Wilsons Lane in the vicinity of the roundabout and not be detrimental to the traffic flow on Wilsons Lane.

4.8.2 Charter Road East – Proposed Road Humps Opposed the proposed road humps as school buses are required to travel on this road. The frequency of school buses servicing the road is low and the safety around the school must take priority over the low bus movements on this route.

4.8.3 Border Boulevard - Proposed Road Humps - prevent Border Boulevard being used as a future bus route Council does not consider Border Boulevard an appropriate road for any future bus route. Currently the road width and the roundabouts on Border Boulevard are not designed to accommodate bus movements through the estate. Council will ensure as part of any future development of the adjacent vacant land, adequate roads are provided to accommodate bus services through the area south of Mitchells Lane.

5. DISCUSSION:

5.1 Background

5.1.1 As part of the Hume City Council Plan 2006 – 2010, a commitment was made

to undertake a LATM study of the area of Sunbury South, bounded by Gap Road, Vineyard Road, Horne Street, Calder Freeway and the Urban Growth Boundary.

5.2 Existing Conditions

5.2.1 The Sunbury South area is a mix of new and old developments. In order to address traffic management problems and find possible solutions, a Local Area Traffic Management study was carried out.

5.3 Analysis

5.3.1 Automatic Traffic Surveys were undertaken on the majority of streets within

the LATM area. The traffic surveys results, crash statistics from the VicRoads database ‘Crashstats’ and a review of past requests from residents, were used to derive a proposed traffic managements plan for the area.



5.3.2 A questionnaire with a copy of the proposed traffic management plan was sent to all the residents in the area. The residents that responded to the LATM study showed support for a number of the proposed traffic treatments. The proposed treatments are considered to address the residents’ concerns.

5.3.3 Additional correspondence was forwarded to abutting residents of Mitchells

Lane between Horne Street and Wilsons Lane regarding the proposed rubber road cushions. The additional correspondence sent to the residents of Mitchells Lane assisted Council in providing a more accurate reflection of the attitudes of the residents directly affected by the proposed rubber road cushions.

5.3.4 As a result of the resident’s comments from the returned questionnaires and attendance at the LATM information and consultation session, it was required to undertake additional investigations.

5.4 Proposed LATM Treatments

5.4.1 A copy of the Sunbury South LATM report has been circulated to Councillors.

5.4.2 The recommended traffic treatments and estimated costs and funding source

are shown in Table 1.

5.4.3 Attachment 1 shows the Final Local Area Traffic Management Plan.

5.4.4 Attachment 2 shows the details of the traffic treatments.

5.5 Further Treatments

5.5.1 The proposed right turn lane intersection treatment at Mitchells Lane and Wilsons Lane has been investigated further as a result of the information meeting and resident responses. It is proposed to install a roundabout at this intersection. This will safely control all turning movements and assist in reducing traffic speeds on Mitchells Lane in the vicinity of the roundabout. This is included in the Final Traffic Management Plan.

5.5.2 Additional analysis was conducted on Anderson Road as a result of the information meeting and resident responses. It is proposed to install flat top road humps on Anderson Road between Mitchells Lane and Gap Road. This is included in the Final Traffic Management Plan.

5.5.3 Residents during the consultation period raised concerns about traffic speeds in Miller Street. It is proposed to linemark the centreline and install raised reflective pavement markers in Miller Street to reduce traffic speeds and improve safety. This is included in the Final Traffic Management Plan.

5.5.4 Residents that attended the public LATM consultation and information meeting raised concerns with regards to cars parking illegally on either side Mitchells Lane and Wilson Lane near the Eric Boardman Reserve causing congestion and issues with pedestrian safety. ‘No Stopping’ parking restrictions are proposed on the west side of Wilsons Lane between Mitchells Lane and Learmonth Street. This will restrict vehicles parking opposite the Boardman Stadium and pedestrians having to cross the road. It is also proposed to install



a parking lane on the east side of Wilsons Lane to provide protection to vehicles parked on-street. This will also provide additional supply at peak times. This is included in the Final Traffic Management Plan.

5.5.5 On roads where a number of residents raised concerns about ‘hoon’ driver behaviour it is proposed to undertake a Dangerous and Illegal Driver Program (DILL Driver Program) feedback form letter drop encouraging people to use the program. Residents on the roads below will be receiving a feedback form: (a) Marjorie Place and Bennet Court (b) Barrington Lane

5.5.6 On roads where a number of residents raised concerns about speeding traffic

and that did not meet Council warrants for traffic calming devices, it is proposed to place Council’s speed display trailer on the roads. This will display the speed limit and notify motorists of their travelling speeds on the following roads: (a) Charter Road West (b) Miller Street (c) Neill Street (d) Bradman Drive

5.5.7 On roads where a number of residents raised concerns about speeding traffic

that did not meet Council warrants for traffic calming devices, it is proposed to place ‘50km/h in my street’ reflective stickers on residents rubbish bins on the roads below: (a) Charter Road West (b) Miller Street (c) Neill Street

5.5.8 On roads where a number of residents raised concerns about the width of their road and difficulty parking on-street, it is proposed to send a letter informing residents of Council’s half cost indented parking scheme on the roads below: (a) Border Boulevard (b) Miller Street (c) Kingsley Drive

6. CONCLUSION:

The works recommended in the Sunbury South LATM report are well supported by the residents of the area and will be referred to various funding sources.



TABLE 1 – ESTIMATED COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES OF TREATMENTS

No. LOCATION DEVICE ESTIMATED COST

$

PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCE

1 Mitchells Lane – between Wilsons Lane and Horne Street

Install rubber road cushions

130,000 Council’s 2008/09 Capital Works Budget

2 Charter Road East and Charter Road West – between Wilsons Lane and Elizabeth Drive

Line mark centre line with road reflective pavement markers


3 Wilsons Lane Parking lane and restrictions


TOTAL – LATM 2008/09 CAPITAL WORKS BUDGET

140,000

4 Mitchells Lane at Wilsons Lane

Install roundabout 300,000 Council’s Capital Works Program

5 Anderson Road between Gap Road and Mitchells Lane

Install flat top road humps

60,000 Council’s Capital Works Program

6 Charter Road East – between Collins Street and Elizabeth Drive



7 Border Boulevard – between Stackpole Crescent and Cover Drive



8 Mitchells Lane – west of Wilsons Lane



9 Batman Avenue – between Gap Road and Blaxland Drive



10 Anderson Road – between Gap Road and Mitchells Lane



11 Wilsons Lane at Keith Avenue

Install roundabout 180,000 Council’s Capital Works Program

12 Anderson Road at Mitchells Lane

Install traffic splitter island and drainage


13 Burke Road – between Elizabeth Drive and Batman Avenue



14 Neill Street – between Anderson Road and Horne Street



15 Miller Street – between Anderson Road and Horne Street



TOTAL – COUNCIL’S CAPITAL WORKS PROGRAM 746,000

16 Gap Road near Aldi Shopping Centre

Traffic Signals 250,000 Developer Funded

17 Horne Street – At Mitchells Lane intersection

Traffic Signals 500,000 VicRoads funded as part of the Vineyard Road Duplication Project

TOTAL – EXTERNAL FUNDING SOURCES 750,000

TOTAL – COST OF ALL PROJECTS 1,636,000



TABLE 2 – RESIDENTS’ RESPONSES TO TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS

RESIDENT RESPONSES IN FAVOUR AGAINST UNDECIDED

LOCATION PROPOSED TREATMENT No. % No. % No. %

Border Boulevard – between Stackpole Crescent and Cover Drive

243 61 98 25 56 14

Mitchells Lane – west of Wilsons Lane 219 55 135 34 43 11

Charter Road East – between Collins Street and Elizabeth Drive


266 67 72 18 59 15

Anderson Road at Mitchells Lane

Install traffic splitter island 300 76 52 13 45 11

Mitchells Lane – between Wilsons Lane and Horne Street

Install rubber road cushions 233 59 119 30 45 11

Anderson Road – between Gap Road and Mitchells Lane

316 80 35 9 46 11

Batman Avenue – between Gap Road and Blaxland Drive

325 82 30 8 42 10

Burke Road – between Elizabeth Drive and Batman Avenue

320 81 32 8 45 11

Charter Road East and Charter Road West – between Wilsons Lane and Elizabeth Drive

320 81 29 7 48 12

Neill Street – between Anderson Road and Horne Street


314 79 33 8 50 13

Wilsons Lane at Keith Avenue

Install roundabout 260 66 84 21 53 13

Mitchells Lane at Wilsons Lane

Install splitter island, and insert separate right turn lane for traffic turning right into Wilsons Lane

322 81 38 10 37 9

Note: Residents responses not indicating “in favour” or “against” were considered undecided.



TABLE 3 – RESIDENTS’ COMMENTS ON TRAFFIC SAFETY ISSUES

LOCATION NO. OF

RESIDENTS COMMENTS EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROPOSED TREATMENTS Intersection of Mitchells Lane and Vineyard Road

124 Installation of roundabout or traffic signals

• VicRoads has committed funding to traffic signals at the intersection as part of the Vineyard Road Duplication Project scheduled to commence in April 2008.

Mitchells Lane 48 Poor road surface

• Council resurfaced Mitchells Lane between Horne Street and Reghon Drive in February 2008 as part of the 2007/2008 Resheet Program. This was completed after the consultation period.

Intersection of Horne Street and Gap Road

25 Request for traffic signals

• Council is in the process of preparing an application to VicRoads to replace the roundabout with zebra crossings with traffic signals.

Anderson Road 11 Speeding • Existing 50km/h speed limit. • 85th percentile speed 56.9km/h. • Average weekday volume of 1,330. • Proposed to linemark centre line and install raised reflective

pavement markers between Michells Lane and Gap Road. • Additional analysis and assessment has further proposed to install

flat top road humps along Anderson Road. Charter Road West

10 Speeding • Existing 50km/h speed limit. • 85th percentile speed of 56.2km/h. • Existing bus route – restricting physical treatments. • Average weekday volume of 361. • Proposed to linemark centre line and install raised reflective

pavement markers. • Proposed to place Council’s speed display trailer, which will display

the speed limit and notify motorists of their travelling speeds. • Proposed to place ‘50km/h in my street’ stickers on residential bins.

Intersection of Mitchells Lane and Anderson Road

9 Inverted Channel across Anderson Road

• Proposed to remove existing channel across Anderson Road and install drainage as part of the proposed traffic splitter island on Anderson Road at Mitchells Lane.

Marjorie Avenue/Bennett Court

9 Speeding • Existing 50km/h speed limit. • 85th percentile speed of 50.4km/h • Average weekday volume of 358. • Does not meet Council warrants for traffic calming devices. • Undertake a Dill Driver feedback form letter drop encouraging people

to use the program. Batman Avenue and Gap Road intersection

8 Intersection concerns

• Traffic signals are proposed at the intersection of Gap Road and the Aldi Shopping Centre access road. The traffic signals will create gaps on Gap Road to allow traffic exiting Batman Avenue to complete safer right turns.

Barrington Lane 5 Speeding • Existing 50km/h speed limit. • 85th percentile speed of 48.2km/h. • Average weekday volume of 301. • Does not meet Council warrants for traffic calming devices. • Undertake a Dill Driver feedback form letter drop encouraging people

to use the program. Miller Street 5 Speeding • Existing 50km/h speed limit.

• 85th percentile speed of 59.6km/h. • Average weekday volume of 417. • Some evidence of speeding however, does not meet Council

warrants for traffic calming devices. • Proposed to linemark centreline and install raised reflective

pavement markers. • Proposed to place Council’s speed display trailer, which will display

the speed limit and notify motorists of their travelling speeds. • Proposed to place ‘50km/h in my street’ stickers on residential bins.



LOCATION NO. OF

RESIDENTS COMMENTS EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROPOSED TREATMENTS Kingsley Drive 5

Traffic congestion

• The road width is 6.6m. • Road width allows vehicles to park on one side of the road

and allow a through vehicle to pass. • Notify residents of Councils indented parking bay cost

share scheme. Kingsley Drive 4 Extend to

Elizabeth Drive

• Proposed to extend Davenport Drive to provide a connection between Kingsley Drive and Elizabeth Drive as surrounding land is developed.

Neill Street 3 Speeding • Existing 50km/h speed limit. • 85th percentile speed of 58.3km/h. • Average weekday volume of 643. • Some evidence of speeding however, does not meet

Council warrants for traffic calming devices. • Proposed to linemark centreline and install raised reflective

pavement markers. • Proposed to place Council’s speed display trailer, which will

display the speed limit and notify motorists of their travelling speeds.

• Proposed to place ‘50km/h in my street’ stickers on residential bins.

Bradman Drive 4 Speeding • Existing 50km/h speed limit. • 85th percentile speed of 53.6km/h. • Average weekday volume of 618. • Does not meet Council warrants for traffic calming devices. • Proposed to place Council’s speed display trailer, which will


Wilsons Lane 3 Speeding • Existing 50km/h speed limit. • 85th percentile speed of 56.2km/h. • Average weekday volume of 2,240. • Proposed to install a roundabout at Keith Avenue

intersection. This will assist in reducing traffic speeds along Wilsons Lane and improve intersection safety.



TABLE 4 – RESIDENTS’ COMMENTS ON PARKING ISSUES

LOCATION NO. OF

RESIDENTS COMMENTS EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROPOSED

TREATMENTS Sunbury Town Centre

71 Not enough parking spaces available

• Council currently undertaking a parking and transport strategy of the Sunbury Town Centre as part of the Sunbury Structure Plan. Council is in the process of consulting with residents. Report scheduled to be completed by July 2008.

Sunbury Railway Station

25 Not enough parking spaces available

• Council currently undertaking a parking and transport strategy of the Sunbury Town Centre as part of the Sunbury Structure Plan. Council is in the process of consulting with residents. Report scheduled to be completed by July 2008.

Charter Road East – Outside Sunbury Downs Primary School

8 Not enough parking, congestion during peak school times

• The road width is 8.0m. • 21 angled car spaces and 16 parallel indented

parking spaces currently available. • Existing parking restrictions during school hours

provide balance between traffic flow and parking. • Council is not responsible to provide parking for

schools and will provide school with LATM study report.

Border Boulevard – Southern end

8 Street too narrow for cars parking on both side of the road

• The road width is 6.5m. • Parking is allowed on one side of the road allowing

one through vehicle to pass. • Notify residents of Councils indented parking bay

cost share scheme. Throughout Sunbury CBD

7

Request for more disabled parking

• Sunbury West LATM study indicated there is adequate disabled parking in the Sunbury Town Centre.

• No additional disabled parking bays proposed. Batman Avenue 6 Request for more

parking at Batman Avenue shops

• 22 parking spaces currently available, 14 spaces restricted to 1 hour parking and 8 unrestricted spaces on Burke Street.

• A parking survey found parking spaces well utilized and has adequate supply to service shops.



TABLE 5 – RESIDENTS’ COMMENTS AT LATM INFORMATION MEETING

LOCATION COMMENTS EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROPOSED TREATMENTS Mitchells Lane & Wilsons Lane –

Near Eric Boardman Reserve

Cars illegally parking on either side of the road causing congestion

• Parking is available within the car park. • Proposed to install ‘No Stopping’ parking restrictions on the

west side of Wilsons Lane opposite Eric Boardman Reserve. • Proposed to linemark a parking lane on the west side to provide

protection to vehicles parked on-street. This will also provide additional supply at peak times.

Wilsons Lane and Mitchells Lane

Intersection

Cars speeding through intersection – Request for a roundabout

• Additional investigation was conducted. • A roundabout is proposed at the intersection in lieu of the

proposed right turn lane and traffic splitter island. Miller Street Cars speeding and

not enough parking available

• Some evidence of speeding however, traffic speeds and volume counts do not meet Council warrants for traffic calming devices.

• Centre linemarking is proposed for Miller Street. • Proposed to place Council’s speed display trailer, which will


• The road width is 6.7m. • Parking is allowed on one side of the road allowing one through

vehicle to pass. • 20 angled parking spaces available outside Guides hall. • Site investigation conducted revealed adequate parking and no

evidence of traffic congestion. • Notify residents of Councils indented parking bay cost share

scheme. Neill Street Request for speed humps • Some evidence of speeding however, traffic speeds and volume

counts do not meet Council warrants for traffic calming devices. • Centre linemarking is proposed for Neill Street. • Proposed to place Council’s speed display trailer, which will


Anderson Road Request for speed humps • Some evidence of speeding. • Centre linemarking is proposed for Anderson Road. • Additional analysis and assessment has further proposed to

install flat top road humps along Anderson Road. Wilsons Lane and

Keith Avenue intersection

Request for roundabout to be installed at the intersection of Wilsons Lane and Marjorie Avenue, not intersection of Wilsons Lane and Keith Avenue

• Proposed roundabout at Keith Avenue and Wilsons Lane is more central to existing roundabouts on Wilsons Lane. A treatment at this location will be more effective in reducing speeds along the entire length of the road between Gap Road and Mitchells Lane.

Mitchells Lane

Concerned that rubber road cushions on Mitchells Lane would encourage motorists to use other local roads to avoid the cushions

• Mitchells Lane had excessive speeds recorded – traffic treatment required

• Vehicles can safely travel over rubber road cushions at speeds up to 50km/h, the speed limit of Mitchells Lane.

• Similar cushions were installed in Greenvale Drive, Greenvale. Traffic surveys conducted prior to and following installation recorded a reduction in 85th percentile speeds from 61.2km/h to 51.1km/h.

• No rat running is anticipated following the installation of the rubber road cushions on Mitchells Lane.



TABLE 6 – MITCHELLS LANE RESIDENT RESPONSES TO RUBBER ROAD CUSHION PROPOSAL

RESIDENT RESPONSES IN FAVOUR AGAINST UNDECIDED

LOCATION PROPOSED TREATMENT No. % No. % No. %

Mitchells Lane – between Wilsons Lane and Horne

Street

Install rubber road cushions 46 69 20 30 1 1

Note: It is assumed that residents that did not return the questionnaire have no objections to the proposal.



ATTACHMENT 1



ATTACHMENT 2

28 APRIL 2008 REPORTS - COUNCIL ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF COUNCIL


COUNCIL PLAN THEME – COUNCIL REPORT NO:

CN335

REPORT TITLE:

Statutory Planning Delegated Report April 2008

SOURCE:

Barb Jones, Administration Officer

DIVISION:

City Sustainability

FILE NO:

-

POLICY:

Hume Planning Scheme


Visionary, strategic and accountable leadership and service excellence


The following items were dealt with under Delegated Authority between 11 March 2008 and 7 April 2008.

2. RECOMMENDATION:

That the Report on matters determined under delegated authority be noted.

3. DISCUSSION:

MATTERS DEALT WITH UNDER DELEGATION

FILE PROPOSAL ADDRESS OF PROPERTY ACTION TAKEN P10054 3 Double Storey Dwellings 29 Wills St Westmeadows Extension of Time

Issued P11941 Six Dwellings 84-86 Ligar St Sunbury Amended Plans

Endorsed P12281 12 Two Storey Dwellings 1170 Mickleham Rd Greenvale Amended Plans

Endorsed P12207 2 Dwellings 134 Kitchener St Broadmeadows Amended Plans

Endorsed P10975 Subdivision 350 Craigieburn Rd Craigieburn Amended Plans

Endorsed P4302 Variation to Building

Envelope 2 Marshall Cl, Sunbury Amended Plans

Endorsed P12170 6 Showrooms, Café/food

Facility, Landscaping & Carparking

12-20 Reservoir Dr Coolaroo Amended Plans Endorsed

P12138 Consolidation of 4 Lots 78-84 Horne St Sunbury Amended Plans Endorsed

28 APRIL 2008 REPORTS - COUNCIL ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF COUNCIL REPORT NO: CN335 (cont.)


MATTERS DEALT WITH UNDER DELEGATION FILE PROPOSAL ADDRESS OF PROPERTY ACTION TAKEN

P12342 3 Dwellings 317 Camp Rd Broadmeadows Amended Plans Endorsed

P11178.01 Factory & Associated Offices, Reduced Car Parking

75-89 Link Dr Campbellfield Amended Plans Endorsed

P11554.03 Manufacturing Dairy Products

93-99 Blair St Broadmeadows Amended Permit Issued

P11741.01 Extension of Industrial Building

90-110 Maffra St Coolaroo Amended Plans Endorsed

P12157.01 Industry and Warehouse, Reduced Carparking

3 Quest Ct Craigieburn Amended Plans Endorsed

P12363.01 Warehouse Development with First Floor Offices & Carparking

41 Jesica Rd Campbellfield Amended Plans Endorsed

P9074.01 Place of Assembly (Reception Centre)

1-9 Eldon St Broadmeadows Amended Permit Issued

P9380.01 Place of Worship 340 Hume Hwy Craigieburn Amended Plans Endorsed

P12099 Additional Single Storey Dwelling to Rear of Existing Dwelling

58 Malmsbury Dr Meadow Heights Permit Issued

P12115 3 Single Storey Dwellings 22 Lalor Cres Sunbury Permit Issued P12147 Medical Centre/Chemist,

Retail, Food & Drink Premises & Signage with Reduced Parking/Loading Bay Requirements

1-9 Mareeba Way Craigieburn Permit Issued

P12152 Extension to Existing Building to be Used as Smoking Area

65A-67A Evans St Sunbury Permit Issued

P12242 Office/Retail Building with Reduction in Carparking Requirements, Remove Native Vegetation & Access to Road Zone Category 1

12-28 Johnstone St Broadmeadows

Permit Issued

P12262 4 Single Storey Dwellings 31 Geach St Dallas Permit Issued P12305 2 Warehouses with Offices,

Carparking & Landscaping 22-36 Reservoir Dr Coolaroo Permit Issued

P12312 Warehouse with Car Parking & Landscaping

Metrolink Cct Campbellfield Permit Issued

P12314 Single Storey Dwelling to Rear of Existing Dwelling

54 Emu Pde Jacana Permit Issued

P12317 Alterations & Additions to Existing Hotel Building – Bulla Hotel

78-82 Bulla Rd Bulla Permit Issued

P12330 Extension to Existing Office Building (VicRoads)

2-8 Pearcedale Pde Broadmeadows

Permit Issued

P12337 9 Warehouses with Ancillary Office & Showroom Components & Reduction in Car Parking

Metrolink Cct Campbellfield Permit Issued

P12342 3 Dwellings 317 Camp Rd Broadmeadows Permit Issued P12352 19 Double Storey Dwellings

– Proposed Lot 1223 Centennial Park Dr

120 Windrock Ave Craigieburn Permit Issued




Craigieburn

P12353 4 Dwellings 57 Rokewood Cres Meadows Heights

Permit Issued

P12358 2 Lot Subdivision 75 Spavin Dr Sunbury Permit Issued P12403 2 Storey Dwelling with

Attached Garage at Rear of Existing Dwelling

17 Oliver Ct Fawkner Permit Issued

P12459 Motor Vehicle Sales 55 Lara Way Campbellfield Permit Issued P12498 2 Lot Subdivision 14 Haven Ct Westmeadows Permit Issued P12502 2 Lot Subdivision 219 Gap Rd Sunbury Permit Issued P12530 Construct Staircase with

handrail to Existing Mezzanine

3/484-498 Mahoneys Rd Campbellfield

Permit Issued

P8046 Retirement Village & Removal of Native Vegetation

45-75 Cornish St Sunbury Permit Issued

S005234 3 Lot Subdivision (Multi Unit)

18 Riddell St, Westmeadows Statement of Compliance issued on 12 March 2008

S005192 8 Lot Subdivision (Multi Unit - Fountain Court Retirement Village)

45-75 Cornish St, Sunbury Statement of Compliance issued on 12 March 2008

S005295 Section 35 Plan of Subdivision(Acquisition of Road for Vic Roads Use - Hume Freeway)

200 Donnybrook Rd, Mickleham Plan Certified with Statement of Compliance on 12 March 2008

S005256 2 Lot Subdivision (Dual Occupancy)

17 Woods Cl, Meadow Heights Statement of Compliance issued on 14 March 2008

S005282 6 Lot Subdivision Stage 2

26 McKinley Dr, Roxburgh Park Statement of Compliance issued on 14 March 2008

S5101 7 Lot Subdivision (Industrial Factory/Warehouse)

104-108 Barry Rd & 92-94 Lara Way, Campbellfield

Plan Certified on 18 March 2008


21-23 Merola Way, Campbellfield Plan Certified on 18 March 2008

S5043 Plan of Consolidation 5 St. Ives Pl, Craigieburn Plan Certified with Statement of Compliance on 19 March 2008

S005252 2 Lot Subdivision 131-135 Malmsbury Dr, Meadow Heights

Statement of Compliance issued on 19 March 2008

S005266 2 Lot Subdivision (Existing Child Care Centre/Vacant land)

19 Bent St, Westmeadows Plan Certified on 20 March 2008


19 Agar Pl, Sunbury Plan Certified with Statement of Compliance on 1 April 2008

S005223 20 Lot Subdivision (Translink Business Park - Stage 4B)

76-78 Lillee Crescent, Tullamarine Plan Certified on 2 April 2008




S005298 3 Lot Subdivision (Multi Unit)

6 Ortolan Ave, Broadmeadows Plan Certified on 2 April 2008

S5071 2 Lot Subdivision 1360 Pascoe Vale Rd, Coolaroo Plan Re-Certified on2 April 2008


40 Lalor Cres, Sunbury Plan Certified with Statement of Compliance on 3 April 2008

S4874 16 Lot Subdivision Fairways Village Estate - Stage 35

Lot 1262 Moonah Pl, Craigieburn Statement of Compliance issued on 3 April 2008


21-23 Merola Way, Campbellfield Statement of Compliance issued on 4 April 2008


64 Eldorado Cres, Meadow Heights

Plan Certified on 4 April 2008

MATTERS DEALT WITH UNDER DELEGATION WITH OBJECTIONS FILE PROPOSAL ADDRESS OF PROPERTY ACTION TAKEN

P11820 2 Storey Dwelling to Rear of Existing Dwelling

173 Hothlyn Dr Craigieburn Notice of Decision Issued

P12109 Additional Double Storey Dwelling/Garage to Rear of Existing Dwelling

6 Mitchell Cres Meadow Heights Notice of Decision Issued

P12257 Medical Practice with Car Parking

24 Horne St Sunbury Notice of Decision Issued

P12276 3 Dwellings 38 Gordon St Tullamarine Notice of Decision Issued

P12278 3 Dwellings/Garage 36 Eyre St Westmeadows Notice of Decision Issued

P12282 Medical Centre with Carparking

332 Camp Rd Broadmeadows Notice of Decision Issued

P12401 Change of Use for Convenience Restaurant with Reduced Carparking & Signage

50A-217-219 Mickleham Rd Westmeadows

Notice of Decision Issued



REPORT NO:

CN336

REPORT TITLE:

VCAT Status Report April 2008

SOURCE:

Kerrie Birtwistle, Manager Statutory Planning

DIVISION:

City Sustainability

FILE NO:

T-3-1H Part 11

POLICY:

Scheme




This report lists and outlines current and outstanding Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) hearings.

2. RECOMMENDATION:

That the report on the status of matters before VCAT be noted.

3. DISCUSSION:

Since last reported, the following actions have taken place regarding VCAT appeals. 3.1 FUTURE APPEALS – HEARING DATES YET TO BE SET

3.1.1 Residential subdivision – Ardlie Street, Westmeadows

The applicant has appealed against conditions contained in the planning permit. No appeal date has been set yet.

3.1.2 Transport Depot – 49-63 Cooper Street (P12309) The applicant has appealed against Council’s Failure to determine the application. No appeal date has been set yet.

3.1.3 Four Warehouses and a Factory – 237 Hume Highway, Somerton (P7813)

The planning permit expired on 12 July 2007. The applicant applied “out-of-time” for an extension to the permit however Council is unable to grant the extension. The applicant has appealed against Councils decision to VCAT who is empowered to extend planning permits where they have expired. The application is likely to be determined “on the papers”.



3.1.4 Three unit development – 38 Gordon Street, Tullamarine (P12276) An objector has appealed against Council’s Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit. No appeal date has been set yet.

3.2 FUTURE APPEALS – HEARING DATES SET 3.2.1 Use and development of a Retirement Village and the removal of native

vegetation at 180 Riddell Road, Sunbury (P12012) The applicant has appealed against Council’s Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit. The hearing has been scheduled for 2 June 2008.

3.2.2 Use and development of a Coolstore/Greenhouse at Barbiston Road, Keilor (P8846) Negotiations continue between the landowner and the State Government with respect to compensation issues. A Mentions Hearing has been listed for 12 May 2008.

3.2.3 Cleanaway LNAPL Buildings and Works at Western Avenue, Melbourne Airport The appeal has been deferred pending the outcome of the Panel Hearing convened to consider the DCLC matter. A Mentions Hearing on the LNAPL application is now listed for 1 May 2008.

3.2.4 Dual Occupancy – 20 Landy Road, Jacana (P11978)

The applicant has appealed against Council’s Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit. The hearing has been scheduled for 10 June 2008.

3.2.5 Amended plans –front fence height – 74 Broadmeadows Road, Tullamarine (P7182.02)

The applicant has appealed against Councils Refusal to endorse amended plans increasing his approved front fence height. The hearing has been scheduled for 28 May, 2008.

3.3 APPEALS HEARD – DECISIONS PENDING 3.3.1 Nil.

3.4 APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED 3.4.1 Nil.



REPORT NO:

CN337

REPORT TITLE:

12 Buchan Street, Meadow Heights - Development of a double storey dwelling to the rear of an existing dwelling

SOURCE:

Kamal Hasanoff, Town Planner

DIVISION:

City Sustainability

FILE NO:

P12104

POLICY:




Application No: P12104 Proposal: Development of a double storey dwelling to the rear of

an existing dwelling Location: 12 Buchan Street, Meadow Heights Zoning: Residential 1 Zone Applicant: G Seyfullah Date Received: 17 August 2007 1. SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Council has received an application for the development of a two story dwelling to the rear of an existing dwelling at 12 Buchan Street, Meadow Heights. The application was advertised and four (4) objections were received. The proposal has been assessed against the objectives and standards of Clause 55 of the Hume Planning Scheme. Approval is recommended.

2. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council, having considered the objections, issues a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit for the development of a two story dwelling to the rear of an existing dwelling located at 12 Buchan Street, Meadow Heights, subject to the following conditions:

1) A4 Amended plans required

a) All first floor north, east and west facing habitable room windows within 9m of the adjacent boundary to be screened in accordance with Clause 55.04-6 of the Hume Planning Scheme (ResCode). Alternatives to obscure glazing should be used where possible to improve internal amenity.

b) A landscape plan in accordance with Condition 3 of this permit.



2) G2 Preparation of landscape plan 3) F1 Sealed parking/access 4) F3 Use of parking areas 5) F4 Car spaces clearly indicated 6) F15 Vehicle crossings 7) F16 Re-instatement of crossings 8) B14 Works prior to commencement use/development 9) G7 Landscaping before Use 10) G1 Landscape Completion and Maintenance 11) E5 Schedule of Materials/Colours 12) E2 External Finishes 13) D17 Garbage receptacles 14) D14 Refrigeration/Air conditioning Equipment 15) F17 Service relocation 16) No structure is permitted within the turning area, this includes entry steps, verandah

posts and landscaping. 17) H1 Drainage general 18) Prior to the commencement of the development a Stormwater Discharge Permit must

be obtained from Council. 19) Prior to the occupation of the development, provision of litter control at stormwater

inlet points within car park and paved areas must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All stormwater pits to be Channel Grated or Grated as per Council’s Standard Dwg SD 210/215 or SD225 respectively.

20) Prior to the occupation of the development, stormwater from all paved area must be retained within the property and drained to the sites underground stormwater system, including pavement over the easement area, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

21) No polluted and/or sediment laden runoff is to be discharged directly or indirectly into Councils drains or watercourses during and after the development.

22) Any cut or fill must not interfere with the natural overland stormwater flow. 23) C2 Expiry – Development Completion

3. PLANNING CONTROLS:

3.1 The site is located within a Residential 1 Zone. Pursuant to Clause 32.01-4 of the Hume Planning Scheme, a permit is required for the construction of two or more dwellings on a lot. The application must be assessed against Clause 55 of the Hume Planning Scheme.

3.2 The purpose of the Residential 1 Zone is:

‘To implement the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) and the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF), including the Municipal Strategic Statement and Local Planning Policies. To provide for residential development at a range of densities with a variety of dwellings to meet the housing needs of all households.’

3.3 Council is required to consider the SPPF, the LPPF and the Municipal Strategic Statement.



3.4 As it relates to the proposal, Clause 16.02 of the State Planning Policy Framework aims:

‘To ensure that medium density development is well designed and respects the character of the neighbourhood, improves housing choice, makes better use of existing infrastructure and improves energy efficiency of housing.’

3.5 Melbourne 2030 identifies the need to locate a substantial proportion of new

housing in or close to activity centres and other strategic redevelopment of sites that offer good access to services and transport, while aiming to ensure access to quality residential environments for all households by improving the supply of well-located affordable housing.

3.6 Two objectives of the Broadmeadows and Meadow Heights neighbourhoods are:

‘To develop Broadmeadows and Meadow Heights neighbourhoods as attractive and pleasant residential environments. To provide for a range of quality housing opportunities within Broadmeadows and Meadow Heights neighbourhoods.’

4. ADVERTISING:

The application was advertised to adjoining property owners and occupiers by mail and one notice board was erected on the site. Four objections were received.

5. DISCUSSION:

5.1 Background:

The site has no previous planning history.

5.2 Site and Surrounds:

5.2.1 The subject site is located on the north side Buchan Street, between

Redesdale Street to the east and Knight Court to the west in Meadow Heights. The site is generally rectangular in shape with a frontage of 16.8 metres, a depth of 44 metres and site area of 667sqm. The site has no appreciable fall. A 2 metre wide easement is located along the front (south) boundary. Whilst a restrictive covenant applies to the land nothing proposed by this development will breach the covenant.

5.2.2 The land is currently occupied by a single-storey detached brick dwelling

setback off all boundaries and extending for approximately 40% of the site length. The front setback is 6 metres. Open space is located at the rear. An existing crossover and accessway is provided adjacent to the west boundary.



5.2.3 The site is located within an established residential area, characterised by a mixture of housing styles. However, the neighbourhood is most typically characterised by a modest mix of post-war suburban housing remaining from the original subdivision. There are some more recent single and multi-dwelling development examples within the broader context of the neighbourhood, some of which are double-storey in scale. Properties have provision for on-site car parking.

5.2.4 The site is surrounded by residential properties, with backyards often

containing outbuildings. Specifically, to the north (rear) of the site are the rear yards of properties fronting Redesdale Street and Knight Court. To the south is Buchan Street, beyond which are further residential properties. To the east is a single-storey brick dwelling setback off the common boundary and extending for approximately 50% of the site length. To the west is a single-storey brick dwelling setback off the common boundary and extending for approximately 50% of the site length, open space is at the rear and the front setback is 6m.

5.2.5 The site is 400m south of a Local Activity Centre (Meadow Heights), and

within close proximity to open space reserves and community facilities. Meadow Heights Primary School is approx 400m to the north. Local bus service is on Redesdale Street (100m to the east) and Coolaroo Railway Station is 600m to the south.

5.3 The Proposal:

The proposal can be summarised as follows:

5.3.1 Retention of the existing dwelling. 5.3.2 Provision of a double carport (accessed via the existing crossover and a new

driveway adjacent to the west boundary) and open space of 25sqm for the existing dwelling.

5.3.3 Construction of one (1) double-storey dwelling to the rear of the existing dwelling.

5.3.4 Provision of a single garage with tandem space for the new dwelling (accessed via the existing crossover and a new driveway adjacent to the west boundary).

5.3.5 The maximum building height of the new dwelling is 7.2 metres. 5.3.6 Private open space of 40sqm for the new dwelling is proposed. 5.3.7 All new construction is set back off common boundaries except for the garage

to the new dwelling. The maximum boundary wall height is 3m. 5.3.8 The new dwelling will comprise ground floor entry, open plan living/kitchen,

laundry, bathroom facilities, with 3 first floor bedrooms and bathrooms. 5.3.9 The development is modern in styling yet utilises traditional elements such as

pitched roof forms, recessed building components and a mixture of external materials and finishes.

6. ASSESSMENT:

In considering this application, regard has been given to the State and Local Planning Policy frameworks, the provisions of the Hume Planning Scheme, in particular Clause 55, objections received and the individual merits of the application. On this basis, the following comments are made:



6.1 Clause 55.01 – Neighbourhood and Site Description and Design Response

6.1.1 An adequate Neighbourhood and Site Description and Design Response have been submitted pursuant to Clause 55.01.

6.2 Clause 55.02 – Neighbourhood Character and Infrastructure

(Incorporating Standards B1, B2, B3, B4, B5) 6.2.1 Neighbourhood character objectives seek to ensure that the design respects

the existing neighbourhood character or contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character and that development responds to the features of the site and the surrounding area.

6.2.2 The proposed two storey form at the rear is generally acceptable given

generous upper level setbacks (over 4m) to the north and west boundaries. On balance visual bulk impacts are considered reasonable and adjacent outbuildings provide an appropriate built form transition.

6.2.3 The two storey elements at the rear are setback 35 metres from the street

frontage behind the existing dwelling. Therefore, the new dwellings presence to the street is negligible.

6.2.4 Given these design factors and, more importantly, the contextual opportunities

afforded to the subject site, the proposed two storey dwelling is acceptable in terms of visual bulk impacts and will not unreasonably impact on the adjacent rear yards and the prevailing character of the area.

6.2.5 Generally, the proposed development provides a gradual increase in height

between ground and first-floor levels, with the first floor building envelope being smaller than that of the ground floor.

6.2.6 The existing dwelling is retained as part of the development, therefore,

preserving the established streetscape character. 6.2.7 Car parking facilities associated with the new dwelling have been setback

behind the existing dwelling so not to dominate the streetscape. 6.2.8 The proposed dwelling has been traditionally styled with respect to the

neighbourhood character in terms of dwelling style, mass, proportion, roof form and pitch.

6.2.9 The proposed dwelling has been appropriately located in the context of an

established urban environment and infrastructure, properly connected to all relevant services and utilities.

6.2.10 The Design Response adequately justifies the development in respect to

neighbourhood character.



6.3 Clause 55.03 – Site Layout and Building Massing

(Incorporating Standards B6, B7, B8, B9, B10, B11, B12, B13, B14, B15, B16)

6.3.1 Street setback satisfies B6 and is acceptable. 6.3.2 The building height satisfies B7 and is acceptable. 6.3.3 The two storey components are appropriately recessed and appropriately set

back from corresponding boundaries and do not conflict with the neighbourhood character.

6.3.4 Site coverage is approximately 44% and permeable space is approximately

36% of the overall land area, within standards B8 and B9 respectively. 6.3.5 The northern aspect is utilised for maximum energy efficiency. 6.3.6 Adequate areas for landscaping can be provided on site. A landscape plan will

be required as a condition of approval. 6.3.7 Council’s Traffic Engineers have confirmed that the car parking is acceptable. 6.3.8 Provision for 2 car spaces for each dwelling satisfies B16 and is acceptable.

6.4 Clause 55.04 – Amenity Impacts

(Incorporating Standards B17, B18, B19, B20, B21, B22, B23, B24)

6.4.1 The side and rear setbacks satisfy B17. 6.4.2 The new dwelling is recessed at first floor level, providing an appropriate

setback and transition to adjoining properties.

6.4.3 Boundary walls are limited. Maximum boundary wall heights and lengths comply with B18.

6.4.4 The first floor of the new dwelling has been designed with a reduced footprint to the ground floor building envelope, obscured by adjoining outbuildings and further recessed where the potential for visual impact may exist to sensitive interfaces.

6.4.5 Overshadowing is generally concentrated on the site itself and within

acceptable levels. 6.4.6 Any potential for overlooking from first floor windows of the new dwelling has

been addressed with minimum sill heights or obscure glazing to 1.7 metres above finished floor level.

6.4.7 Uses associated with the proposed development are residential, and as such, affected by noise impacts relative to what can be expected within this context.



6.5 Clause 55.05 - On-Site Amenity and facilities

(Incorporating Standards B25, B26, B27, B28, B29, B30) 6.5.1 Urban consolidation of the site, in the context of mainly single dwelling

development, provides an alternative housing choice to people in different stages of their life and affordability levels.

6.5.2 A porch entry area has been used to clearly identify the front of each dwelling. 6.5.3 The existing access arrangement has been utilised and modified to service

both dwellings. 6.5.4 Reasonable orientation of habitable room windows to sunlight and daylight

opportunities is made. 6.5.5 Open spaces are well orientated. All spaces are consistent with B28 and are

of size that will adequately serve the recreational needs of occupants. 6.5.6 Principal areas of private open space areas are suitably located to the north,

with extensive glazing providing a suitable connection between habitable rooms and external areas.

6.5.7 Private open space areas have scope to sustain an outdoor storage facility,

beyond the capacity of garage areas and internal cupboards. 6.5.8 Bicycles can be conveniently stored in the garage/carport or open space

courtyards of each dwelling.

6.6 Clause 55.06 - Detailed Design (Incorporating Standards B31, B32, B33, B34)

6.6.1 The established neighbourhood character of the area can be largely defined

by the single storey scale of modest post-war style of architecture. 6.6.2 The proposed dwelling has been designed to fit in this context by providing a

similar mix and composition of materials, as well as, styling which reflects the traditional character of the neighbourhood.

6.6.3 Moreover, the existing dwelling is retained and results in an unaltered

streetscape composition. 6.6.4 The articulated facade and recessed upper floor of the proposed two-storey

dwelling further serves to provide a transition and integrate the development within the scale of the existing built environment.

6.6.5 Front fences vary in style along the street but are generally low in height. The

existing dwelling currently does not have a fence and a fence has not been proposed as part of the new development.

6.6.6 In the event of a subdivision, common areas relate specifically to a small

portion of a shared access way which is functional and unlikely to present maintenance and management problems.



6.6.7 Outdoor clothes drying facilities can be appropriately provided within designated private open space areas.

6.6.8 Bins can be conveniently located in backyards accessible via access ways

and garages/carports. 6.6.9 Letterboxes must be provided in accordance with Australia Post standards.

7. SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS:

A summary of the objectors’ concerns and officer response follows: 7.1 Neighbourhood character, visual bulk & inadequate side and rear setbacks.

As described above, development of double storey form, particularly at the rear of sites requires careful consideration as it can create unreasonable amenity issues for neighbours. In this instance, the proposed two storey form at the rear is generally acceptable given generous upper level setbacks (over 4m) to the north and west boundaries. The upper level setback adjacent to the east boundary (1.8m-2.4m) is more problematic, given two storey at the rear is not typical in the neighbourhood context. Despite these reservations, on balance visual bulk impacts are considered reasonable. Furthermore, adjacent outbuildings provide an appropriate built form transition.

7.2 Overshadowing.

Overshadowing is generally concentrated on the site itself and within acceptable levels.

7.3 Overlooking.

Any potential for overlooking from first floor windows of the new dwelling has been addressed with minimum sill heights or obscure glazing to 1.7 metres above finished floor level.

7.4 Property devaluation & limit potential for development on adjoining land.

The devaluation of property is not a valid consideration for planning applications under the Hume Planning Scheme or Planning and Environment Act 1987. There is no definitive evidence to suggest that medium-density housing will depreciate adjoining property values. This has been confirmed by VCAT.

8. INFORMATION MEETING:

As a result of discussions with the applicant it was determined that they did not wish to attend an information meeting and therefore no meeting was held.



9. CONCLUSION: The proposal for two dwellings on a site area of 677sqm (1/338sqm) is not unreasonable in principle. The development will provide quality accommodation with a high degree of internal amenity. The development does not impose unreasonable amenity outcomes on adjacent properties. On balance, the development meets all relevant Clause 55 standards and objectives and is representative of site responsive design. Subject to appropriate conditions, approval of the proposal is recommended.













REPORT NO:

CN338

REPORT TITLE:

43 Waranga Crescent, Broadmeadows - Development of a double storey dwelling to the rear of an existing dwelling

SOURCE:


DIVISION:

City Sustainability

FILE NO:

P12398

POLICY:




Application No: P12398 Proposal: Development of a double storey dwelling to the rear of

an existing dwelling Location: 43 Waranga Crescent, Broadmeadows Zoning: Residential 1 Zone Applicant: Harry Sofianos and Associates Date Received: 27 December 2007 1. SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Council has received an application for the development of a two storey dwelling to the rear of an existing dwelling at 43 Waranga Crescent, Broadmeadows (Ref. Map 6, K8). The application was advertised and eight (8) objections were received. The proposal has been assessed against the objectives and standards of Clause 55 of the Hume Planning Scheme. Approval is recommended.

2. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council, having considered the objections, issues a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit for the development of a two storey dwelling to the rear of an existing dwelling located at 43 Waranga Crescent, Broadmeadows, subject to the following conditions:

1) A1 No layout alteration (use) 2) G2 Preparation of landscape plan 3) F1 Sealed parking/access 4) F3 Use of parking areas 5) F4 Car spaces clearly indicated 6) F15 Vehicle crossings



7) F16 Re-instatement of crossings 8) B14 Works prior to commencement use/development 9) G7 Landscaping before Use 10) G1 Landscape Completion and Maintenance 11) E5 Schedule of Materials/Colours 12) E2 External Finishes 13) D17 Garbage receptacles 14) D14 Refrigeration/Air conditioning Equipment 15) F17 Service relocation 16) Prior to the commencement of the development, consent to build over easement is

required from Council for the shed and carport located over the easement. 17) H1 Drainage general 18) Prior to the commencement of the development a Stormwater Discharge Permit must

be obtained from Council. 19) Prior to the occupation of the development, provision of litter control at stormwater

inlet points within car park and paved areas must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All stormwater pits are to be Channel Grated or Grated as per Council’s Standard Dwg SD 210/215 or SD225 respectively.

20) Prior to the occupation of the development, stormwater from all paved area must be retained within the property and drained to the sites underground stormwater system, including pavement over the easement area, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

21) No polluted and/or sediment laden runoff is to be discharged directly or indirectly into Council’s drains or watercourses during and after the development.

22) Any cut or fill must not interfere with the natural overland stormwater flow. 23) C2 Expiry – Development Completion 3. PLANNING CONTROLS:

3.1 The site is located within a Residential 1 Zone. Pursuant to Clause 32.01-4 of the Hume Planning Scheme, a permit is required for the construction of two or more dwellings on a lot. The application must be assessed against Clause 55 of the Hume Planning Scheme.

3.2 The purpose of the Residential 1 Zone is:

‘To implement the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) and the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF), including the Municipal Strategic Statement and Local Planning Policies. To provide for residential development at a range of densities with a variety of dwellings to meet the housing needs of all households.’

3.3 Council is required to consider the SPPF, the LPPF and the Municipal Strategic

Statement.

3.4 As it relates to the proposal, Clause 16.02 of the State Planning Policy Framework aims:

‘To ensure that medium density development is well designed and respects the character of the neighbourhood, improves housing choice, makes better use of existing infrastructure and improves energy efficiency of housing.’



3.5 Melbourne 2030 identifies the need to locate a substantial proportion of new housing in or close to activity centres and other strategic redevelopment or sites that offer good access to services and transport, while aiming to ensure access to quality residential environments for all households by improving the supply of well-located affordable housing.

3.6 Two objectives of the Broadmeadows and Meadow Heights neighbourhoods are:

‘To develop Broadmeadows and Meadow Heights neighbourhoods as attractive and pleasant residential environments. To provide for a range of quality housing opportunities within Broadmeadows and Meadow Heights neighbourhoods.’

4. ADVERTISING:

The application was advertised to adjoining property owners and occupiers by mail and two notice boards were erected on the site. Eight objections have been received to date. The grounds of objection are discussed later in the report.

5. DISCUSSION:

5.1 Background

5.1.1 The site has no previous planning history.

5.2 Site and surrounds

5.2.1 The subject site is located on the south east corner of Waranga Crescent and

Rodney Court in Broadmeadows. The site is irregular in shape with a frontage of 11.24 metres, a depth of 38 metres and site area of 582sqm. The site has fall of approximately 1.5m to the south. A 2 metre wide easement is located along the front (south) boundary. No restrictive covenant applies.

5.2.2 The land is currently occupied by a single-storey detached brick dwelling set

back off all boundaries and extending for approximately 40% of the site length. The front setback is 7.5 metres. Open space is located at the rear. An existing crossover and access way is provided off Rodney Court adjacent to the south boundary.

5.2.3 The site is located within an established residential area, characterised by a

mixture of housing styles. However, the neighbourhood is most typically characterised by a modest mix of post-war suburban housing remaining from the original subdivision. There are some more recent single and multi-dwelling development examples within the broader context of the neighbourhood, some of which are double-storey in scale. Properties have provision for on-site car parking.

5.2.4 The site is surrounded by residential properties, with backyards often

containing outbuildings. Specifically, to the south (rear) of the site is the front yard of a property fronting Rodney Court. To the north is Waranga Crescent, beyond which are further residential properties. To the east is a single-storey



brick dwelling setback off the common boundary and extending for approximately 50% of the site length. Open space is located at the rear. The front setback is 7.5 metres. To the west is Rodney Court beyond which are further residential properties.

5.2.5 The site is 800m east of a Regional Activity Centre (Broadmeadows), and

within close proximity to open space reserves and community facilities. Broadmeadows Primary School is approx 500m to the west. The local bus service is on Blair Street (200m to the west) and Broadmeadows Railway Station is 700m to the west.

5.3 Proposal

5.3.1 The proposal includes the retention of the existing dwelling. The development

will provide for a single carport (accessed via a new crossover and driveway off Rodney Court) and open space of 112sqm, construction of one (1) double-storey dwelling to the rear of the existing dwelling and fronting Rodney Court and provision of a single garage with tandem space for the new dwelling (accessed via a new crossover and driveway off Rodney Court).

5.3.2 All new construction is set back off common boundaries except for the garage to the new dwelling. Maximum boundary wall height is 3m.

5.3.3 The new dwelling will comprise ground floor entry, open plan living/kitchen,

laundry, bathroom facilities, study, with 2 first floor bedrooms and bathrooms. The development is modern in styling yet utilises traditional elements such as pitched roof forms, recessed building components and a mixture of external materials and finishes.

5.4 Assessment of Planning Issues

In considering this application, regard has been given to the State and Local Planning Policy frameworks, the provisions of the Hume Planning Scheme, in particular Clause 55, objections received and the individual merits of the application. On this basis, the following comments are made:

5.5 Clause 55.01 – Neighbourhood and Site Description and Design Response

5.5.1 An adequate Neighbourhood and Site Description and Design Response have

been submitted pursuant to Clause 55.01.

5.6 Clause 55.02 – Neighbourhood Character and Infrastructure

(Incorporating Standards B1, B2, B3, B4, B5) 5.6.1 Neighbourhood character objectives seek to ensure that the design respects

the existing neighbourhood character or contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character and that development responds to the features of the site and the surrounding area.

5.6.2 Development of double storey form, particularly at the rear of sites requires

careful consideration as it can create unreasonable amenity outcomes for neighbours. In this instance, the proposed two storey form is acceptable given



the corner site location and hence the new dwelling directly fronts the street and avoids two storey form directly adjacent to neighbours open space areas.

5.6.3 The two storey elements at the rear are set back 3.5 metres from the street

and the new dwellings presence to the street is notable but not out of place given two storey form to the street forms part of the built form character of the broader neighbourhood.

5.6.4 Given these design factors and, more importantly, the contextual opportunities

afforded to the subject site, the proposed two storey dwelling is acceptable in terms of visual bulk impacts and will not unreasonably impact on the adjacent rear yards and the prevailing character of the area.

5.6.5 Generally, the proposed development provides a gradual increase in height

between ground and first-floor levels, with the first floor building envelope sized less than that of the ground floor.

5.6.6 The existing dwelling is retained as part of the development, therefore,

preserving the established streetscape character. 5.6.7 Car parking facilities associated with the new dwelling have been set back so

not to dominate the streetscape. 5.6.8 The proposed dwelling has been traditionally styled with respect to the

neighbourhood character in terms of dwelling style, mass, proportion, roof form and pitch.

5.6.9 The proposed dwelling has been appropriately located in the context of an

established urban environment and infrastructure, properly connected to all relevant services and utilities.

5.6.10 The Design Response adequately justifies the development in respect to

neighbourhood character.

5.7 Clause 55.03 – Site Layout and Building Massing

(Incorporating Standards B6, B7, B8, B9, B10, B11, B12, B13, B14, B15, B16) 5.7.1 The street setback satisfies B6 and is acceptable. 5.7.2 The building height satisfies B7 and is acceptable. 5.7.3 The two storey components are appropriately recessed and setback from

corresponding boundaries and do not conflict with the neighbourhood character.

5.7.4 Site coverage is approximately 40% and permeable space is approximately

47% of the overall land area, within standards B8 and B9. 5.7.5 The northern aspect is utilised for maximum energy efficiency.



5.7.6 Adequate areas for landscaping can be provided on site. A landscape plan will be required as a condition of approval.

5.7.7 Council’s assessment has confirmed that the car parking layout is acceptable. 5.7.8 Provision for 2 car spaces for each dwelling satisfies B16 and is acceptable.

5.8 Clause 55.04 – Amenity Impacts

(Incorporating Standard B17, B18, B19, B20, B21, B22, B23, B24) 5.8.1 The side and rear setbacks satisfy B17.

5.8.2 The new dwelling is recessed at first floor level, providing an appropriate

setback and transition to adjoining properties.

5.8.3 Boundary walls are limited. Maximum boundary wall heights and lengths comply with B18.

5.8.4 The first floor of the new dwelling has been designed with a reduced footprint to the ground floor building envelope, obscured by adjoining outbuildings and further recessed where the potential for visual impact may exist to sensitive interfaces.

5.8.5 Overshadowing is generally concentrated on the site itself and within

acceptable levels. 5.8.6 Any potential for overlooking from first floor windows of the new dwelling has

been addressed with minimum sill heights or obscure glazing to 1.7 metres above finished floor level.

5.8.7 Uses associated with the proposed development are residential, and as such,

affected by noise impacts relative to what can be expected within this context.

5.9 Clause 55.05 - On-Site Amenity and facilities (Incorporating Standards B25, B26, B27, B28, B29, B30)

5.9.1 Urban consolidation of the site, in the context of mainly single dwelling

development, provides an alternative housing choice to people in different stages of their life and affordability levels.

5.9.2 A porch entry area has been used to clearly identify the front of each dwelling. 5.9.3 The existing access arrangement has been utilised and modified to service

both dwellings. 5.9.4 Reasonable orientation of habitable room windows to sunlight and daylight

opportunities is made. 5.9.5 Open spaces are well orientated. All spaces are consistent with B28 and are

of a size that will adequately serve the recreational needs of occupants.



5.9.6 Principal areas of private open space areas are suitably located to the north, with extensive glazing providing a suitable connection between habitable rooms and external areas.

5.9.7 Private open space areas have scope to sustain an outdoor storage facility, beyond the capacity of garage areas and internal cupboards.

5.9.8 Bicycles can be conveniently stored in the garage/carport or open space

courtyards of each dwelling.

5.10 Clause 55.06 - Detailed Design (Incorporating Standards B31, B32, B33, B34)

5.10.1 The established neighbourhood character of the area can be largely defined by the single-storey scale of modest Post-war style of architecture.

5.10.2 The proposed dwelling has been designed to fit in this context by providing a

similar mix and composition of materials, as well as, styling which reflects the traditional character of the neighbourhood.

5.10.3 Moreover, the existing dwelling is retained and results in an unaltered

streetscape composition. 5.10.4 The articulated facade and recessed upper floor of the proposed two-storey

dwelling further serves to provide a transition and integrate the development within the scale of the existing built environment.

5.10.5 Front fences vary in style along the street but are generally low in height. The

exiting dwelling currently does not have a fence and a fence has not been proposed as part of the new development.

5.10.6 In the event of a subdivision, no common property is required. 5.10.7 Outdoor clothes drying facilities can be appropriately provided within

designated private open space areas. 5.10.8 Bins can be conveniently located in backyards accessible via access ways

and garages/carports. 5.10.9 Letterboxes must be provided in accordance with Australia Post standards.


A summary of the objectors’ concerns and officer response follows:

6.1 Neighbourhood character, visual bulk & inadequate side and rear setbacks.

Development of double storey form, particularly at the rear of sites requires careful consideration as it can create unreasonable amenity issues for neighbours. In this instance, the proposed two storey form is acceptable given the corner site location and hence the new dwelling directly fronts the street and avoids two storey form directly adjacent to neighbours open space areas.



6.2 Traffic and parking:

To the extent that one additional dwelling is proposed, any increase in traffic and parking is considered to be insignificant and within reasonable expectations for an established residential area. State planning policies seek to promote appropriate urban consolidation opportunities and in this context there is strong strategic support for the development.

6.3 Overlooking.

Any potential for overlooking from first floor windows of the new dwelling has been addressed with minimum sill heights or obscure glazing to 1.7 metres above finished floor level.

6.4 Property devaluation & limit potential for development on adjoining land.

The devaluation of property is not a valid consideration for planning applications under the Hume Planning Scheme or Planning and Environment Act 1987. There is no definitive evidence to suggest that medium-density housing will depreciate adjoining property values. On the contrary, medium-density housing can in many instances increase adjoining property values on the basis of development opportunity speculation created by benchmark proposals. With the approval of development lies precedent for similar development to occur in the future provided relevant assessment criteria is satisfied.


As a result of discussions with the applicant it was determined that they did not wish to attend an information meeting and therefore no meeting was held.

8. CONCLUSION:

The proposed development complies with the provisions of the State and Local Planning Policy Framework and the relevant objectives and standards of Clause 55 of the Hume Planning Scheme. The development does not impose unreasonable amenity outcomes on adjacent properties and on balance, the development meets all relevant Clause 55 requirements and is representative of site responsive design.







REPORT NO:

CN339

REPORT TITLE:

18-20 Somerton Park Drive, Campbellfield - Use of an existing building for a materials recycling facility

SOURCE:


DIVISION:

City Sustainability

FILE NO:

P12059

POLICY:




Application No: P12059 Proposal: Use of an existing building for a materials recycling

facility Location: 18-20 Somerton Park Drive, Campbellfield Zoning: Industrial 1 Zone Applicant: Geoff Barry Date Received: 1 August 2007 1. SUMMARY OF REPORT:

Council has received an application to use an existing building for the purpose of a materials recycling facility at Lots 61-62, No’s 18-20 Somerton Park Drive, Campbellfield (Melway Ref. Map 180 D10). The proposal is considered inconsistent with objectives of State and Local Planning Policies for the Industrial 1 Zone. Refusal is recommended.

2. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council, having considered the application, resolves to issue a Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit for the use of an existing building for a materials recycling facility at 18-20 Somerton Park Drive, Campbellfield on the following grounds: 1. The use is contrary to the objectives of the State Planning Policy Framework and

Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement, particularly Clauses 17.03 and 21.03-7. 2. The use will result in a loss of amenity. 3. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding uses and would impact on

their long-term viability.



3. PLANNING CONTROLS: 3.1 The site is located in an Industrial 1 Zone. Pursuant to Clause 33.01-1 of the Hume

Planning Scheme, a planning permit is required to use land for a materials recycling facility.

3.2 The application must be assessed against State and Local Planning Policies and the purpose of the zone. The purpose of the Industrial 1 Zone is: “To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

To provide for manufacturing industry, the storage and distribution of goods and associated uses in a manner which does not affect the safety and amenity of local communities”.

3.3 Clause 15.04 of the State Planning Policy Framework relates to Air Quality within the municipality and has the strategic objective of:

“To assist the protection and improvement of air quality”. A means of achieving this objective is by implementing the following (relevant) strategies:

“Responsible authorities should have regard to the potential for conflict between land uses or development within a zone due to air emission impacts”.

3.4 Clause 15.05 of the State Planning Policy Framework relates to Noise Abatement

within the municipality and has the strategic objective of:

“To assist the control of noise effects on sensitive land uses”.

A means of achieving this objective is by implementing the following (relevant) strategies:

“Planning and responsible authorities should ensure that development is not prejudiced and community amenity is not reduced by noise emissions, using a range of building design, urban design and land use separation techniques as appropriate to the land use functions and character of the area”.

3.5 Clause 17.03 of the State Planning Policy Framework relates to industry within the

municipality and has the strategic objective of:

“To ensure availability of land for industry and to facilitate the sustainable development and operation of industry and research and development activity”. A means of achieving this objective is by implementing the following (relevant) strategies: Responsible authorities should, where possible, minimise inter-industry conflict and encourage like industries to locate in the same area.



3.6 Clause 21.03-7 of the Local Planning Policy Framework refers to the Campbellfield neighbourhood and notes the following relevant objectives:

“To create a vibrant and attractive industry and employment corridor that services local, regional and metropolitan labour markets.

To promote the significant location advantages of the neighbourhood.

To protect the activities of existing businesses and industry within the neighbourhood from the encroachment of sensitive land uses”.

The means of achieving this objective is by implementing the following (relevant) strategies: “Encourage the development and use of land within the Hume Highway employment corridor for a range of industry, warehousing and service business, subject to suitable separation from adjoining land uses and between different industrial activities. Improve the appearance and amenity of all industrial areas in the neighbourhood”.

3.7 The Industrial Local Policy which is found at Clause 22.01 of the Hume Planning

Scheme, reiterates the need to enhance the amenity and appearance of the City’s employment areas and concedes that such aspects of a neighbourhood strongly influence people’s impression of the City and the consequent investment that would be occur as a result.

4. REFERRALS:

4.1 The application was referred to Council’s Traffic, Civil Design and Environment

Departments for comment. 4.2 A non-statutory referral was also sent to the Environment Protection Authority (EPA)

for comment. Despite the EPA not being a statutory referral authority and the operators not requiring a works approval, the EPA have indicated that issues relating to dust, litter, noise, stormwater runoff and waste handling/management be considered and responded to accordingly.

5. ADVERTISING:

The application was advertised to surrounding properties by mail and one sign was erected on the site. Upon completion of the advertising, five (5) objections were received. The grounds of objection are discussed later in this report.

6. DISCUSSION:

6.1 Site and Surrounds 6.1.1 The subject site has an east facing 69.5 metre wide (approx.) frontage to

Somerton Park Drive and an overall depth of 95 metres (approx.) which combine to equal an area of approximately 6, 600sqm.



6.1.2 At present, there is a 2,400sqm (approx.) factory occupying the site which is set back from the street frontage by 27 metres. The factory contains several loading bays, a ground and first floor office component and general amenity areas. The building is constructed from a mix of concrete panels with glass and steel features incorporated. The factory is sited to occupy the top north-west section of the site with provision being made for car parking and landscaping within the front street setback.

6.1.3 The site is serviced by three driveways which are evenly spaced along the

front title boundary. Two easements exist, one that extends horizontally along the centre of the site and the other extending along the front title boundary.

6.1.4 Adjoining properties to the north, west and south and across to the east are all

occupied by large scale buildings which are occupied by varying light industrial uses.

6.2 Proposal 6.2.1 It is proposed to legitimise the materials recycling facility which currently

operates at the subject site. It is noted that the use is operating without a relevant planning permit and has been for some period of time. As a result of complaints from adjoining owners enforcement action was commenced against the occupant who lodged this application to legitimise the use that has been occurring.

6.2.2 The proposed materials recycling centre specialises in processing building

rubble from construction sites and general land fill.

6.2.3 The use proposes to utilise the external open areas for storage of material. There are currently large open bins, conveyor belt and various materials that are being stored externally.

6.3 Assessment of Planning Issues

6.3.1 Having regard to the State and Local Planning Policies and the purpose of the zone, the key issues are as follows:

Hume Planning Scheme Context

6.3.2 A material recycling facility is defined as land being used to collect, dismantle,

store, recycle, or sell used or scrap materials. Pursuant to the Industrial 1 Zone, a planning permit is required to use a site for a materials recycling facility. The use must be considered against the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks and the purpose of the zone.

6.3.3 A key purpose of the Industrial 1 Zone is to ‘provide for manufacturing

industry, the storage and distribution of goods and associated uses in a manner which does not affect the safety and amenity of local communities’. The intent of this objective is to encourage and promote professional, clean, and reputable industrial areas where inter-industrial conflicts are avoided through undertaking appropriate and orderly planning.



6.3.4 The intent and purpose of the Industrial 1 Zone is then supported by the wider policy context outlined in the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks such as through Clause 17.03 (Industry), Clause 21.03-3 (Campbellfield Neighbourhood) and Clause 22 (Industrial Local Policy) where the following are clearly stated in each Clause: Clause 17.03: ‘Ensure the availability of land for industry and to facilitate the sustainable development and operation of industry and research and development activity… Responsible authorities should, where possible, minimise inter-industry conflict and encourage like industries to locate within the same area…’ Clause 21.03-3: ‘Create a vibrant and attractive industry and employment corridor that services local, regional and metropolitan labour markets…. Improve the appearance and amenity of all (highlighted in bold for emphasis) industrial areas in the neighbourhood… Implement the Industrial Precinct Enhancement Program, targeting the Hume Highway industrial corridor as a priority area…’ Clause 22.01: ‘Appearance and amenity of development strongly influences people’s impressions of the City and the amount of investment by business and industry attracted to high quality environments…. …enhanced amenity and appearance of the City’s employment areas and gateway is a key objective in the MSS’

6.3.5 From reading the above, a clear impression is evident that Council seeks to

achieve high quality industrial environments that encourage investment, employment growth and that existing or potential businesses seeking to locate in our municipality have the assurance that they would not be adversely affected and that the health and safety of employees and visitors is not undermined. The health of individuals is noted as a key concern within the Hume Planning Scheme through Clause 15.04- Air Quality.

6.3.6 In addition, the framework goes as far as stating that policy initiatives such as

the Industrial Precinct Enhancement Program should be implemented within the Hume Highway Industrial corridor which the site forms part of. These programs aim to rejuvenate and improve the outlook of industrial areas within the municipality and ensure that businesses and individuals are not adversely affected. The program should be interpreted as supporting the abovementioned policy objectives and strategies in achieving their desired outcomes.



6.3.7 It can safely be said that the subject use (materials recycling facility) does not comply with the initiatives outlined in the program.

6.3.8 In conducting its operations, the proposed use has clearly demonstrated that it

has failed to comply with the objectives and strategies outlined in the Hume Planning Scheme for industrial areas and generated serious and significant amenity based issues such as dust, litter and noise which have been a general hazard to the area and surrounding occupants.

6.3.9 As a result of the conduct of the business over approximately the past 12

months, the site has been subject to persistent and ongoing enforcement action due to the appearance of the site and the processes that have been undertaken which have resulted in complaints from nearby property owners, a loss of amenity to the immediate area and portrayed this particular section of Campbellfield as unsightly, unprofessional and derelict. This impression of the business and the site certainly goes against all the relevant policy objectives noted within the Hume Planning Scheme and is a serious threat to business viability.

6.3.10 The applicant was given the opportunity to respond to the ongoing amenity

based issues relating to dust, litter, noise and unsightliness, however, no adequate response was provided and the issues highlighted continue to occur and cause serious problems.

6.3.11 The extensive trading hours, type of materials brought into the site, lack of

effective procedures in place to manage the various issues and the sites lack of a reasonable buffer distance from sensitive businesses has demonstrated the proposed use should not be able to operate from the subject site or area.

6.3.12 Such uses should be located in areas that are not heavily built-up or offer suitable buffer distances from sensitive uses, whether industrial or not. It would also be beneficial that such uses be grouped and concentrated into a particular area where the chances of causing widespread issues is limited and control and management of such uses is more easily achieved and maintained.

6.3.13 It is noted that there are other materials recycling facilities within the municipality that operate without causing off-site amenity impacts due to their choice of location. These businesses have located on sites which are not next to sensitive uses and benefit from sufficient buffer distances. They also have invested in implementing effective measures and procedures in managing the various amenity based issues referred to in the report.

6.3.14 If businesses such as the one proposed continue operating in such a manner

then it adversely affects other businesses and individuals, the viability of those businesses and the respective areas they are located in through lack of investment and increased vacancy rates. It also portrays a negative image of industry within the area and the municipality in general.

6.3.15 The above concerns have been well documented through Council’s Planning

Enforcement Department and through complaints received from neighbouring properties.




7.1 Increased heavy truck traffic in a small industrial street 7.1.1 The proposed traffic generation would be suitable and within the design

capacity of the street. This has been confirmed by Council’s traffic engineers.

7.2 Noise 7.2.1 There is concern that excessive noise is generated from the subject site due

to various sorting processes that are undertaken, particularly during the late evenings.

7.2.2 At present, there is no planning permit in place to require the site to conform

with State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No N-1 (in metropolitan Melbourne). Furthermore, it was determined that no noise attenuation measures where in place to reduce noise generated from machinery.

7.2.3 In the referral process, the EPA did not advise Council of any breaches of

noise related policies or standards.

7.3 Dust 7.3.1 Surrounding businesses have noted that dust emitted from the site is a real

and significant issue and that they have to undertake regular cleaning sessions to remove and clean rubbish/dirt generated from the subject site which has spilled over.

7.3.2 Council officers have found that due to the volume of land fill stored on the site

and the various other materials processed, dust is a significant issue both internally within the buildings and externally.

7.3.3 Since the lodging of the application the applicant has limited the storage of

materials outdoors, however, this has not prevented or eliminated the issue of dust emissions affecting the surrounding area and local employees.

7.3.4 It is considered that due to the target market of the activity in materials and its

proximity to sensitive uses, it makes the site unsuitable for a materials recycling facility. As stated earlier, the relocation of limited materials indoors has not avoided this issue. It is thought that the nature of the business would not be sustainable in the long term in such an area having regard to the context of the area and the restrictions it needs to comply with to operate without adversely affecting surrounding properties.

7.3.5 During the application process, a site visit was conducted which confirmed

that there was a serious problem with regard to the dust being emitted from the site. This inspection was conducted in conjunction with Council’s Health and Planning Enforcement Departments which reached the same conclusion.



7.4 Odour 7.4.1 Objections have been received that the site emits a “tip” like smell which

affects the local area. 7.4.2 Once again, there are no measures in place to prevent such issues, especially

within the external storage areas. 7.5 Debris/litter

7.5.1 There is significant concern with the amount of rubbish and loose particles that are being emitted from the site and spilling over onto the local street and adjoining properties. This issue not only affects amenity and the aesthetics of the area, but also raises concerns about their compliance with local laws.

7.5.2 At present, such issues have not been resolved and continue to occur leaving

the immediate area looking unsightly. The applicant has not adopted necessary measures to avoid the issue.

7.6 Vibration

7.6.1 Adjoining properties are complaining that machinery used on the site is creating vibrations.

7.7 Harmful waste

7.7.1 The report submitted indicates that hazardous materials such as asbestos will

not be accepted by the business/applicant. In any case, a business or entity accepting asbestos must hold a relevant license to do so.

7.8 Use does not comply with the objectives and strategies of the planning

7.8.1 There are concerns that the use does not comply with policy objectives

relating to industrial areas. There is validity in this objection which has been demonstrated in the early sections of the report.

8. CONCLUSION:

The proposal does not satisfy the strategic and orderly planning objectives of the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks regarding State significant industrial areas within the municipality. The proposed use is considered unacceptable on a site that does not benefit from sufficient buffer distances. To date, the use has demonstrated its incompatibility with surrounding uses and continues to cause serious amenity based issues relating to public health, dust, litter and noise. As a result, the proposed use can and should locate on a more appropriate site and therefore, the application should be refused.









28 APRIL 2008 REPORTS – COUNCIL ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF COUNCIL


REPORT NO:

CN340

REPORT TITLE:

250 Dalrymple Road, Sunbury - One evening only musical event

SOURCE:

Richard Siedlecki, Statutory Planning Coordinator

DIVISION:

City Sustainability

FILE NO:

P12316

POLICY:



Visionary, strategic and accountable leadership and service excellence.

Application No: P12316 Proposal: One evening only musical event to be held on 18th

October 2008 between 6pm to 12 midnight Location: 250 Dalrymple Road, Sunbury Zoning: Green Wedge Zone Applicant: Bernard Lakey

Date Received: 14 November 2007 1. SUMMARY OF REPORT:

An application has been received to stage a musical event on one evening only on the 18th October 2008 between 6pm to 12pm. A maximum attendance of 1000 people is proposed and no alcohol will be permitted onto the site or sold on the site. The event is for local and Melbourne based artists. Approval is recommended.

2. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council having considered the objections resolves to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for the purpose of a One Evening only Musical Event at 250 Dalrymple Road, Sunbury subject to the following conditions: 1. Before the use and/or development starts, plans to the satisfaction of the

responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must show:

• The location of any temporary structures, rubbish and recycling receptacles,

novelty and food stalls and sanitary facilities • A plan of the proposed stage

28 APRIL 2008 REPORTS – COUNCIL ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF COUNCIL REPORT NO: CN340 (cont.)


• The location of car parking areas • Traffic circulation in and out of the site.

2. Prior to the commencement of the use, the applicant must submit an Activity Containment and Trespass Prevention Plan including details of the type and location of signage to be erected and the location and frequency of regular patrols by trained security personnel of adjacent private land and around the perimeter of the subject land. This must include, but is not limited to:

• personnel numbers, management structure, roles, responsibilities, powers and procedures;

• details and frequency of security patrols internal and external to the property; • treatment and identification of property boundaries; • communication provisions; • security provisions and protocols for nearby property owners and residents

including a 24 hour contact number for adjacent property owners and occupiers to register any complaints including arrangements to advise those persons of the number.

3. D1 Amenity. 4. Prior to the use commencing a Waste Management Plan detailing the number of

bins to be provided, how rubbish levels will be managed and how rubbish will be removed from the site is to be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.

5. D9 Baffled Lighting. 5. No alcohol is to be available at the site or consumed on the site. 6. The use permitted by this permit may only occur on the 18th of October 2008

between the hours of 6pm to 12midnight. 7. Upon conclusion of the use permitted by this permit the site shall be left in a neat

and tidy condition. 8. All litter and rubbish must be removed from the site at the conclusion of the event

by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 9. A fully manned and operational CFA fire truck and additional water truck must be

on site for the duration of the event. 10. A minimum of two paramedics with a fully equipped ambulance must be on site

for the duration of the event. 11. Should any damage occur to Council’s roads as a result of the use hereby

permitted the applicant at his expense shall reinstate any damaged works. 12. Proof of public liability insurance with cover of no less than $10million must be

provided to the satisfaction of the responsible authority at least 14 days prior to the use commencing.



13. The manner in which all food and drink is provided at the event must be in accordance with the requirements of Council’s Health Services Department.

14. The parking of vehicles on the site must be supervised by car park attendants

provided by the applicant. 15. Prior to the event, a letter shall be forwarded notifying local stakeholders such as

the Police, Fire Brigade and Ambulance of the details of the event. A copy of this letter must be provided to Council.

16. An “Occupancy Permit” must be obtained from Council’s Municipal Building

Surveyor for the erection of all temporary structures on site prior to the event. 17. There shall be on the premises at all times whilst the property is used for the

purpose hereby permitted a person above the age of 18 years responsible for the good and responsible conduct of patrons and staff.

18. No patrons are to be present on site before noon on 18 October 2008 or after 2am

on 19 October 2008. 19. No more than 1000 patrons are to be in attendance on the site at any one time.

20. Noise emissions must comply with State Environment Protection Policy (Control of

Music Noise from Public Premises) No. N-2 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

3. PLANNING CONTROLS:

3.1 Clause 12.05-2 of the Hume Planning Scheme has as an objective “to maintain and

develop metropolitan Melbourne as a desirable tourist destination by nurturing artistic and cultural life”.

3.2 Clause 12.05-6 of the Hume Planning Scheme states as an aim to “develop a strong

cultural environment and increase access to arts, recreation and other cultural facilities by encouraging a wide range of arts, cultural and entertainment facilities”.

3.3 The subject site is zoned Green Wedge Zone. The use proposed is a Permit Required use.

4. REFERRALS:

The application was referred to Council’s relevant departments relating to traffic and health issues and no negative responses were received.

5. ADVERTISING:

The application was advertised by notice to all property owners/occupiers within a one kilometre radius of the subject site. Two notice boards were also displayed on the site. At the conclusion of the advertising period a total of six (6) objections were received. The grounds of objection are addressed later in this report.



6. DISCUSSION:

6.1 The proposal is to stage a one evening only musical event on the 18th October 2008

between 6pm and 12pm. No alcohol will be sold at the site nor will alcohol be permitted onto the site. Attendance is to be limited to a maximum of 1000 people. The applicants suggest an attendance of 600 is more likely.

6.2 The aim of the event is provide an opportunity for local musicians and artists to have a

starting point and possibly provide them with opportunities in the local business community. It is likely that there will be multiple stages where music styles divide the audience into young and old.

6.3 The proposed event is to be held on the property known as “Raymonde” at 250

Dalrymple Road, Sunbury. The site has an area of approximately 240 hectares and is one of the largest remaining farming properties in the Sunbury region. The northern boundary has a frontage along Settlement Road West while the southern boundary fronts Dalrymple Road. The western boundary has a frontage to an unmade road while the eastern boundary is a common boundary with four other properties.

6.4 Three properties with residential dwellings share the common eastern boundary. Seven

residential properties are directly opposite the site in Dalrymple Road. Two farming properties abut the site on the northern boundary.

6.5 The proposed stage will be located inside an existing hay shed approximately 220 metres from the eastern boundary, 500 metres from the Dalrymple Road boundary and over one kilometre from the north and west boundaries. The nearest residential dwelling will be approximately 550 metres from the proposed stage.

6.6 There are large and well established tree plantations immediately around the proposed

site and along the farms boundaries that will provide a visual barrier and will help in reducing noise levels.

6.7 Major access to the site will be from Calder Highway via the Couangalt-Munday Road

exit. This is the only exit point between Gisborne and Sunbury. The Munday Road and Dalrymple Road intersection is located some 800 metres from the entrance gates to the site. Dalrymple Road exits to Riddell Road to the east or via Bennett Road on to the Howey Street overpass to Gisborne to the north west.

6.8 There will be two entry/exit points to the site both entering from Dalrymple Road. These will be controlled and traffic flow directed as required throughout the event. Emergency vehicle access will be given priority over the second route that has direct access to the event site that is an all weather gravel surface laneway. Car parking areas will have marked entry and exit routes and lit where necessary. All vehicle parking will be on private land. Car parking will be provided for approximately 600 vehicles. Car parking will be directed by clearly identified staff. This staff will be in contact with a security firm via short range communication devices.



6.9 With respect to food and drink, the applicant is currently negotiating with the “Venturer” section of the Scout movement for the provision of hot and cold food and drinks. All revenue received from these sales will go the “Venturer” units participating to help support their activities. Once this is confirmed then a Temporary Food Stall application will be made to Council. Drinking water will be available for free on the site. The applicants are aware that they will be responsible for the removal of material from the site and correct disposal at the Sunbury waste facility. Separate bins will be provided for recyclable plastics and bottles and general waste.

6.10 In regard to any fire risk, a CFA manned, controlled and fully operational fire truck will

be on duty for the event. Individual fire extinguishers will be located by the stage, sound engineers tent and in refreshment tents. In addition a privately owned water tanker of 15,000 litres capacity with pumps and spray hoses will be site for the duration of the event. A five gigalitre irrigation dam is on the property within 400 meters of the event site. The dam has an outlet on a pump that can refill a water truck or fire truck.

6.11 To cover any medical emergencies two paramedics with a fully equipped ambulance

will be on site for the duration of the event. The ambulance is registered for the transfer of patients directly to a hospital if required. In addition a document setting out full details of the event will be passed onto Sunbury Police well in advance of the staging of the event.

6.12 Six unisex toilets are to be provided. These will be supplied, cleaned and maintained

by Riddells Creek Hire. 6.13 Security and crowd control will be provided by Mark Hogarth of HillTop security. The

security firm will supply walkie talkies for quick and affective communication between security people as well as those assisting in the supervision of car parking areas. He will use a motorised buggy to have good mobility to reach any potential issues quickly.

6.14 A 12,000 litre water tank filled from the Gisborne/Sunbury water main is located in the

event area that will provide drinking water free of charge. 6.15 There will not be any explosives, naked flames or shooting devices used in the event. 6.16 The event consists only of musicians playing musical instruments on a performance

stage. 7. SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS:

7.1 A summary of objections and officer response follows:

• Approval will create undesirable precedent for further such events.

This is not necessarily the case as any future proposals would need to be judged on their merits. Approval of this proposal doesn’t pave the way for any future proposals.

• Concern over fire risk.

The applicants have indicated that a fully manned CFA fire truck will be on the site throughout the duration of the event. In addition, a water truck will also be available.



• Concern over alcohol abuse and gate crashing.

The applicant has advised that no alcohol will be allowed on to the site. Security people will be in place to prevent any alcohol usage. A condition on permit will require the submission of an Activity Containment and Trespass Prevention Plan which will require the issue of trespass beyond the property boundaries to be addressed and managed.

• Concern over damage and theft on adjoining properties.

The concert is aimed at families and a wide demographic group. The musicians performing will not be high profile and will feature a wide variety of music. The crowd attending the event are not likely to cause the issues being raised by some objectors.

• Rubbish that will affect neighbouring properties.

The applicants have advised that they are aware of their responsibility as far as waste is concerned and will ensure they leave the site in a neat and tidy condition. Proposed planning permit conditions will require that the site be suitably managed in terms of rubbish containment.

• Concern that roads are not adequate.

Roads leading to the site are considered adequate enough to cater for the anticipated traffic for one night. If approval is granted a permit condition will make the applicant responsible for any damage to the roads.


The prospect of an information meeting was raised with the applicant who declined.

9. CONCLUSION:

9.1 The proposed music event is an attempt to provide low profile and novice musicians

with some exposure. The event is aimed at a broad demographic group with a variety of musicians and music being provided. Food and drink are likely to be provided by the Scout organisation that will benefit by raising some funds for themselves. One dollar will also be donated to the CFA for every ticket sold.

9.2 The event is not attempting to replicate the 1970s event. This event is significantly

smaller in scope and concept and is proposed to occur on one evening only. The applicants have provided details relating to alcohol, food and drink, fire risk, car parking, medical emergency, security, public liability insurance and waste disposal and in conjunction with appropriate conditions it is considered that the proposal is worthy of support.



ATTACHMENT 1



REPORT NO:

CN341

REPORT TITLE:

Hume Planning Scheme Amendment C71 - Mt Ridley Road Public Acquisition Overlay - Approval of Certified Amendment

SOURCE:

Craig Griffiths, Strategic Transport Planner

DIVISION:

City Sustainability

FILE NO:

HCC05/792

POLICY:



Visionary, strategic and accountable leadership and service excellence.


At the Council meeting on 29 January 2008, Council resolved to adopt Planning Scheme Amendment C71 (Report CN301). The Department of Planning and Community Development, acting under ministerial delegation has since certified the amendment and authorised Council to approve the amendment. The approval is a procedural matter following certification. As the certified documents are consistent with the amendment previously adopted for approval by Council, approval is recommended.

2. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council, having previously adopted Planning Scheme Amendment C71 with changes as recommended by the Independent Panel: 2.1 approves Planning Scheme Amendment C71 as certified under ministerial

delegation by the Department of Planning and Community Development on 2 April 2008

2.2 submits the approved amendment back to the Minister for Planning for publication in the Government Gazette.


Planning and Environment Act 1987.



4. DISCUSSION:

4.1 On 29 January 2008, Council resolved to adopt Planning Scheme Amendment C71 (Report CN301) and submit the adopted amendment to the Minister for Planning for approval. The adoption of the amendment was subject to changes recommended by the Independent Panel.

4.2 On 2 April 2008, the Department of Planning and Community Development, acting under ministerial delegation, certified the amendment and authorised Council to approve the amendment. The certified amendment is in the same form as adopted by Council on 29 January 2008.

4.3 The effect of Amendment C71 is: 4.3.1 Amends Planning Scheme Maps 10PAO and 11PAO to delete part of Public

Acquisition Overlay 2 (PAO2) Mt Ridley Road, Craigieburn between the alignment of the E14 and the Hume Freeway. Replaces the deleted part of the Public Acquisition Overlay 2 (PAO2) with a Public Acquisition Overlay 2 (PAO2) five (5.0) metres wide along the southern side of Mt Ridley Road, extending between the centre of the Aitken Boulevard intersection alignment and the boundary of the approved development east of Parkside Rise.

4.3.2 Amends Planning Scheme Map 11PAO to delete part of Public Acquisition Overlay 1 (PAO1) on the western side of the Hume Freeway from Mt Ridley Road, extending south approximately 900m.

4.4 Approval following certification. As the Department of Planning and Community Development has certified the amendment, and authorisation has been granted from the Department, acting under ministerial delegation, to approve the amendment, Council’s approval of the amendment is a procedural matter.

5. CONCLUSION:

Amendment C71, as certified by the Department of Planning and Community Development acting under ministerial delegation, is consistent with the amendment previously adopted by Council on 29 January 2008. Approval of certified Amendment C71 is therefore recommended.



REPORT NO:

CN342

REPORT TITLE:

Hume Planning Scheme Amendment C105 - Rezoning of land at 1 Cooper Street and 810 Cooper Street, Somerton

SOURCE:

Kim Giaquinta, Strategic Planner

DIVISION:

City Sustainability

FILE NO:

HCC08/33

POLICY:

-




1.1 In February 2008, Council received a request from VicRoads requesting to rezone land

at 810 Cooper Street, Somerton from Public Use Zone 4 to Industrial 1 Zone. This rezoning will facilitate the sale of the land to the owners of adjoining land. VicRoads has requested that Council request the Minister for Planning to administer the rezoning pursuant to section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. In exchange for the provision of land for a conservation reserve along Merri Creek, VicRoads has also negotiated the sale of the land to the adjoining owners of the land to the east of the site adjacent the Merri Creek.

1.2 The amendment also proposes to rezone public land recently exchanged by Parks

Victoria and the Istrian - Australian Social Club at 1 Cooper Street, Somerton. It is recommended that Council seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to ‘fast track’ the amendment. The amendment rezones land which is no longer in public ownership where the replacement zoning is clear and rezones land in public ownership to an appropriate public zone.

2. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:

2.1 seeks authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare Planning Scheme

Amendment C105 which rezones land at 810 Cooper Street, Somerton from Public Use Zone 4 to Industrial 1 Zone, includes land along the Merri Creek within a Public Park and Recreation Zone, removes the Environmental Significance Overlay from the land to be included in the Public Park and Recreation Zone and applies a Development Plan Overlay to the land, and rezones land at 1 Cooper Street, Somerton from Public Conservation and Resource Zone to Farming Zone 3 and land adjacent the Cooper Street



Grasslands Reserve to Public Conservation and Resource Zone in accordance with section 8A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987,

2.2 seeks exemption from notice requirements for the amendment as the existing planning controls are no longer required and the land is no longer to be included within a public zone, in accordance with section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.


Planning and Environment Act 1987.

4. DISCUSSION:

4.1 Subject Sites

4.1.1 The amendment affects land on both sides of Cooper Street, Somerton. The

land subject to the amendment located at 810 Cooper Street, Somerton is currently zoned Industrial 1 and is bound by the Merri Creek to the east, Cooper Street to the south and a stretch of VicRoads land to the west. The VicRoads land is currently zoned Public Use Zone 4 and was originally set aside to allow for the development of the Craigieburn Bypass but is now surplus public land as indicated in attachment 1.

4.1.2 The land subject to the amendment located at 1 Cooper Street, Somerton, is currently zoned Public Conservation and Resource Zone and is bound by Parks Victoria land to the east, Cooper Street to the north, Industrial 1 Zone to the west and Public Conservation and Resource Zone – Cooper Street Grasslands to the south. In addition, the amendment also applies to a narrow strip of land immediately adjacent the Merri Creek which is now owned by Parks Victoria as indicated in attachment 1.

4.2 Background

4.2.1 Land at 810 Cooper Street was originally purchased with the intention of

developing an industrial park consistent with its industrial zoning. A planning application was lodged with Council to use the land for an industrial park. The application was refused based on traffic, drainage and environmental grounds. In addition, physical site constraints and a restricted design layout with the existing property boundaries limited development opportunities for the site.

4.2.2 The proposed amendment seeks to respond to the site constraints and resolve environmental issues. This is subject to a land transfer agreement entered into by the owner (Victorian Transport Centres (VTC)) and VicRoads. Land owned by VicRoads is currently included within a Public Use Zone 4 – Transport, this land is to be rezoned to Industrial 1 Zone and exchanged with environmentally constrained land owned by VTC. The environmentally constrained land will be transferred to Council to form part of a park reserve and zoned Public Park and Recreation Zone. (Refer Attachment 2)



4.2.3 Two parcels of land at 1 Cooper Street, Somerton were recently exchanged by Parks Victoria and the Istria-Australia Social Club. The exchange was approved by the Minister for Planning and endorsed by Parks Victoria, Friends of Merri Creek and the Merri Creek Management Committee. As a result of this land exchange, land in private ownership is currently included in two zones, both public and private, which is not consistent with the Victoria Planning Provisions. The amendment will resolve this anomaly by rezoning the area of the land currently included in a Public Conservation and Resource Zone to Farming Zone 3. This land was offered to the club without compromising the values of the State significant grasslands nearby.

4.2.4 The second parcel of land involved in the land exchange includes a riparian strip adjacent the Merri Creek which is to be added to the Cooper Street Grasslands reserve. This land is currently in an Industrial 1 Zone and is proposed to be rezoned to a Public Conservation and Resource Zone, consistent with the public ownership and conservation values of the land.

4.3 Proposal

4.3.1 For land subject to the amendment located at 810 Cooper Street, Somerton

the amendment proposes to: (a) Rezone land from PUZ4 to INZ1

This rezoning will allow VicRoads to exchange the land to a private party by removing the Public Zone.

(b) Include the site to be developed within a Development Plan Overlay The Development Plan Overlay will provide clear guidance and requirements for the assessment of any proposals for buildings and works to the land. This will be approved to the satisfaction of Council.

(c) Include the land adjacent the Merri Creek in a Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ) This will enable the environmentally significant land to be transferred to Council as a reserve.

(d) Include land to be zoned PPRZ in an Environmental Audit Overlay Given that the history of the land is unknown, the rezoning of land from an industrial use to a more sensitive use requires the application of this overlay.

(e) Remove the Environmental Significance Overlay 2 from the site As the land will be included within a Public Park and Recreation Zone, this overlay is no longer required.

(f) Update the schedule to Clause 52.17 to include reference to native vegetation that can be removed, destroyed or lopped without a permit on the VTC property This will allow the VTC to remove, lop and destroy vegetation in accordance with an approved development plan and remove the need for permits.



4.3.2 For land subject to the amendment located at 1 Cooper Street, Somerton the

amendment proposes to: (a) Rezone land to the rear of the Istrian Australian Social Club to Farming

Zone 3 This will resolve a zone anomaly by consolidating the zone with the title boundary.

(b) Rezone land adjacent the Merri Creek owned by Parks Victoria to Public Conservation and Resource Zone This will include land in public ownership which has high conservation value into a public zone appropriate for the protection of these values.

4.4 Next Step – Fast Track Process

4.4.1 In accordance with the advisory note for fast tracking amendments, a protocol

has been developed to speed up processing amendments in certain circumstances. The fast track procedure involves using the provisions of section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Section 20(4) of the Act enables the Minister to amend a planning scheme, with exemption from notice requirements.

4.4.2 Planning Scheme Amendment C105 proposes to rezone land that is no longer in public ownership from the Public Use Zone where the replacement zoning is clear. This criteria satisfies the use of the fast track procedure and is supported in principle, subject to future detailed planning, by the Department of Planning and Community Development, VicRoads and Parks Victoria.

5. CONCLUSION:

The proposed amendment will enable the consolidation of uses consistent with the surrounding land uses and retain environmentally significant land in public ownership. The future development of the land, guided by a set of criteria stipulated in the Development Plan Overlay will ensure that the site is responsive to its surrounds whilst contributing to the ongoing role of the area as a key location for industrial activities. It is recommended to seek Ministerial authorisation to prepare the amendment and request the Minister to administer the amendment through a section 20(4) process.



ATTACHMENT 1 CURRENT ZONING



ATTACHMENT 2 PROPOSED ZONING



REPORT NO:

CN343

REPORT TITLE:

S173 Agreements-Building Over Easement-April 2008

SOURCE:

Peter Jolly, Municipal Building Surveyor

DIVISION:

City Infrastructure

FILE NO:

90.02.0002

POLICY:

Construct Buildings over Easements




This report details agreements entered into under Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act). It consists of three (3) S173 agreements relating to consent to build over easements granted with conditions during the period March 2008. Council is required to sign and seal the agreements for them to have effect.

2. RECOMMENDATION:

2.1 That the Agreements under Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act

1987 for each property listed be signed and sealed.

Ref. Address BRC20080025 Lot 73, No.1 Auburn Close, Craigieburn Vic 3064 BRC20080031 Lot 1225, No. 9 Sheridan Way, Roxburgh Park Vic 3064 BRC20080040 Lot 644, No. 14 Redesdale Street, Meadow Heights Vic 3048


3.1 Regulation 310 (1) of the Building Regulations 2006 requires the consent and report of

a council and other service authorities to an application for a Building Permit to construct a building over an easement vested in the council or service authority.

3.2 Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 enables a Responsible Authority to enter into an agreement with a landowner for an area covered by a planning scheme for which it is the responsible authority.



4. DISCUSSION:

4.1 Council has received applications to construct buildings over drainage easements and

can consent to these proposals pursuant to regulation 310(1) of the Building Regulations 2006. Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 enables Council, as the Responsible Authority, to require the owners of the subject properties to enter agreements with it.

4.2 The Municipal Building Surveyor has delegated authority to consent to construction over a drainage easement.

4.3 Council has adopted the Construct Buildings over Easements Policy, which guides staff in assessing such applications where easements are vested in Council. The procedure for assessing such applications is as follows: 4.3.1 Plans of the proposal, together with a copy of the property title and relevant

service authority comments (if available), are referred to the Traffic and Civil Design department for comment.

4.3.2 If the application is to be approved, the owner is required to enter into an agreement, made pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, which preserves Council’s interests in the easement.

4.3.3 When the agreement is completed, the consent is granted and a building permit can be issued.

4.4 Council must execute the completed agreement. The sealed agreement is lodged with the Office of Titles for registration on the Certificate.

5. CONCLUSION:

The signing and sealing of the listed agreements will finalise these consents.



REPORT NO:

CN344

REPORT TITLE:

Council Plan 2006-2010 Revised 2007 Third Quarter Progress Report July 2007-March 2008

SOURCE:

Andrew Trute, Coordinator Organisation Planning and Improvement

DIVISION:

Strategy & Organisation Development

FILE NO:

HCC06/152

POLICY:

-




This report and attachment details the progress of actions for the period of July 2007 to March 2008 of the Council Plan 2006-2010 (Revised 2007).

2. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council notes the progress of actions for the period of July 2007 to March 2008 of the Council Plan 2006-2010 (Revised 2007) [refer Attachment One].

3. DISCUSSION:

3.1 The Council Plan 2006-2010 (Revised 2007) was adopted by the Council on 25 June

2007, and a number of annual actions for this financial year have been determined.

3.2 Responsibilities for achieving these actions sit with Department areas or across Departments.

3.3 This report is a third quarter progress report on these actions.

3.4 This report is used to assist with good governance practices through reporting, monitoring and accountability to our residents and community.

3.5 A summary of progress with actions is tabulated below.



Progress No. actions at this stage % actions at this stage Completed (100%) 109 50 Significant progress (85+%) 26 12 Good progress (75%) 40 18 Some progress (50%) 26 12 Minor progress (25%) 9 4 Nil progress to date (0%) 0 0

Deferred ( ) 9 4

3.6 Nine actions which have not been achieved will be deferred:

• Undertake a Pre-Contact Heritage Study of Hume City • Commence implementation of the Community Safety Strategy • Implement the new risk management system ‘riskemap’ • Developing a draft plan for Stage 3 development works at the Broadmeadows

Leisure Centre • Implement outcomes of the review of library resources contracts • Implement Radio Frequency Identification for Library Services • Implement BCNR Learning Friends Project • Implement Inspired to Learn In Hume Awards • Implement Small to Medium Enterprises IT Program.

3.7 Nine actions were reported as 25% complete or below. 3.8 66 actions were reported as having some to good progress (50-75%) 3.9 135 actions were reported as completed or having significant progress (85+) made.

4. CONCLUSION:

This report and attachment provides a progress report on the third quarter progress of achieving annual actions of the Council Plan 2006-2010 (Revised 2007).



REPORT NO:

CN345

REPORT TITLE:

Documents for Sealing - April 2008

SOURCE:

Debbie Burgess, Ward Meeting Officer

DIVISION:

City Governance and Information

FILE NO:

-

POLICY:

-




The following documents are presented to Council for signing and sealing:

1.1 Creation of Easement in favour of Hume City Council, Reservoir Road Sunbury being

the land contained in Certificate of Title Volume 9505 Folio 393.

1.2 Creation of Easement in favour of Hume City Council, Hampton Street Craigieburn being the land contained in Certificate of Title Lot Y on PS606325T being Volume 11009 Folio 324.

1.3 Creation of Easement in favour of Hume City Council, Essex Way Craigieburn being the land contained in Certificate of Title Lot Z on PS606325T being Volume 11009 Folio 325.

1.4 Contract No. 30.08.1662 – Station Street, Sunbury – Road Widening Works – between Hume City Council and MJ Construction Group.

2. RECOMMENDATION:

That Council signs and seals the following documents: 2.1 Creation of Easement in favour of Hume City Council, Reservoir Road Sunbury

being the land contained in Certificate of Title Volume 9505 Folio 393.

2.2 Creation of Easement in favour of Hume City Council, Hampton Street Craigieburn being the land contained in Certificate of Title Lot Y on PS606325T being Volume 11009 Folio 324.



2.3 Creation of Easement in favour of Hume City Council, Essex Way Craigieburn being the land contained in Certificate of Title Lot Z on PS606325T being Volume 11009 Folio 325.

2.4 Contract No. 30.08.1662 – Station Street, Sunbury – Road Widening Works – between Hume City Council and MJ Construction Group.



REPORT NO:

CN346

REPORT TITLE:

Quarterly Financial Report - March 2008

SOURCE:

Fadi Srour, Manager Finance

DIVISION:

City Governance and Information

FILE NO:

40.01.0001

POLICY:

-




The quarterly financial report provides information to the community and stakeholders on the financial performance and position of Council as at 31 March 2008.

2. RECOMMENDATION:

That the Finance Report for the quarter ended 31 March 2008 be received and noted.


3.1 Reports

3.1.1 The financial statements consist of three main reports:

1. The Income Statement; 2. The Balance Sheet; and 3. The Statement of Cash Flows.

3.1.2 Two additional reports have also been included that show the level of

payments that Council directly makes to businesses, community groups, individuals and employees within Hume.

3.1.3 From a governance and accountability perspective, Council receives monthly

reports on key financial data with detailed commentary on variance analysis and actions being undertaken. The reporting of this key financial data on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis adds to the commitment Council has made to govern in an open manner and be accountable to residents for the management of resources and funding.



4. KEY FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

4.1 Income Statement [Attachment 1]

4.1.1 The Income Statement measures how well Council has performed from an

operating or recurrent nature. It reports revenues and expenditure from the activities and functions undertaken with the net effect being the resulting surplus figure.

4.1.2 Attachment 1 identifies that Council has generated $109.8m in revenue, has

incurred $79.2m in expenses and has generated a gain on disposal of property, plant and equipment of $0.5m for the nine months ended 31 March 2008. This has generated a surplus of $31.1m which is $7.5m ahead of budget.

4.1.3 Council’s Revenue Base

(a) The majority of Council’s revenue is derived from rates and charges.

During the financial year ended 30 June 2007, rates income was $71m. This equated to 50% of Council’s total revenue of $141.6m.

(b) For the nine months ended 31 March 2008, rates revenue was $57.9m

which equates to 53% of total revenue. Therefore, it can be seen that Council is heavily reliant on its rates revenue as a major source of income.

4.1.4 For the nine months ended 31 March 2008, the major items of revenue earned

by Council include: (a) Rates revenue $57.9m (b) Grants $18.5m (c) Contributions, including developer contributed assets $17.3m (d) User and statutory fees and charges $14.7m

4.1.5 Council’s Expense Base

(a) The majority of Council’s expenses relates to employee benefits. During

the financial year ended 30 June 2007, employee benefits were $48.4m. This equated to 45% of Council’s total expenses of $108.6m.

(b) For the nine months ended 31 March 2008, employee benefits were

$36.9m which equates to 47% of total expenditure for the same period.

4.1.6 For the nine months ended 31 March 2008, the major items of expenditure incurred by Council include: (a) Employee benefits $36.9m (b) Materials and services $22.4m (c) Depreciation and amortisation $12.5m



4.2 Balance Sheet [Attachment 2]

4.2.1 The Balance Sheet is a statement at a point in time which shows all the

resources controlled by Council and the obligations of Council. The aim of the Balance Sheet is to summarise the information contained in the accounting records relating to assets, liabilities and equity in a clear and intelligible form.

4.2.2 The major item on the Balance Sheet consists of property, plant and

equipment, infrastructure. These fixed assets made up 93% of Council’s total asset base in 2006/07 – a total of $1,012.9m. As at 31 March 2008, fixed assets also made up 93% of Council’s total asset base – a total of $1,030m.

4.2.3 The impact of sound financial management can be seen in the ratepayer

equity of $1,063.3m which reflects the strong financial position of Council. The information contained within the Balance Sheet also demonstrates that liquidity is strong as demonstrated by the favourable cash balance. Council assets are increasing, which is largely due to developer contributed assets and a substantial capital works program. All of these factors have led to a favourable set of key ratios as identified in this report.

4.3 Statement of Cash Flows [Attachment 3]

4.3.1 The Statement of Cash Flows shows what was actually received and paid by

Council, not what was owed or what was recorded. This is largely why it is different to the Income Statement which shows what income was raised and payments incurred during the same period.

4.3.2 For example, Council may make a purchase of some goods/services today but

may not make payment for those goods/services for another 30 days (credit terms). However, as the goods/services have already been provided, the accounting standards require that the cost of these goods/services be recorded in the Income Statement as soon as they have been provided.

4.3.3 Another reason for the difference between the surplus figure reported in the

Income Statement and the Cash Flow Statement is the significant level of non-monetary contributed assets recorded as income, $15.8m to 31 March 2008, (in the Income Statement) with no resulting cash receipts.

4.3.4 For the nine months ended 31 March 2008, Council’s cash position is $10.1m

favourable to budget. The reason for this is due to the following:

(a) Rates income received ahead of budget due to higher supplementary rates and improved debtor management practices;

(b) Contributions received above budget; (c) Interest received above budget due to higher cash balances held

throughout the year; (d) User fees received ahead of budget predominantly as a result of a GST

refund; and (e) Favourable timing differences for payments relating to materials,

contractors and capital works.



4.4 Buying Local [Attachment 4]

4.4.1 The Buying Local Report highlights the level of payments made to businesses,

community groups and individuals within the municipality by Council. The report includes payments for grants and contributions, materials and services, building and utility costs and contractor and other services. For the nine months to 31 March 2008, Council made payments to local suppliers totalling $7.8m. Significantly, the level of local expenditure as a proportion of Council’s total payments to suppliers (including capital works) was 19% for this period.

4.4.2 It should be noted that the report only includes payments to suppliers whose

mailing address is listed within Hume. There is therefore the possibility that the level of payments to local suppliers is in fact higher.

4.5 Employees Residing within Hume [Attachment 5]

4.5.1 The Employees Residing within Hume Report highlights the level of salaries

paid to employees who reside within Hume and also the number of employees who reside within Hume.

4.5.2 For the nine months to 31 March 2008, Council paid salaries to employees

residing within Hume totalling $16.4m, representing 44% of total employee benefits paid. Also for the nine months to 31 March 2008, there were 835 employees residing within Hume representing 58% of total employees.

4.6 Financial Ratios

4.6.1 The following financial ratios are required to be included in Council’s financial

report at year-end. Although their value may be limited as key financial indicators, they do provide information on trends.

Ratios Nine

Months to 31-

Mar-08 2007/08

Nine Months to 31-

Mar-07 2006/07

Twelve Months to 30-

Jun-07 2006/07

Debt Servicing Ratio This ratio measures the extent to which long-term debt is impacting on the annual total income of Council and identifies the capacity of Council to service outstanding debt. The ratio expresses the amount of interest paid as a percentage of Council’s total revenue. (The lower the ratio the better).

1.31%

1.69%

1.32%

Debt Commitment Ratio This ratio identifies Council’s debt redemption strategy and expresses the percentage of rate revenue utilised to pay interest and redeem debt principal. (The lower the ratio the better).

5.99%

6.68%

5.45%



Ratios Nine Months to 31-

Mar-08 2007/08

Nine Months to 31-

Mar-07 2006/07

Twelve Months to 30-

Jun-07 2006/07

Revenue Ratio This ratio identifies Council’s reliance on rates as a source of income. (The lower the ratio the better).

52.74%

49.69%

50.12%

Debt Exposure Ratio This ratio identifies Council’s exposure to debt and expresses the total indebtedness to total realisable assets. (The lower the ratio the better).

6.72%

7.23%

9.01%

Working Capital Ratio This ratio identifies Council’s ability to meet current liabilities and enables an assessment of Council’s liquidity and solvency. The ratio compares the current assets to current liabilities. (The higher the ratio the better).

253.27%

215.57%

137.45%

5. CONCLUSION:

The quarterly report has been prepared on an accrual basis and in accordance with accounting practices, including an Income Statement, Balance Sheet and Statement of Cash Flows. Council's financial performance is ahead of expectations.