Ordinary Council Meeting 2017-02-22 Agenda

Council Meeting Agenda
Ordinary Council Meeting

Wednesday 22 February 2017 at 7.00pm
Gisborne Administration Centre
40 Robertson Street, Gisborne
Public Question Time: Attachments:
Written questions submitted by All attachments are available for viewing
the public will be considered at or downloading from Councils website,
7.45pm. Question forms will be mrsc.vic.gov.au
available at the entrance to the
meeting room and will be
collected at approximately
7.30pm.
Recording of Council Meetings:

The recording of Council
Meetings, either visually or by
sound, or the taking of
photographs in Council Meetings
is not permitted without first
obtaining the consent of Council
or the Chairperson.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 1 of 3
ITEM SUBJECT PAGE NO.
1. Prayer 1
2. Present 1
3. Apologies 1
4. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest 1
5. Mayors Report 2
6. Petitions 2
7. Adoption of Minutes 2
8. Record of Assemblies of Councillors 2
9. Deputations and Presentations to Council 8
Persons (applicant and objectors) who have made a

submission on a land use and development application to be
considered at this meeting may address the Council. The
Chairperson will call for submissions in order of the items listed
below and submitters will have three minutes only. At the
conclusion of each submission, Councillors may wish to ask
questions of the submitter.
10. Director Planning and Environment

PE.
PE.1 Application for Planning Permit 9
PLN/2015/412 Development of the land for
twenty nine (29) dwellings including ten (10)
townhouses, one (1) single storey dwelling
and eighteen (18) apartments and removal
of one (1) street tree 22 Calthorpe Street,
Gisborne

PLN/2016/270 Two (2) lot resubdivision and
vegetation removal at 138 Mollison Street,
Malmsbury
PE.3 Application to Planning Permit 48

PLN/2016/242 Development of two (2)
dwellings, two (2) lot subdivision, removal of
vegetation and alteration of access to a
road zone Category 1 at 129 High Street,
Woodend
PE.4 Application for Development Plan 75
DP/2016/4 Development Plan at 81
Willowbank Road, Gisborne

PLN/2016/229 for the use and development
of extensive animal husbandry and
agistment (twelve (12) horses), the
development of an Olympic size indoor
horse training arena and the conversion of
an existing indoor horse training area in
accordance with endorsed plans at 38
Syndicate Road, Mount Macedon, Vic Lot 2
PS621107T
PE.6 Private sponsored planning scheme 101

amendment request at 200-220 and 230
Hamilton Road, New Gisborne
PE.7 Saunders Road, New Gisborne rezoning 106

request
PE.8 Sunbury Precinct Structure Plans, Hume 114

Planning Scheme Amendments, C207,
C208 Council submission
PE.9 Submission to the review of native 121

vegetation clearing regulations
11. Chief Executive Officers Reports
CX.1 Report on the conduct of the Council 126

General Elections
CX.2 Hanging Rock Strategic Advisory 130

Committee Report to Council from
meetings on 15 December 2016 and 23
January 2017
CX.3 Building Better Regions Fund 139
CX.4 Small Community Grant Scheme 143

Consideration of grant applications
12. Director Corporate Services
CS.1 Contracts to be awarded as at 22 February 146

2017
CS.2 2018 General Valuation 148

CS.3 Procurement Policy 2017 153
CS.4 Quarterly Report for the period ended 31 158

December 2016
13. Director Community Wellbeing
Nil 159
14. Director Assets and Operations
AO.1 Gisborne Movement Network Study 160
15. Notices of Motion
No. 17/2016-17 Councillor Anderson 165
No. 18/2016-17 Councillor Bleeck 165
16. Urgent or Other Business 165
17. Confidential Reports 166
18. Division 1A: Conduct and Interests Reproduced as

the concluding
pages at the
back of Notice
Paper
Ordinary Council Meeting Wednesday, 22 February 2017
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY
To start the official proceedings I would like to acknowledge that Macedon

Ranges Shire Council is on Dja Dja Wurrung, Taungurung and Wurundjeri
Country whose ancestors and their descendants are the traditional owners of
this Country. We acknowledge that they have been custodians for many
centuries and continue to perform age old ceremonies of celebration, initiation
and renewal. We acknowledge their living culture and their unique role in the
life of this region.
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 Shire of Macedon
Ranges.
2. PRESENT
3. APOLOGIES
4. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
Councillors attention is drawn to Division 1A Sections 76-81 of the Local

Government Act 1989 regarding interests. The relevant sections are
reproduced and attached to the back of this Notice Paper.
Councillors are reminded that:
1. Disclosures of Conflicts of Interest must be declared immediately before

the consideration of the item Section 79 (2) (a) (i); and
2. They should classify the type of interest that has given rise to the conflict
of interest, and describe the nature of the interest Section 79 (2) (b) (c).
5. MAYORS REPORT
This item in each Council Notice Paper offers an opportunity for the Mayor to
provide a brief report on recent Council activities and initiatives of a shire wide
nature.
Councillor reports on any meetings they have attended as a Councillor

delegate are provided at Councillor Briefings or via email communications.
Any matters requiring Council deliberation/decision are considered by Council
via a report to a Council Meeting.
Page 1
Recommendation:
That the Mayors report be received.
6. PETITIONS
Pursuant to Council's Local Law No. 9, Meeting Procedure, a Councillor may

present a petition or joint letter to the Council. A petition or joint letter
presented to the Council must lay on the table until the next Ordinary Meeting
of Council and no motion, other than to receive the petition or joint letter may
be accepted by the Chairperson, unless the Council agrees to deal with it
earlier. A Councillor presenting a petition or joint letter will be responsible for
ensuring that they are familiar with the contents and purpose of the petition or
joint letter and that it is not derogatory or defamatory.
7. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
Any Councillor whether in attendance or not at the subject meeting can move
and second the adoption of the minutes, however accepted practice is that
Councillors who were in attendance moved and second these motions.
Ordinary Council Meeting: Wednesday 21 December 2016
Recommendation:
That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Macedon Ranges Shire
Council held on Wednesday 21 December 2016 as circulated be
confirmed.
8. RECORD OF ASSEMBLIES OF COUNCILLORS FEBRUARY 2017
Summary / Purpose
The purpose of this report is to provide the record of any assembly of
Councillors, which has been held since the last Council Meeting, so that it can
be recorded in the minutes of the formal Council Meeting.
Policy Context
An amendment to the Local Government Act 1989, which came into effect on
24 September 2010 requires the record of any assembly of Councillors to be
reported to the next practicable Council Meeting and recorded in the minutes
(Refer Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment Act 2010
No. 58 of 2010 Section 17).
Background Information
The Local Government Act provides a definition of an assembly of Councillors
where conflicts of interest must be disclosed.
Page 2
A meeting will be an assembly of Councillors if it considers matters that are

likely to be the subject of a Council decision, or the exercise of a Council
delegation and the meeting is:
1. A planned or scheduled meeting that includes at least half the

Councillors (5) and a member of Council staff; or
2. Is an Advisory Committee of the Council where one or more
Councillors are present.
Note: Advisory Committee means any committee established by the Council,

other than a special committee, that provides advice to (a) the Council, or (b)
a special committee, or (c) a member of Council staff who has been delegated
a power, duty or function of the Council under Section 98.
Note: Only matters that are the subject of discussion and consideration at an
Assembly will be listed. Incidental updates and information on matters will not
be recorded.
This requirement for reporting provides increased transparency and the

opportunity for Councillors to check the record, particularly the declarations of
conflict of interest.
Report
Outlined below are the details of assemblies of Councillors held since the last
meeting.
1. Date / Time Type of Assembly

21 December 2016 Councillor Briefing
1.10pm
Venue Gisborne Administration Centre
Present Councillors Anderson, Pearce, Radnedge,
West (arrived 1.07pm)
Bleeck (arrived 1.15pm)
Gayfer (arrived 1.53pm)
Mees (arrived 2.55pm)
Present Officers Peter Johnston, Karen Stevens, Sophie Segafredo,
Dale Thornton, Glenn Owens, Shane Caruana, Anne-
Louise Lindner, Rod Clough, Graham Treadwell, Dean
Frank, Jill Karena, Jodie Turner, Pauline Neil, Rick
Traficante, Michelle Wyatt, Silvana Predebon
Items Discussed Update on Management of Increased Visitation in
Macedon & Mt Macedon during Autumn
Woodend Pony Club Shed Proposal
Bicycle Infrastructure Project
I R Robertson Reserve, South Gisborne
Draft Leisure Strategy Discussions / Councillor
Comments
Community Parks
Live4Life
Hanging Rock Update
Page 3
Planning Matters
- Deep Fields , Romsey
- 22 Calthorpe Street
- Syndicate Road, Mt Macedon
- Hotham Ave, Macedon
Climate Change Action Plan
Review of Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 21
December 2016
Councillor Items / Officer Updates
Conflicts of Interest Cr Gayfer declared a direct conflict of interest in the
declared by Councillors item on the Hanging Rock Update due to her
and record of them leaving ownership of property in close proximity to the
the meeting when the Hanging Rock Reserve
matter about which they
declared the conflict of
interest was discussed.
Did they leave the assembly? Yes
Conflicts of Interest Nil
declared by officers
Did they leave the assembly? N/A

23 January 2017 9.00am Gisborne Neighbourhood Character Study
Present Councillors Mees, Radnedge, Twaits
Present Officers Suzane Becker, Johann Du Preez, Gareth Hately
Items Discussed Communications and Engagement Strategy for
Gisborne Neighbourhood Character Study
Conflicts of Interest Cr Radnedge declared that she owns property in the
declared by Councillors Gisborne township
and record of them leaving
the meeting when the
Did they leave the assembly? No
Conflicts of interest Did they leave the assembly? N/A

Page 4

1 February 2017 1.00 pm Control Project Group for Kyneton South
Investigations Area (defined as Advisory Committee)
Present Councillors Anderson, Pearce
Present Officers Suzane Becker, Gareth Hately
Items Discussed Draft Communications and Engagement Plan for
Kyneton South Investigation Area
Draft Issues & Opportunities Paper for Kyneton South
Investigation Area
declared by Councillors
Did they leave the assembly? N/A

8 February 2017 11.30am Councillor Briefing
Present Councillors Gayfer, West, Radnedge, Twaits, Pearce,
Anderson (arrived 11.46am)
Jukes (arrived 1.30pm)
Mees (arrived 3.03pm)
Present Officers Dale Thornton, John Hausler, Karen Stevens, Stephen
Mahon, Rod Clough, Luke Beattie, Sophie Segafredo,
Peter Johnston, Suzane Becker, Gary Green, Matt
Irving, Rick Traficante
Items Discussed Presentation regarding Macedon Ranges Regional
Sports Hub
Presentation by GREAT Association Inc
Hanging Rock Master Plan Update
Council Plan Update
Sunbury Growth Submission (Precinct Structure Plan
Amendments Hume Planning Scheme)
Councillor Code of Conduct Discussion
Election Report
Gisborne Movement Network Study
Gisborne Neighbourhood Character Study
Consultation Program
Planning Matters
- 683-685 Mt Macedon Road, Mt Macedon
Page 5
- Mt Macedon Road / Woodend Retirement

Village
- Aldi Development Aitken Street, Gisborne
- 38 Syndicate Road, Mt Macedon
- 22 Calthorpe Street, Gisborne
Procurement Policy & Review of Financial Delegations
Councillors Items / Officer Updates
- Hanging Rock Ed Sherran Performance
- Reports to next Ordinary Council Meeting
- Sale of land in Bowkett Close, Romsey
- Regional Development Australia Potential
Funding Options
- Small Community Grants
Conflicts of Interest Cr Gayfer declared a direct conflict of interest in the
declared by Councillors item on the Hanging Rock Update due to her
and record of them leaving ownership of property in close proximity to the
the meeting when the Hanging Rock Reserve
declared the conflict of Cr Radnedge declared a direct conflict of interest in
interest was discussed. the item on Aldi Development Aitken Street, Gisborne
due to a conflicting duty created by her previous
employment by Mitre 10 the business next to the
subject site.
Did they leave the assembly?

Cr Gayfer - Yes
Cr Radnedge - Yes
Conflicts of Interest Did they leave the assembly? N/A

8 February 2017 7.00pm Health & Wellbeing Advisory Committee
Present Councillors Pearce, Gayfer, Radnedge, Anderson
Present Officers Kerry Haby, Stephen Mahon, Silvana Predebon, Kate
Strahan
Items Discussed Climate Change Strategy
Council Plan / Health & Wellbeing Development
Status of Committee members
declared by Councillors
Page 6
Conflicts of Interest Did they leave the assembly? N/A


15 February 2017 12.45pm Councillor Briefing
Present Councillors Anderson, Pearce, Jukes, Twaits, Radnedge, Gayfer,
West
Present Officers Peter Johnston, Karen Stevens, Dale Thornton, John
Hausler, Stephen Mahon, Kylie Lethbridge, Shane
Caruana, Leanne Davey, Anne-Louise Lindner, Allie
Jalbert, Rick Traficante, Suzane Becker, Gareth
Hately, Rod Clough, Dean Frank
Items Discussed Strategic Direction / Priorities / Impact of Rate Capping
Management of Increased Visitation in Macedon &
Mount Macedon during Autumn
Macedon Ranges Equine Strategy (including Equine
Centre Feasibility)
Domestic Animal Management Plan
Senior Citizen Clubs
Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda Items - Questions /
Discussion
Planning Matters including
- 22 Calthorpe Street, Gisborne
- 27 Corinella Road, Woodend
- 60 Edgecombe Street, Kyneton
- 12 Morrow Road East
- Main Road, Riddell
- Wells Court
- Kyneton South Investigation Area Issues &
Opportunities Plan Update
Walking & Cycling Trails
Councillor Items / Officer Updates
- UL Daly Nature Reserve
- Browning Street, Woodend
- Hanging Rock Draft Masterplan
- Delegate Report
- Community Consultation Chart
- Statutory Declarations for People Presenting to
Council Meetings
Page 7
Conflicts of Interest Cr Anderson declared a direct conflict of interest in the

declared by Councillors Item PE.3 on the Ordinary Council Meeting on the 22
and record of them leaving February 2017, i.e. Application to Planning Permit
the meeting when the PLN/2016/242 Development of two (2) dwellings, two
matter about which they (2) lot subdivision, removal of vegetation and alteration
declared the conflict of of access to a road zone Category 1 at 129 High
interest was discussed. Street, Woodend due to her ownership of property in
close proximity to the subject land.
There was no discussion on this matter.
Cr Radnedge declared a conflict of interest in the item

relating to UL Daly Nature Reserve due to a conflicting
duty created through her past involvement with the
Friends of UL Daly Nature Reserve Group.
Cr Gayfer declared a direct conflict of interest in the

item on the Hanging Rock Draft Master Plan due to
her ownership of land in close proximity to the Hanging
Rock Reserve.
Did they leave the assembly? Cr Anderson - No

Cr Radnedge - Yes
Cr Gayfer - Yes
Conflicts of Interest The Manager Council & Customer Services declared a
declared by officers direct conflict of interest in the Walking & Cycling Item
specifically in relation to the proposed Woodend to
Hanging Rock walking / bike trail due to his ownership
of land along the proposed route.
Did they leave the assembly? No
Officer Recommendation:
That Council endorse the record of assemblies of Councillors as

outlined in this report.
9. DEPUTATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS TO COUNCIL
Generally there is no opportunity for members of the public to address an

Ordinary Council Meeting. In specific circumstances including where a
planning matter is being considered at an Ordinary Council Meeting for the
first time or a prior request to the Mayor has been made and approved, a
member of the public may be provided the opportunity to address the Council.
In such circumstances the presentation will be limited to three minutes unless
otherwise approved.
Page 8
10. PE.1 APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMIT PLN/2015/412

DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND FOR TWENTY NINE (29)
DWELLINGS [INCLUDING TEN (10) TOWNHOUSES, ONE
(1) SINGLE STOREY DWELLING AND EIGHTEEN (18)
APARTMENTS] AND REMOVAL OF ONE (1) STREET TREE
22 CALTHORPE STREET GISBORNE
Officer: Christo Crafford, Town Planner
File Ref: PLN/2015/412
Council Plan Relationship: An inspiring place Our lifestyle, culture and

sense of place are strengthened by best
practice planning and development.
Attachments: 23
Applicant: G2 Urban Planning
Date of Receipt of Application: 14 October 2015
Trigger for Report to Council: Councillor call-in
Synopsis:
The subject land is located on the south-west corner of Calthorpe and Fisher
Street, approximately 400m south-east of the Gisborne town centre. It is a
large site (6991m) comprising five (5) allotments held in common ownership.
The land is currently vacant and contains no significant vegetation. There are
however mature street trees within the Fisher Street road reserve adjacent to
the north boundary of the site and within the South Gisborne Drain adjacent to
the west boundary of the site. The site has a significant fall from Calthorpe
Street towards the west boundary of the site towards the South Gisborne
Drain.
The application proposes the development of twenty nine (29) dwellings on

the land comprising eleven (11) detached dwellings and eighteen (18)
dwellings within an apartment building. Dwellings 1 to 5 will address
Calthorpe Street and will appear as single storey dwellings from the street.
Dwellings 6 to 10 are detached double storey dwellings along the southern
boundary of the site. Dwelling 11 is located at the western end of this row and
is a single storey dwelling.
The apartment building is two (2) storeys with a lower third level consisting of
basement/under croft car parking for twenty one (21) cars. A lift and stairs will
serve each level of the building. Vehicular access to and from the basement
is via a separate driveway connecting directly to Fisher Street.
Page 9

22 CALTHORPE STREET, GISBORNE (Continued)
All proposed development displays a considered palette of materials and

finishes to reflect the surrounding built form character.
The proposal is considered appropriate for the following reasons:

The proposal is consistent with State and Local Policy in the planning
scheme that encourages a diversity in housing choice.
The proposal is consistent with planning policy that anticipates the ongoing
growth of Gisborne and the proposal will make a significant contribution to
the provision of housing choice in Gisborne.
The land is located in the preferred medium density area for Gisborne as
defined by the Gisborne/New Gisborne Framework Plan contained in the
planning scheme.
The surrounding area already contains several multi dwelling
developments along with nearby Rodney Street.
The dwellings that address Calthorpe Street will appear as detached
single storey dwellings from the street.
The apartment building makes use of the significant slope of the land, by
cutting the majority of the building into the slope, and therefore is not
excessive in height.
Materials and finishes have been adopted to reflect the surrounding built
form character. The external materials and finishes consist of brick and
rendered walls with brown, cream and grey colour whilst the roofs would
consist of a mix of grey Colorbond sheeting and concrete tiles, which
complements the semi-rural character of Gisborne. The glass balustrades
would have grey tint.
The site coverage is 37.4% (ResCode maximum 60%), whilst the
permeable surface areas equate to 46.5% (ResCode minimum is 20%).
Overall the proposal exceeds ResCode standards.
Double storey dwellings ensure that the upper level areas (including
balconies) do not exceed 80 percent of the ground floor area and are
stepped back.
The dwellings generally contain a bedroom or another room (study) that
can be used as a bedroom on the ground floor, whilst the apartment
building contains a lift to cater for the needs of persons with limited
mobility.
Front setback areas are more than adequate to provide appropriate
planting opportunities. Conditions will be imposed in the permit to ensure
landscaping and plant selection protect existing vegetation and integrate
with the existing landscape character of the area.
The proposal maintains the existing earth mound along Fisher Street, as
well as maintaining the existing treed streetscape along this part of Fisher
Street (loss of one tree).
Page 10

The existing healthy street tree (T3) to the east of the new crossover will
be retained and no works will be allowed in its tree protection zone as
recommended by the submitted arborist report. Tree T2 to the west of the
cross over will be removed as it is impacted by the crossover. This tree is
recommended for removal by the applicants arborist report given its poor
health and this is supported by Councils arborists. Furthermore, the
applicant will be required to construct a footpath on the north side (which
contains few street trees) of Fisher Street to protect the significant elm
trees fronting the proposal. It is important to note, that the previous
proposal would have likely resulted in the loss of the majority of the trees
along the south side of Fisher Street.
The application was advertised and fourteen (14) objections have been
received, relating to impact on traffic in adjoining streets; access to the
development; density; neighbourhood character; inconsistency with DDO17;
flooding; overlooking; fencing; footpaths; tree removal; impact on amenity
including noise & views and impact on the creek.
The following are noted regarding the objections received:
The councils engineering unit has no objection to the proposal and in

particular has no concerns regarding traffic issues.
It is recognised that the apartment building concept is new to the Shire,
however the development is located in a preferred medium density area as
defined in the planning scheme. The apartment building blends into the
streetscape given the slope of the site and existing earth mound in the
Fisher Street road reserve.
Melbourne Water has no objections to the proposal.
The proposal exceeds many of the ResCode standards for unit dwelling
developments.
The relevant State and Local planning policies support increased density
within township boundaries on land which has good access to existing
infrastructure and public and community services. The proposal is suitably
located within a preferred medium density residential area with access to
existing infrastructure. The proposed layout, in terms of lot size, density and
design appropriately responds to and is considered respectful to the existing
and preferred neighbourhood character. In light of the above, it is
recommended that the application be approved, subject to permit conditions.
Page 11

That the Council issue a Notice of Decision to grant a planning permit

for the construction of eleven (11) dwellings and eighteen (18)
apartments (in one two storey block) and removal of one (1) street tree
for the land located at Lot 1 on TP447921W and Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4 on
TP230552M Gisborne, 22 Calthorpe Street, Gisborne, subject to the
conditions below:
1. Before the development commences, three copies of amended plans to

the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and
approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will
be endorsed and will then form part of this permit. The plans must be
generally in accordance with the plans dated 01-12-16 and prepared by
Bill Jacobs Pty Ltd, but modified to show:
a) Amended footpath construction and appropriate connections in

Calthorpe Street and Fisher Street as required under conditions
16(d) and 16(e).
2. Before the development commences, three copies of an amended

landscaping plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be
submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When
approved, all the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of this
permit. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans dated
01-12-16 and prepared by Bill Jacobs Pty Ltd but modified to show:
a) Exact location and measurements of the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ)

and associated tree protection fencing for all existing trees shown
on the plans to be retained along the Calthorpe Street and Fisher
Street frontages. This includes Trees T1, T3, T4, T5, T6 & T7 as well
as the three (3) trees to the west of Dwellings 1 & 2.
b) Road reserve trees at one (1) tree every 12 metres to the Calthorpe
Street frontage. All species must be to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority.
c) A standard Advanced Tree Planting Detail is to be provided and is

also to include:
The installation of a Greenwell Watersaver;

Three (3) hardwood stakes be provided;
Specification of a minimum 2.5m high supply size; and
A notation that tree planting is to occur between April &
September to maximise establishment and survival.
Page 12

d) A note that reads as follows:
Trees are to be located:

No closer than three (3) metres from sewer pit, fire hydrant
or light poles.
Offset from power wires no closer than three (3) metres.
Do not plant less than 2 metres from a gate & three (3)
metres from vehicle crossing.
Do not plant directly over service lead-ins.
Placement of trees should avoid creating a sight issue
from driveways.
e) A proposed maintenance schedule and projected costs.
f) A note that reads as follows:
A defects liability bond security amounting to 20% of the gross

costs of installation and maintenance (including GST) to be provided
for a period of two years from the date of which the tree works were
completed to the satisfaction of Council.
g) A note that reads as follows:
Council's Subdivision Landscape Officer is to be contacted to carry

out an inspection once the new street trees are installed to issue
Practical Completion and the commencement of the maintenance
period. Council must be notified in writing 3 months prior to the end
of the maintenance period, and a final inspection will be scheduled.
Any defects identified during the final inspection will be detailed and
forwarded to the applicant for rectification. The developer must
undertake rectification works if the street trees have not been
maintained to Councils satisfaction.
h) The details required by Melbourne Water under condition 27.
3. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered

unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
4. Unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, before
the occupation of the development, the internal landscaping works shown
on the endorsed plans must be carried out, completed and thereafter
maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
5. All external lighting must be designed, baffled and located so as to

prevent adverse effect on adjoining land, to the satisfaction of the
Page 13

6. Only the one street tree labelled T2 on the endorsed plans is permitted
to be removed. The tree is to be removed by Council only and at the
owners or developers expense.
7. Prior to development commencing (including any excavations, tree

removal, delivery of building/construction materials and/or temporary
buildings), tree protection fencing must be erected to the satisfaction of
the Responsible Authority in accordance with the approved tree
protection zone(s) as shown on the endorsed landscaping plan. The
fencing must be erected to form a visual and physical barrier, be a
minimum height of 1.5 metres above ground level, and include signage
clearly marked Tree Protection Zone No Entry on all sides.
8. Once erected and approved by the Responsible Authority, the tree

protection fencing shall be maintained in good condition and may only be
removed upon completion of all development works, to the satisfaction of
the Responsible Authority. Should temporary access be necessary within
the Tree Protection Zones during the period of construction, the
Responsible Authority must be informed prior to relocating the fence (as
it may be necessary to undertake additional root protection such as
bridging over with timber).
9. Unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, the
following actions must not be undertaken in any tree protection zone as
identified on the endorsed plan, to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority:
a) Materials or equipment stored within the zone;
b) Nothing is to be attached to any tree (including temporary service

wires, nails, screws or any other fixing device);
c) Open cut trenching or excavation works (whether or not for laying of

services) undertaken within the zone;
d) Changes to the soil grade level within the zone.
10. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling all existing land titles in the
development must be consolidated into one title to the satisfaction of the
11. All refuse must be collected in accordance with the endorsed waste
management plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
MRSC Engineering Conditions
12. Prior to the commencement of works, an Asset Protection Permit must

be obtained from Council for any of the following circumstances:
Page 14

a) Entering a building site by means of a motor vehicle having a gross

weight exceeding two tonnes.
b) Occupying a road for works.
c) Connecting any land to a stormwater drain.
d) Opening, altering or repairing a road.
e) Opening, altering or repairing a drain.
f) Accessing a building site from a point other than a crossover.
13. Prior to the commencement of works, a Construction Management Plan

must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The
management plan must show:
a) Measures to control erosion and sediment and sediment laden water

runoff including the design details of structures.
b) Dust control.
c) Where any construction wastes, equipment, machinery and/or earth
is to be stored/stockpiled during construction.
d) Where access to the site for construction vehicle traffic will occur.
e) The location of any temporary buildings or yards.
Development works on the land must be undertaken in accordance with

the endorsed Construction Management Plan to the satisfaction of the
14. Prior to the commencement of use, the development is to be provided

with a drainage system to a design approved by the Responsible
Authority and such that:
a) The development as a whole is provided with legal point/s of

discharge approved by the Responsible Authority and any other
statutory authority from which approval must be received for the
discharge of drainage.
b) Stormwater runoff from all buildings, tanks and paved areas must be
drained to a legal point of discharge.
c) The drainage system must have provision for runoff from the
upstream catchments and include any downstream works necessary
to manage flows from the development.
Detailed construction plans for the above works must be submitted to

and approved by the Responsible Authority including payment of plan
checking and supervision fees.
15. Prior to the commencement of use, the areas set aside for the parking of
vehicles and access driveways as shown on the endorsed plans must be:
Page 15

a) Constructed in concrete or asphalt to the satisfaction of the

b) Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance
with the plans.
c) Drained and maintained.
Car spaces, access lanes and driveways must be kept available for these
purposes at all times.
16. Prior to the commencement of use, the following works must be

constructed or carried out to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority:
a) A new vehicle crossing for dwelling 5 which fronts onto Calthorpe

Street.
b) A new vehicle crossing for the common driveway fronting onto
Fisher Street.
c) New kerb and channel including pavement widening, appropriate
underground drainage and required intersection works to create a
7.3m wide carriageway along the Calthorpe Street frontage of the
development.
d) A new 1.5m wide footpath along the frontage of the development
along the northern side of Fisher Street as well as a short section
along the southern side of Fisher Street from the end of the
proposed internal footpath to the west along Fisher Street for a
distance of approximately 10m.
e) A new 1.5m wide footpath along Calthorpe Street with appropriate
connections into the existing Council footpath network avoiding the
areas under the canopies of existing trees.
Detailed construction plans for the above works must be submitted to

and approved by the Responsible Authority including payment of plan
checking and supervision fees.
17. Prior to the commencement of use, the following as-constructed

documentation for road, drainage and public open space assets must be
submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority:
a) As-constructed drawings in hardcopy A3 format that include all

alterations made during construction.
b) As-constructed drawings in AutoCAD (2000) and Acrobat PDF
formats that include all alterations made during construction.
c) Asset information in digital format and in the form of a schedule of
quantities.
Page 16

18. The development is to be constructed in accordance with Macedon

Ranges Shire Councils Policy Engineering Requirements for
Infrastructure Construction (June 2010).
19. No polluted and/or sediment laden run-off is to be discharged directly or

indirectly into drains or watercourses. Soil erosion control measures
must be employed throughout the development works in accordance with
Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control (EPA 1991) and
Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites (EPA 1995) to the
satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Melbourne Water Conditions
20. Pollution and sediment laden runoff shall not be discharged directly or
indirectly into Melbourne Water's drains or waterways.
21. The layout of the site and size, design and location of buildings must be
set back a minimum of 20 metres from the top of bank of the South
Gisborne Drain.
22. The dwellings must be constructed with finished floor levels set a
minimum of 600mm above the applicable flood level.
23. The car park and garages must be constructed with finished surface
levels set a minimum of 300mm above the applicable flood level.
24. No fill is to be imported into the floodplain.
25. Prior to the commencement of works, a separate application direct to

Melbourne Waters Asset Services team must be made for approval of any
new or modified stormwater connection to a Melbourne Water asset.
26. Prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit, a certified survey plan

showing finished floor levels (as constructed) reduced to the Australian
Height Datum must be submitted to Melbourne Water. The Plan must
demonstrate that the floor levels have been constructed in accordance
with Melbourne Water's requirements.
27. Prior to the commencement of works, a detailed landscape plan must be

submitted to Melbourne Water for approval. The landscape plan must
show the proposed revegetation and landscaping works and must include
a planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers
(including: botanical names; common names; pot sizes; life-form;
quantities of each plant; planting density (plants per square metre), and
planting zones/locations. Plants in and adjacent to the reserve are to be
indigenous and to the satisfaction of Melbourne Water.
Page 17

28. Prior to the commencement of works, a drainage strategy must be

submitted to Melbourne Water for approval which outlines water quality
and retention measures on site. The strategy must also provide evidence
that flows from this development will not impact upon channel form and
stability. The proponent is strongly urged to consider Water Sensitive
Urban Design within the development.
29. Prior to occupation of the development, weeds considered to be a high

threat must be managed in order to protect and improve biodiversity, and
appropriate ongoing controls must be put in place for any new and
emerging weeds which appear within the waterway setback of the
development.
30. Any works (including vegetation removal) on the banks of any designated
waterway requires separate approval from Melbourne Water.
31. Prior to the commencement of works, a Site Environmental Management

Plan (SEMP) must be submitted to Melbourne Water for approval. The
SEMP must include a site map detailing the location and design of all
measures to mitigate impact on the South Gisborne Drain during
construction (e.g. sediment and pollution control):
Silt fencing and sediment control

Access tracks
Spoil stockpiling
Machinery/Plant locations
Exclusion fencing around native vegetation/ habitat.
Note(s):
The applicable flood level for the property grades from 417.4 metres
Australian Height Datum (AHD) at the southern property boundary
down to 416.02 metres to AHD at the northern property boundary.
If further information is required in relation to Melbourne Water's

permit conditions shown above, please contact Melbourne Water on
9679 7517, quoting Melbourne Water's reference 137789.
Preliminary land and flood level information available at Melbourne

Water indicates that the property is subject to flooding from the
South Gisborne Drain. For a storm event with a 1% chance of
occurrence in any one year, the applicable flood level for the
property grades from 417.4 metres Australian Height Datum (AHD) at
the southern property boundary down to 416.02 metres to AHD at the
northern property boundary.
Page 18

Freeboard is the difference between the floor level of a building and

the 100-year flood level. Freeboard requirements are designed to
ensure that valuable buildings, their contents and the people in them
are safely above the 100-year flood level. The plans submitted with
the application indicate Melbourne Waters minimum floor level
requirements have been complied with.
Western Water Conditions
32. Payment of new customer contributions for each lot created by the
development, such amount being determined by Western Water at the
time of payment.
33. All internal sewer and water mains must be owned and maintained by an
owners corporation.
34. Provision of easements in favour of Western Water over all existing sewer
mains located within private property. The easement shall be 3.0 metres
wide for combined sewer and drainage easements and 2.5m wide for a
dedicated sewerage easement.
35. Preparation of a digitised plan of subdivision and ancillary requirements

in accordance with Western Waters drafting standards and practices.
36. The operator under this permit shall be obliged to enter into an
Agreement with Western Water relating to the design and construction of
any sewerage or water works required. The form of such Agreement shall
be to the satisfaction of Western Water. The owner/applicant shall make a
written request to Western Water for the terms and conditions of the
agreement.
Powercor Conditions
37. The applicant shall:-
a) Provide an electricity supply to all properties within the development

in accordance with Powercors requirements and standards,
including the extension, augmentation or re-arrangement of any
existing electricity supply system, as required by Powercor (A
payment to cover the cost of such work may be required).
b) Where buildings or other installations exist on the land and are

connected to the electricity supply, they shall be brought into
compliance with the Service and Installation Rules issued by the
Victorian Electricity Supply Industry. You shall arrange compliance
through a Registered Electrical Contractor.
Page 19

c) Any buildings must comply with the clearances required by the

Electricity Safety (Installations) Regulations.
d) Any construction work must comply with Energy Safe Victorias No

Go Zone rules.
Note:
It is recommended that, at an early date, the applicant commences

negotiations with Powercor for supply of electricity in order that
supply arrangements can be worked out in detail.
CFA Conditions
Hydrants
38. Above or below ground operable hydrants must be provided. The
maximum distance between these hydrants and the rear of all building
envelopes (or in the absence of building envelopes, the rear of the lots)
must be 120 metres and the hydrants must be no more than 200 metres
apart. These distances must be measured around lot boundaries.
39. The hydrants must be identified with marker posts and road reflectors as
applicable to the satisfaction of the Country Fire Authority.
Note:
CFAs requirements for identification of hydrants are specified in

Identification of Street Hydrants for Fire fighting Purposes
available under publications on the CFA web site
(www.cfa.vic.gov.au)
Access
40. The common property access must be constructed to a standard so that
it is accessible in all weather conditions and capable of accommodating a
vehicle of 15 tonnes for the trafficable road width.
41. The common property access must have a suitable trafficable width to
allow the unimpeded access of emergency fire fighting vehicles
(notwithstanding any parking restrictions that may be applied) to the
satisfaction of CFA.
42. A turning circle with a minimum radius of 8m must be provided (the

common property access is greater than 60 metres in length); T or Y
heads of dimensions specified by the CFA may be used as alternatives.
Alternatively a turning area can be provided adjacent to Dwelling 5 (this
area could also be utilised as a work area for the fire truck).
Page 20

Permit Expiry
43. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
a) The development is not commenced within 2 years of the date of this

permit.
b) The development is not completed within 4 years of the date of this

permit.
The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request

is made in writing before the permit expires, or within 6 months
afterwards if the development has not commenced, or 12 months after if
the development has commenced but is not yet completed.
Page 21

Existing conditions and relevant history
Subject Land & Surrounds
The subject land is located on the south-west corner of Calthorpe and Fisher
Street, approximately 400m south-east of the Gisborne town centre. It is a
large site (6991m) comprising five (5) allotments held in common ownership.
The property has an 80.87m frontage to Calthorpe Street and 69.60m
frontage to Fisher Street.
The land is currently vacant and contains no significant vegetation. A series

of mature street trees are located within the Fisher Street road reserve
adjacent to the north boundary of the site and within the South Gisborne Drain
adjacent to the west boundary of the site.
The site has a significant fall from Calthorpe Street towards the west boundary
of the site towards the South Gisborne Drain.
The land is located in the preferred medium density area of Gisborne as

defined in the Macedon Ranges planning scheme and accordingly there are
numerous medium density developments in the immediate vicinity and in
nearby Rodney Street.
Registered restrictive covenants and/or Section 173 Agreements affecting the

site
A current copy of title has been provided with the application which shows no
Covenants, Section 173 Agreements or restrictions have been registered on
the title to this property.
Previous planning permit history
A search of Councils records has found the following permit history:
Permit Number Description

PLN/2006/490 Construction of thirteen (13) dwellings
The Proposal
The application proposes the development of eleven (11) dwellings and

eighteen (18) apartments (in one two storey block) and removal of one (1)
street tree in Fisher Street. Dwellings 1 to 5 will address Calthorpe Street and
will appear as single storey dwellings from this street. Given the topography
of the site the buildings become two-storey at the rear, with dwellings 1 to 4
gaining vehicle access via the proposed internal road from Fisher Street.
Only dwelling 5 will obtain direct vehicular access off Calthorpe Street.
Page 22

Dwellings 6 to 10 are detached double storey dwellings along the southern

boundary of the site. Dwelling 11 is located at the western end of this row and
is a single storey dwelling. These dwellings all gain vehicle access from the
proposed internal access road.
The dwellings vary in overall floor area between 154m & 247m. Each
dwelling has three (3) or four (4) bedrooms with at least one (1) bedroom or
study located at ground level. Living, meals and kitchen areas are provided in
an open plan format opening onto secluded private space area and raised
decks depending on the relative topography in each case. All dwellings have
either a single garage with a tandem parking space or double garages.
The apartment building is two (2) storeys, with a lower third level consisting of
basement/under croft car parking for twenty one (21) cars, storage facilities for
each dwelling and bin storage enclosures. A lift and stairs will serve each
level of the building. Vehicular access to and from the basement is via a
separate driveway connecting directly to Fisher Street. Each dwelling has
either one (1) or two (2) bedrooms and will have open plan living, meals and
kitchen areas opening onto a balcony.
Relevant Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme controls
State Planning Policy Framework
Clause No. Clause name

11.05-2 Melbournes Hinterland Areas
15.01 Urban Environment
16.01 Residential Development
Local Planning Policy Framework

21 Municipal Strategic Statement
21.04 Settlement
21.08 Built Environment and Heritage
21.09 Housing
21.13-1 Gisborne and New Gisborne
Zoning

32.08 General Residential Zone 1
Overlay

43.02 Design and Development Overlay Schedule 17
45.06 Development Contributions Plan Overlay Schedule 2
Page 23

Particular Provisions

52.17 Native vegetation
55 Two or More Dwellings on a Lot
General Provisions

65 Decision Guidelines
66 Referral and Notice Provisions
Cultural Heritage Management Plan Assessment
Assessment Criteria Assessment Response

1 Is the subject property within an area of cultural Yes.
heritage sensitivity as defined within the cultural
heritage sensitivity mapping or as defined in Part
2 Division 3 or 4 of the Aboriginal Heritage
Regulations 2007?
2 Does the application proposal include significant Yes.
ground disturbance as defined in Regulation 4
Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007?
3 Is the application proposal an exempt activity as No.
defined in Part 2 Division 2 Aboriginal Heritage
Regulations 2007?
4 Is the application proposal a high impact activity Yes.
as defined in Part 2 Division 5 Aboriginal Heritage
Regulations 2007?
Based on the above assessment, a cultural heritage management plan is

required in accordance with Part 2 Division 1 Regulation 6 Aboriginal Heritage
Regulations 2007.
A cultural heritage management plan has been submitted along with approval
from the relevant Registered Aboriginal Party. No artefacts were discovered
during the aboriginal survey process.
Page 24

The Process to Date
Referral
Authority (Section 52) Response
Melbourne Water No objection subject to conditions.
Western Water No objection subject to conditions.
Downer No objection.
CFA No objection subject to conditions.
Powercor No objection subject to conditions.
MRSC Engineering No objection subject to conditions.
MRSC Parks and Gardens No objection subject to conditions.
MRSC Strategic Planning No objection.
Advertising
The application was advertised and fourteen (14) objections were received,
relating to:
Impact on traffic in adjoining streets.
Development should have two (2) access points.
Access to development should be off Calthorpe Street which is not a
through road.
Density too high and an overdevelopment of the site.
The apartment style building is out of character for Gisborne and will set a
precedent.
Inconsistent with DDO17 which require breaks in built form.
Apartment building will dominate the landscape.
Development is partly affected by a floodway.
Overlooking issues including internal overlooking.
Fencing.
Lack of footpaths.
Tree removal.
Would like development to be pet free to protect the creek.
Impact on amenity including noise & views.
Lack of infrastructure to support the development.
Impact on residents during construction.
Development is directly opposite a childminding centre.
Access for emergency vehicles would be problematic.
Insufficient open space provision.
Contamination of creek during construction.
Due to sites elevation it forms part of the entrance to Gisborne which will
not be enhanced by the proposal.
Devaluation of surrounding properties.
Comment on the objections received is provided further below.
Page 25

Officer Assessment
State policy promotes growth and development of settlements within
Melbournes hinterland areas, whilst maintaining their attractiveness and
amenity. Land has been identified and zoned as appropriate for residential
development.
The policies seek a high quality urban environment, which is liveable and
attractive and minimises impacts on neighbouring properties and important
natural values, such as significant vegetation. Development which considers
and respects neighbourhood character and cultural identity is also promoted.
State policy also promotes the provision of a range of housing types to meet
diverse needs and which are in close proximity to activity centres and
employment corridors and sites that offer good access to services and
transport.
The policies also aim to ensure an adequate supply of car parking that is
appropriately designed and located in conjunction with new developments.
Among the reasons for this is to protect the amenity of residential precincts
from the effects of road congestion created by on-street parking. A safe and
efficient road network is also promoted.
The proposal is considered to meet the objectives of these policies in

providing for infill residential development on a site within an existing
settlement which is zoned for such use and development. The design and
layout of the development is considered appropriate and respectful of the
existing neighbourhood character and will not have unreasonable impact on
the amenity of neighbours. The development will provide for different housing
options for the town and is well located with respect to the town centre,
transport and services.

An updated Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) was gazetted on 10
September 2015. The updated MSS generally aims to achieve outcomes
which include:
Providing for a population increase across the Shire of 16,000 residents by
2036, with the majority of this growth within the larger settlements.
Providing for development and growth within existing settlement boundaries
and where adequate services are available.
Ensuring that development is sustainable and respects the character of
towns and settlements.
Page 26

In relation to Gisborne, Clause 21.04 encourages its development from a

large district town to a regional centre, with a population greater than
10,000, by 2036. The town is anticipated to be a large, diverse, employment
and housing base and includes the provision of higher order goods and
services.
Clause 21.13-1 states there are three objectives in relation to settlement and
housing, which are:
To reinforce the key urban functions and role of Gisborne and New
Gisborne as the major urban centre in the southern end of the Shire.
To maintain Gisborne and New Gisborne as distinctive semi-rural
settlements with clear limits to population and physical urban growth.
To manage urban growth and development in Gisborne in a co-ordinated
and environmentally sustainable manner that ensures Gisborne remains a
semi-rural township that respects the established village character, natural
setting, topography and view lines of the area.
The relevant strategies associated with these objectives are:

Manage urban growth and development in Gisborne and New Gisborne in
accordance with the Gisborne/New Gisborne Framework Plan included in
this sub-clause.
Contain urban development within the defined township boundary as
indicated on the Gisborne/New Gisborne Framework Plan included in this
sub-clause.
Manage the existing supply of land zoned General Residential Zone to
achieve appropriate, timely, sequential and fully serviced development
outcomes.
Encourage, in appropriate locations, medium density housing within 400
metres walking distance of the Gisborne town centre as designated on
Gisborne/New Gisborne Framework Plan. Appropriate locations are those
areas where slope and access to services are favourable for medium
density development and where such development is compatible with
established landscape and township character, and places of heritage
significance.
The application site is located within the township boundary and furthermore
in very close proximity to the Gisborne town centre and services. The site is
also located within the area defined for medium density development on the
Framework Plan as contained in the planning scheme. The proposal is
therefore consistent with planning policy that anticipates the ongoing growth of
Gisborne and the proposal will make a significant contribution to the provision
of housing choice in Gisborne.
Page 27

The surrounding area contains several existing multi dwelling developments

including in nearby Rodney Street. There are also other approved, but not yet
constructed, multi dwelling developments at 33 & 35 Calthorpe Street and
enquiries have been received for a proposed fourteen (14) dwelling
development at 27 Calthorpe Street.
All these properties are immediately across the road from the site in Calthorpe
Street and also within the defined preferred medium density area.
It is recognised that the apartment building component is new to the Shire not
only from a style of development, but offers a completely new housing choice
and it is located in a preferred medium density area as defined in clause
21.13-1 of the planning scheme. The apartment building blends into the
streetscape given the slope of the site and the existing earth mound in the
Fisher Street road reserve which is being maintained and screens much of the
Fisher Street frontage. From Calthorpe Street the proposed dwellings
presents as single dwellings. The maximum height as viewed from outside
the site is staggered and varies between 7.485m and 9.855m. The height of
the apartment building is therefore not excessive and makes use of the
significant slope of the land by cutting the majority of the building into the
slope. All proposed development further displays a considered palette of
materials and finishes to reflect the surrounding built form character. The
external materials and finishes consist of brick and rendered walls with brown,
cream and grey colours whilst the roofs would consist of a mix of grey
Colourbond sheeting and concrete tiles, which complements the semi-rural
character of Gisborne.
The development is also considered to accord to the design requirements

outlined under the Design and Development Overlay (DDO17). These
guidelines provide clear guidance as to appropriate residential development
close to the town centre. In this regard it is noted that:
The proposed built form is compatible with the surrounding residential and
semi-rural character and scale with the use of appropriate building
materials, colours, height, detailing and setbacks.
The building articulation and massing creates interest and does not include
any blank walls to reduce the overall appearance of bulk.
The townhouses on the eastern and southern lot boundaries contain breaks
in built form to create the appearance of openness.
The proposal provides variations in housing style and typology and a mix of
faade treatments.
Garages are not present on the front faade elements of the dwellings
and/or the streetscape, except for dwelling 5.
The double storey dwellings ensure that the upper level areas (including
balconies) do not exceed 80 percent of the ground floor area and is
stepped back.
Page 28

The dwellings generally contain a bedroom or another room (study) that

can be used as a bedroom on the ground floor whist the apartment building
contains a lift to cater for the needs of persons with limited mobility.
Conditions will be imposed in any approval to ensure landscaping and plant
selection protect existing vegetation and integrate with the existing
landscape character of the area.
Adequate opportunities for planting will be provided within the front
setbacks
No front fencing is proposed.
General Residential Zone

The purposes of the General Residential Zone are to encourage residential
development that respects the neighbourhood character and to provide for
residential development at a range of densities with a variety of dwellings to
meet the housing needs of all households. A planning permit is required to
construct two or more dwellings on a lot and to subdivide land. The key
decision guidelines in Clause 32.08-10 is the consideration of the objectives,
standards and decision guidelines of Clause 55.
The proposal is consistent with the outcomes sought by the General

Residential Zone by providing for an infill development and additional
residential housing opportunities with varied lot densities and dwelling types
and sizes in an established residential area, to meet the needs of different
households.
A key purpose sought within the purpose of the zone is to encourage

development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area. This is
reinforced by Clause 55.02, the objectives of which require 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.
There has been no neighbourhood character study prepared for Gisborne

which identifies a preferred neighbourhood character. The site is however
located in an area identified for medium density housing in the Framework
Plan and the area is also subject to a Design and Development Overlay
(DDO17). The DDO17 provides some guidance in terms of appropriate
design and layout within the area. This sets out a number of requirements for
new development, in order to protect and enhance the established semi-rural
and village character of the area and ensure that new development has
proper regard for established streetscape and development patterns. As
noted above the proposal complies with the provisions of DDO17.
An assessment in accordance with the relevant provisions of Clause 55 has

been undertaken and is held on file. This report demonstrates that the design
meets, or could meet, all applicable objectives. Further comment is provided
in relation to the following:
Page 29

As noted above the proposal is considered to be in keeping with the

neighbourhood character and existing character of the area. It is considered
that the design of the dwellings is in keeping with the character of the area,
with roof pitch and design, and the proposed materials and finishes consistent
with the established character. The setbacks of the building from the
boundaries is considered to be appropriate and is generally consistent with
the built form in the area and allows for landscaping on the site, which is
consistent with the characterises the surrounding area. The hipped roof
design and scale of the dwellings is consistent with the other dwellings in the
area. The apartment building blends into the streetscape given the significant
slope of the site and as shown on the streetscape provided and setback from
Fisher Street. From Calthorpe Street the single dwellings will dominate. The
height of the apartment building is not excessive and makes use of the
significant slope of the land by being cut into the site. The proposal also
maintains the existing earth mound along Fisher Street, as well as generally
maintaining the existing treed streetscape along this part of Fisher Street.
The apartment building component proposes a maximum building height of
under 10m as viewed from outside the site and this complies with Standard
B7. It is considered that the overall height of the dwellings are also
appropriate and is in keeping with the character of the area. The new
dwellings are generally double storey which is not uncommon in this area and
therefore consistent with the prevailing character of the area.
The site coverage, at 37.4% (ResCode maximum 60%), complies with the
requirements of Clause 55.03-3.
The development proposes a permeable area of 46.5% (ResCode minimum is
20%).
Front setback areas are more than adequate to provide appropriate planting
opportunities. Conditions will be imposed in the permit to ensure landscaping
and plant selection protect existing vegetation where possible and integrate
with the existing landscape character of the area.
Vehicle access as shown is considered to be consistent with the access
objectives of Clause 55.03.9. It is further noted that the Councils Engineering
Section has scrutinised the proposal in detail and has no concern with the
proposed access nor have any concerns on impact on traffic on the adjoining
roads.
The car parking on site complies with the requirements of Clause 52.06, with
two spaces provided for that have more than two bedrooms and one parking
space for single bedroom dwellings. Four (4) visitor parking spaces are
provided throughout the site.
The proposed dwellings comply with the side and rear setbacks of standard
B17.
Shadow diagrams have been provided with the application and demonstrate
compliance with Standard B19, B20 and B21.
Page 30

The site has a significant slope and 1.8m high timber paling fencing will be
provided internally and on the sites southern boundary whilst screening to
some windows are proposed. These measures ensure that the new
development complies with standard B22- Overlooking.
The dwellings are appropriately located and setback from boundaries to
ensure that daylight to windows complies with Standard B27.
All dwellings meet the private open space objective to provide to each
dwelling in excess of 40m, which can be accessed from the living rooms of
the dwellings. This complies with Standard B28. SPOS has been provided to
the north of the dwellings as far as practicable and have sufficient width to
allow solar access. The balconies of the apartment building also meets the
minimum 8m dimensions requirement of Standard B28.
Storage of at least 6 cubic metres has been shown for all units.
The development is able to be serviced via existing reticulated water,
sewerage, electricity and telecommunications services in the area. The
Councils Engineering Unit and relevant referral authorities have reviewed the
proposal and all have advised they have no objection, subject to conditions.
On this basis, it is considered that the proposal meets the purpose of the
General Residential Zone, providing for additional housing options in a
convenient location, while respecting the existing neighbourhood character.
Development Contributions
The site is located within the area affected by Development Contributions Plan
Overlay (Schedule 2 Gisborne). The site is located within Area 8, within
which contributions are payable for residential subdivision. Given no
subdivision is proposed a contribution will not be sought, but will be required
for each additional lot when application is made for subdivision of the
individual dwellings.
Tree Removal
The existing healthy street tree (T3) to the east of the new crossover will be
retained and no works will be allowed in its tree protection zone as
recommended by the submitted arborist report. Tree T2 to the west of the
cross over will be removed as it is impacted by the crossover. This tree is
recommended for removal by the applicants arborist report given its poor
health and this is supported by Councils arborists. Furthermore, the applicant
will be required to construct a footpath on the north side (which contains few
street trees) of Fisher Street to protect the significant elm trees fronting the
proposal. It is important to note, that the previous proposal would have likely
resulted in the loss of the majority of the trees along the south side of Fisher
Street.
Page 31

Objections
The following are noted regarding the objections received:
The councils engineering unit has no objection to the proposal and in
particular has no concerns regarding traffic issues.
It is recognised that the apartment building concept is new to the Shire.
The development is however located in a preferred medium density area as
defined in the planning scheme. The apartment building blends into the
streetscape given the slope of the site and as shown on the streetscape
provided.
Melbourne Water has no objections to the proposal.
The proposal exceeds many of the ResCode standards for multi dwelling
developments.
In light of the above, it is recommended that this application be supported.
Conclusion
The relevant State and Local planning policies support increased density
within township boundaries on land which has good access to existing
infrastructure and public and community services. The proposal is suitably
located within a preferred medium density residential area with access to
existing infrastructure. The proposed layout, in terms of lot size, density and
design appropriately responds to and is considered respectful to the existing
neighbourhood character. In light of the above, it is recommended that the
application be approved, subject to permit conditions.
Page 32
10. PE.2 APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMIT PLN/2016/270 TWO

(2) LOT RE SUBDIVISION AND VEGETATION REMOVAL AT
138 MOLLISON STREET, MALMSBURY
Officer Jackie Robson, Town Planner

Attachments: Plan and Aborist Report
Applicant: Echelon Planning
Date of Receipt of Application: 9 June 2016
Trigger for Report to Council: Councillor call in
Synopsis:
The 1496.22m vacant site is located in the Malmsbury township within 700m
of the town centre and 250m from the Malmsbury Railway station. The site
comprises two (2) titles with some established trees and shrubs and it is
proposed to resubdivide these two (2) to create two (2) lots with a common
vehicle access to Mollison Street, via a common property area; and to remove
nine (9) trees/shrubs.
The application was advertised and received three objections and one letter of
support; it was referred to VicRoads who provided unconditional consent and
MRSC Heritage Advisor and Engineering Unit who have provided conditional
consent to the proposal.
The objections received relate to the proposal being contrary to the existing
Malmsbury township character i.e. suburbanisation, undesirable precedent,
lack of need and the form of any resultant development on the lots.
The site can be serviced and is well located for access to existing community
infrastructure, services and facilities within the Malmsbury township. The
proposed lot layout is a departure from the traditional grid layout, however, it
is considered that the proposed permit conditions relating to building
envelopes, single storey development and retention of some existing
established vegetation, will ensure that any subsequent development respects
existing neighbourhood character.
Page 33

AT 138 MOLLISON STREET, MALMSBURY (Continued)
In addition the proposal is consistent with State and Local Planning Policies
which seek to encourage a diversity of housing type and moderate growth in
locations offering good access to services and transport.
It is recommended the application be supported.
That Council resolve to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for a

two (2) lot subdivision and associated vegetation removal at 138
Mollison Street, Malmsbury, being Crown Allotments 8 and 8B Section
19, Township of Malmsbury, Parish of Edgecombe, subject to the
following conditions:
PLANS TO BE SUBMITTED
1. Prior to the certification of the Plan of Subdivision, three copies of

amended plans must be submitted to and approved by the
Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be
endorsed and will then form part of this permit. The plans must be
generally in accordance with the plans received on 28 September
2016 but modified to show:
a) Creation of Common Property over the shared driveway to

both lots.
SECTION 173 AGREEMENT
2. Before the certification of the Plan of Subdivision, the owner/s of

the lot must enter into an agreement with the Responsible
Authority and in accordance with Section 173 of the Planning and
Environment Act 1987. The agreement must provide for:
a) All buildings and works (excluding the internal driveway) must

be located within the approved building envelopes on Lots 1
and 2 as shown on the endorsed plans for PLN/2016/270,
unless with the further written consent of the Responsible
Authority.
b) Single storey development only on Lots 1 and 2 as shown on
the endorsed plans, unless with the further written consent of
the Responsible Authority.
c) No trees identified for retention can be lopped, removed or
destroyed unless with the further written consent of the
d) Access to the lots must only be via the common property area.
Prior to a Statement of Compliance being issued:
Page 34

a) Application must be made to the Registrar of Titles to register

the Section 173 Agreement on the title to the land under
Section 181 of the same Act.
b) The owner/s must pay all costs (including Councils costs)

associated with the preparation, execution, registration and (if
later sought) cancellation of the Section 173 Agreement.
NO MODIFICATION
3. The subdivision allowed by this permit and shown on the plans

endorsed to accompany the permit shall not be amended for any
reason unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible
Authority.
MANDATORY CONDITIONS
4. The owner of the land must enter into an agreement with:
a) a telecommunications network or service provider for the

provision of telecommunication services to each lot shown on
the endorsed plan in accordance with the providers
requirements and relevant legislation at the time; and
b) a suitably qualified person for the provision of fibre ready

telecommunication facilities to each lot shown on the
endorsed plan in accordance with any industry specifications
or any standards set by the Australian Communications and
Media Authority, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the
land is in an area where the National Broadband Network will
not be provided by optical fibre.
5. Before the issue of a Statement of Compliance for any stage of the

subdivision under the Subdivision Act 1988, the owner of the land
must provide written confirmation from:
a) a telecommunications network or service provider that all lots

are connected to or are ready for connection to
telecommunications services in accordance with the
providers requirements and relevant legislation at the time;
and
Page 35

b) a suitably qualified person that fibre ready telecommunication

facilities have been provided in accordance with any industry
specifications or any standards set by the Australian
Communications and Media Authority, unless the applicant
can demonstrate that the land is in an area where the National
Broadband Network will not be provided by optical fibre.
6. The owner of the land must enter into agreements with the
relevant authorities for the provision of water supply, drainage,
sewerage facilities, electricity and gas services to each lot shown
on the endorsed plan in accordance with the authoritys
requirements and relevant legislation at the time.
7. All existing and proposed easements and sites for existing or

required utility services and roads on the land must be set aside
in the plan of subdivision submitted for certification in favour of
the relevant authority for which the easement or site is to be
created.
8. The plan of subdivision submitted for certification under the

Subdivision Act 1988 must be referred to the relevant authority in
accordance with Section 8 of that Act.
VEGETATION REMOVAL
9. Only those trees marked trees to be removed on the endorsed

plans are permitted to be removed or destroyed, to the
10. Vegetation removal and disposal must not damage trees and
vegetation to be retained to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority.
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS
11. Prior to the commencement of works, an Asset Protection Permit

must be obtained from Council for any of the following:
a) Works within Council road reserves or on Council stormwater

drainage assets.
b) Entry into a building site by means of a motor vehicle having a
gross weight exceeding two tonnes.
c) New crossover or existing crossover upgrading works.
Page 36

12. Prior to the commencement of works, Engineering Plans must be

submitted to and approved by Responsible Authority including
payment of plan checking and supervision fees. The plans must
include:
a) All necessary computations and supporting design

documentation for any structure, civil and drainage
infrastructure and geotechnical investigation report.
b) Details of any cut and fill earthworks.
c) Provision and detail for all services and conduits
(underground) including alignments and offsets.
d) Details of the underground stormwater drainage to each lot in
the subdivision within own boundaries.
e) A new vehicle crossing to the common property from the
Mollison Street service road.
f) A sealed 3m wide driveway within common property to the
boundary of Lot 2.
13. Prior to issue of a Statement of Compliance, all works shown on

the approved Engineering Plans must be constructed or carried
out all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
14. Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance, the existing

underground water tank located on the site must be removed and
the land reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority.
15. The subdivision is to be provided with an underground drainage

system to a design approved by the Responsible Authority and
such that:
a) The subdivision as a whole is provided with a legal point of

discharge of drainage. All new drainage is to be connected via
underground piping into Councils existing drainage network.
b) All drainage courses within the subdivision must pass through
expressed easements.
c) Storm water runoff from all buildings, tanks and paved areas
must be drained to a legal point of discharge.
16. The subdivision is to be constructed in accordance with Macedon

Page 37

PERMIT EXPIRY
17. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances

applies:
a) The plan of subdivision is not certified within two years of the

date of this permit.
b) The plan of subdivision is not registered at Land Registry
within five years of the certification of the subdivision.
The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a

request is made in writing before the permit expires or within six
months afterwards.
Permit Notes:
No polluted and/or sediment laden run-off is to be discharged

directly or indirectly into drains or watercourses. Soil erosion
control measures must be employed throughout the works in
accordance with Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution
Control (EPA 1991).
Future owners of the land must be made aware of the existence of

this permit.
Page 38

Subject Land
The site is located in the Malmsbury township on the north side of Mollison
Street commencing 40m west of Orr Street, it comprises two (2) titles, one (1)
with an area of 620m fronting Mollison Street (Crown Allotment 8B Section
19) and one (1) adjoining to the rear (north) which is land locked and has an
area of 876.22m (Crown Allotment 8 Section 19), resulting in a total site area
of 1496.22m. The land is vacant and contains extensive planted non-native
vegetation, some open area in the middle of the site and a disused
underground water tank which has been covered over. It appears to have
historically formed part of the garden of the adjoining residential property to
the west.
The site is accessed via a single lane asphalt sealed service road which runs
west off Mollison Street, however, there is no existing crossover. A power
pole is located in the middle of the frontage in the service road 3m from the
front boundary. The land is slightly elevated from the road and falls
approximately 2m to the east and north east. It is fenced along the western
boundary with standard height Colorbond fencing, the north (rear) and parts of
the east boundary with low post and wire, with parts of the east and south
(front) boundary being unfenced.
Surrounds
All land adjoining the site is developed with existing dwellings and associated
outbuildings of varying age and styles on lots ranging in size from 850m to
2727m. Three (3) properties to the west of the site have the same title make
up as the subject site having smaller lots fronting Mollison Street and larger
land locked titles to the rear which are used in conjunction with each other,
two (2) having buildings constructed over title boundaries. The lot pattern in
the subject street block is a departure from the standard grid of quarter acre
lots displayed elsewhere within the Malmsbury township.

site
A current copy of both titles has been provided with the application which
shows no Covenants, Section 173 Agreements or restrictions have been
registered on the titles to this property.
A search of Councils records has found no planning permit history for the site.
Page 39

The Proposal
Subdivision
The advertised proposal seeks approval for subdivision of the land into two (2)
lots and associated vegetation removal. The subdivision has been proposed
as a battle axe layout: Lot 1 will front Mollison Street, have an area of 674m
and contain a building envelope of 218.8m; Lot 2 will be located to the rear of
Lot 1, have an area of 828m and contain a building envelope of 218.75m
and a 2.5m wide sewerage easement along the full length of the east
boundary; both lots will be accessed by side by side carriageway easements
located adjacent to the east boundary of the site.
Following discussions with the officer in regards to vehicle access concerns,

the applicant has agreed that an amended plan condition to be included, if
support was forthcoming, requiring the carriageway easements to be
combined to form common property. This would then create two (2) lots with
areas of approximately 566m and 700m respectively with a common area of
approximately 230m.
Vegetation removal
The vegetation removal comprises nine (9) trees and shrubs requiring
removal either due to their age and health or for provision of building
envelopes on each of the proposed lots. An arborist report which assessed
and made recommendations for all the vegetation on the site was submitted
with the application.
Relevant Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme Controls

11 Settlement
13.03-2 Erosion and landslip
14.02 Water
15 Built Environment and Heritage
16 Housing

21.13-9 Local Areas and Small Settlements - Malmsbury
22.05 Battle Axe allotment
Page 40

Zoning

32.08 General Residential Zone
Overlays

42.01 Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 4: Eppalock Proclaimed
Catchment
43.01 Heritage Overlay 148: Malmsbury Precinct
44.01 Erosion Management Overlay Schedule 1: Malmsbury Township

52.01 Public Open Space Contribution and Subdivision
52.29 Land adjacent to a Road Zone Category 1 (Mollison Street)
56 Residential Subdivision
General Provisions

65.02 Approval of an application to subdivide land
Permit Triggers
Clause No. Details

32.08-2 Permit required to subdivide land
52.29 Permit required to subdivide land adjacent to a Road Zone Category 1
Page 41


1 Is the subject property within an area of cultural No
Regulations 2007?
2 Does the application proposal include significant N/A
3 Is the application proposal an exempt activity as N/A
Regulations 2007?
4 Is the application proposal a high impact activity N/A
Regulations 2007?
Based on the above assessment, a cultural heritage management plan is not

Regulations 2007.
The Process to Date
Referral

VicRoads No objection, no conditions

MRSC Engineering Unit No objection subject to seven (7) conditions
MRSC Heritage Advisor No objection following negotiation with the
applicant to include building envelopes with
appropriate boundary setbacks and restriction to
single storey development
Advertising
Pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the

application was advertised by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of
surrounding land and by requiring a notice to be erected on the land for a
period of 14 days. Three (3) objections and one letter of support have been
received to date.
The following is a summary of the objections received:
Form of proposed subdivision not in keeping with the character of

Malmsbury in regard to limited lot frontage width, density, quiet rural feel,
heritage setting and spaciousness.
Page 42

Potential of approval to create precedent for smaller lots and higher

density dwelling development.
Lack of need for such lots as there is already an adequate supply of

affordable generous sized residential lots in the area.
Proposal constitutes suburbanisation of a small country village which is

contrary to the basis on which people move to Malmsbury.
The letter of support states lot sizes are appropriate and the proposal will
make better use of existing infrastructure within the Malmsbury township.
Officer Assessment
State and Local Planning Policy Framework
The relevant State planning policies encourage and reinforce consolidation of,
and development within, established urban areas, while respecting existing
neighbourhood character, particularly in locations close to existing
infrastructure and services. The key elements of the Malmsbury township,
Catchment Management and Water Quality, Erosion Risk and Built
Environment and Heritage and Battle Axe policies to which the proposal
responds are:
The subdivision and associated vegetation removal will not negatively
impact the water quality or yield of the Malmsbury Reservoir.
Provision of diversity of residential density and choice of living
environment to meet the needs and aspirations of different groups of
people.
A lot layout, access, building envelopes and vegetation retention which
will maintain the street frontage pattern and existing landscape character
of the immediate neighbourhood.
Does not adversely impact on elements which contribute to the
importance of the Malmsbury heritage precinct.
Better utilisation of land which can be serviced and is located within the
township boundary with good access to existing transport, retail, open
space and community services.
It is consistent with the objective to accommodate additional population
growth within the identified Malmsbury township boundary.
The layout meets the design criteria of the battle axe allotment policy in
regard to driveway width, landscaping, location of services, location of
access, retention of existing vegetation and maintenance of driveway
access spacing displayed in the locality.
Page 43

General Residential 1 Zone
The relevant purposes of the General Residential 1 Zone are to implement the
State and Local Planning Policy Framework and to encourage development
that respects the neighbourhood character of the area and to provide a
diversity of housing types and moderate housing growth in locations offering
good access to services and transport.
The proposal meets the objectives of the General Residential 1 Zone by

resubdividing two (2) existing lots to create two (2) new lots of appropriate
size and dimensions in an established residential area in the Malmsbury
township which is responsive to the existing neighbourhood character.
Environmental Significance Overlay
The objectives of the schedule to this overlay are considered to be achieved

as the vegetation to be removed is non native and not within close proximity to
any waterway, the site is located within the Malmsbury township with access
to reticulated water and sewerage and permit conditions and notes are
recommended regarding drainage and sediment control which will ensure the
water quality and yield within the Eppalock Water Supply Catchment will be
protected and maintained.
Heritage Overlay
Councils Heritage Advisor has assessed the proposal and provided support
on the basis that building envelopes with appropriate setbacks from
boundaries and a restriction to single storey development be registered on
title. These requirements have been negotiated with, and agreed to, by the
permit applicant and permit conditions are accordingly recommended. This,
together with the fact that the proposal maintains existing vegetation,
particularly at the front of the site, a substantial front setback of 11.75m, single
access point, and any development on the rear lot being well removed from
the public realm; will ensure the streetscape impacts of the subdivision are
minimised. It is also noted that any future development of the lots will require
further planning approval.
It is therefore considered the proposed subdivision will not adversely affect the
significance of the Malmsbury township heritage precinct.
Page 44

Erosion Management Overlay
The soil and water impacts of the subdivision works will be minimal,
stormwater can be managed and there was no evidence of land degradation
on site inspection. The proposed subdivision and associated vegetation
removal will not increase the possibility of erosion, landslip or other land
degradation process and conditions recommended by Councils Engineering
Unit will ensure that the objective of maintenance of the water quality of the
Malmsbury Reservoir can be achieved.
Clause 52.01 Public Open Space Contribution and Subdivision
Any person who proposes to subdivide land must make a contribution to

Council for public open space in an amount specified in the schedule to this
clause. However an exemption from this requirement applies where the land
is being subdivided into two (2) lots and Council considers it unlikely that each
lot will be further subdivided, as is the case in this instance.
Clause 52.29 Land adjacent to a Road Zone Category 1
The application was referred to VicRoads as a new access to Mollison Street

is proposed. VicRoads have consented to the proposal unconditionally. On
this basis it is considered the subdivision will have minimal impact on the
operation and public safety of Mollison Street.
Clause 56 Residential Subdivision
A copy of the assessment of the proposal against the relevant objectives and
standards of this clause is retained on file which demonstrates the subdivision
complies in regard to: neighbourhood character, lot area and building
envelopes, solar orientation, common area, lot access, drinking water supply,
reused and recycled water, waste water management, urban run-off
management, site management, shared trenching and electricity,
telecommunications and gas.
Clause 65.02 Approval of an application to subdivide land
The relevant matters of this clause have been considered in that:

The site is located within the Malmsbury township boundary in an area
designated for modest in fill development.
Each lot can be easily accessed by vehicles and pedestrians via existing
roads;
Off street parking can be provided to service the lots;
Both lots can be connected to utility services;
Drainage issues have been identified and can be addressed via permit
conditions;
Page 45

The lot layout provides for retention of some existing established vegetation
on the site.
The proposal creates a residential zoned lot within the Malmsbury township
boundary which was previously land locked and unable to be accessed.
A need to include access as common property has been identified and
addressed via recommended permit condition.
Clause 66 Referrals and Notice Provisions
The mandatory conditions of Clause 66.01-1 are recommended permit

conditions.
Objections received
In regard to the objections received the following is noted:

It is acknowledged that the battle axe form of the subdivision is a departure
from the traditional grid layout in other sections of the Malmsbury township,
however, the subject street block bounded by Mollison, Orr, Drake and
Adamson Streets already displays a variable lot size and layout pattern to
which the subject proposal would further contribute.
The subject site comprises two (2) titles and the background to the unusual
configuration is unclear, however, the proposal will not result in any
additional lots, but will create a layout which provides access to the lot at
the rear which is currently landlocked.
It is unlikely that this application will provide a precedent for other such
applications in the immediate locality as each proposal is considered on its
own merit and adjoining properties with the same title configuration already
have buildings constructed over boundaries which would limit such
opportunities.
It is considered that proposed permit conditions relating to building
envelopes, restriction to single storey development, retention of existing
vegetation and single access point will contribute to maintenance of the
Malmsbury township neighbourhood character.
The density proposed is considered appropriate having regard to the
location of the land within the Malmsbury township boundary identified as
suitable for infill development and with good access to existing
infrastructure, services and facilities.
The relevant policies advocate provision of a range of lot sizes and housing
types to cater for a choice of living environment for people with differing
needs.
Page 46

Conclusion
The proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions of the

planning scheme for the following reasons:
It meets the policy and design criteria of the Battle Axe policy in regard to
driveway safety and function, visual interest and landscaping and allotment
size relationship.
Will contribute to providing a diversity of lot densities and housing types
and moderate growth within the Malmsbury township.
A recommended permit condition requiring registration of building
envelopes and single storey only development on title (via a Sec 173
Agreement and agreed to by applicant) ensure future development which
will maintain neighbourhood character of the Malmsbury township including
setbacks from boundaries, site coverage, streetscape, retention of existing
established vegetation and low scale development (addresses objectors
concerns).
Can meet the relevant objectives for two (2) lot residential subdivision
relating to: neighbourhood character, lot area and building envelopes, solar
orientation, common area, lot access, drinking water supply, reused and
recycled water, waste water management, urban run-off management, site
management, shared trenching and electricity, telecommunications and
gas.
The trees and shrubs proposed for removal are non-native, of common
species and their removal will have minimal impact in terms of water quality
and yield, erosion and significance or appearance of the Malmsbury
heritage precinct.
The future construction of a dwelling on the lots, will be subject to further
planning permit applications, under the requirements of the Heritage
Overlay and Erosion Management Overlay Schedule 1: Malmsbury
Township.
The proposed two (2) lot subdivision is consistent with the objectives of
relevant state and local policies, the purpose of the zones and overlays and
the objectives and standards of Clause 56. The subdivision will respect
neighbourhood residential and landscape character. The proposal is
considered to be consistent with the orderly planning of the Malmsbury
township area. Based on the above discussion the application is supported.
Page 47

DEVELOPMENT OF TWO (2) DWELLINGS, TWO (2) LOT
SUBDIVISION, REMOVAL OF VEGETATION AND
ALTERATION OF ACCESS TO A ROAD ZONE CATEGORY
1 AT 129 HIGH STREET WOODEND VIC 3442
Officer: Hayley Plank, Senior Planner

Attachments: 13
Applicant: D G Moore
Date of Receipt of Application: 27 May 2016
Synopsis:
The application site adjoins the service road on the west side of High Street
and is undeveloped, except for sheds which have been used for the storage
of building materials. The site also contains a number of large trees.
The applicant is seeking approval to develop the site with two (2) dwellings
and a subsequent two (2) lot subdivision. The development works will require
the removal of existing non-native vegetation (including seven (7) trees) and
the creation and alteration of access to High Street, a Road Zone Category
1.
The proposed development and subdivision is considered to be appropriate,

in that it is consistent with the relevant provisions of the State and Local
Planning Policy Frameworks which encourage infill development close to town
centres, the purpose of the General Residential Zone and the objectives of
Clause 55. Particular consideration has been given to the policy direction for
this precinct specified within Amendment C98. The application site and
surrounds are located within the Historic Residential Precinct, which will
require a mandatory minimum lot size of 600m and seeks to maintain a
spacious, detached character and supports innovative, contemporary
architectural responses complementary to the historic character of the area.
While the development proposed is modern and of a clearly different style
than existing development within the area, it is considered that the siting,
scale and use of colours and materials are respectful of the character of the
area. The 600m minimum lot size will be achieved for both lots created
following subdivision.
Page 48

AT 129 HIGH STREET WOODEND (Continued)
The removal of existing trees is considered appropriate given that they are
only afforded minimal protection by the existing planning scheme provisions.
Councils Engineering Unit has reviewed the application and is satisfied that
the proposal meets requirements, subject to conditions. VicRoads have
offered no objection to the proposed changes to access to the High Street
service road, subject to conditions.
Given the above, it is recommended that this application be supported.
That a notice of decision to grant a permit is issued for development of

two (2) dwellings, two (2) lot subdivision, removal of vegetation and
alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1 for the land at 129 High
Street WOODEND subject to the conditions below:
1. Prior to the commencement of works or the plan of subdivision is

certified under the Subdivision Act 1988 (whichever occurs first),
three copies of amended plans must be submitted to and approved
by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be
endorsed and will then form part of this permit. The plans must be
generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the amended
application, prepared by Campaspe Drafting (C1-C3 and A1-A7, dated
Feb 2016) and Karl Baumann Architecture Pty Ltd (CP2-CP7, dated 13
September 2016) but modified to show:
a) Removal of Stormwater Drainage System Concept details
from the Site Plan (Drawing A1 Revision 17).
b) A maximum crossover and driveway width of 3.5m at the
property/road reserve boundary of Lot 1.
c) Details of colours and materials for all external surfaces of the
proposed dwellings, garages, fencing and letterbox. This must
be in general accordance with the finishes schedule submitted
with the amended application dated 17 October 2016 but must
include the following changes:
i. Roof of the front dwelling shall be Colorbond Gully (or
similar).
d) Detail of fencing to be constructed along the street boundary
and between Lots 1 and 2. This must include extent, height,
design detail, materials and colours.
e) The location and extent of canopy of all trees to be removed.
f) The location canopy trees to be protected on the adjoining site
to the north (including dimensions of canopy size).
g) Identification of lots as Lot 1 (front lot) and Lot 2 (rear lot).
Page 49

h) Provision of a 2m high timber acoustic fence, to be

constructed along the south boundary of Lot 1, from the
boundary with the service road to the front wall of the garage.
The design of the fence must be prepared by a suitably
qualified acoustic engineer. The details of the design and
acoustic qualities of the fence must be to the satisfaction of
2. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be

altered unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible
Authority.
3. The subdivision allowed by this permit and shown on the plans

endorsed to accompany the permit shall not be amended for any
reason unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible
Authority.
4. The tree removal hereby approved must be carried out in accordance

with the plans endorsed under this permit and must not be altered
unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
5. Before the development commences or the plan of subdivision is

certified under the Subdivision Act 1988 (whichever occurs first),
three copies of a landscape plan detailing the common property
driveway area and front setback of Lot 1 to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the
Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed
and will then form part of this permit. The plan must show:
a) A 1m width of landscaped area to be provided on either side of a
3m wide unsealed driveway to Lot 2.
b) Continuation of landscaping on the south side of the driveway to
the edge of the building on Lot 1.
c) The provision of at least two canopy trees in the front setback of
Lot 1.
d) The area or areas set aside for landscaping.
e) A schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs/small trees and ground
cover, including botanical names, common names, pot sizes,
sizes at maturity and quantities of each plant. The landscaping is
to consist of species to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority.
f) The location of each species to be planted and the location of all
areas to be covered by grass, lawn or other surface material.
g) Type and depth of mulch.
h) Appropriate irrigation systems.
Page 50

6. Before the certification of the Plan of Subdivision, the owner/s of the

lot/s must enter into an agreement with the Responsible Authority
and in accordance with Section 173 of the Planning and Environment
Act 1987. The agreement must provide for:
a) Lots 1 and 2 must be developed in accordance with the plans

endorsed under planning permit PLN/2016/242 and associated
conditions, unless with the prior written consent of the
Responsible Authority. This clause shall not apply in the event
that the approved development is constructed prior to the
certification of the Plan of Subdivision.
b) No fencing may be constructed along the south boundary of

the driveway to Lot 2 in the locations shown on the plan
endorsed under planning permit PLN/2016/242, unless with the
prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
c) Ongoing retention and maintenance of landscaping on Lots 1

and 2, as shown on the landscape plan endorsed under
planning permit PLN/2016/242.
Prior to a Statement of Compliance being issued:
a) Application must be made to the Registrar of Titles to register

the Section 173 Agreement on the title to the land under
Section 181 of the same Act.
b) The owner/s must pay all costs (including Councils costs)

associated with the preparation, execution, registration and (if
later sought) cancellation of the Section 173 Agreement.
7. Unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority,

before the occupation of the development, the landscaping works
shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out, completed and
thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority.

9. Before the occupation of the dwelling on Lot 1, an acoustic fence

must be erected and must be put in place along the south boundary
of the site forward of the dwelling to a minimum height of 2 metres
above natural ground level, in accordance with the endorsed plans.
Page 51

10. Measures must be undertaken to minimise any loss of amenity to the

neighbourhood from the development caused by dust, noise, the
transport of materials to and from the land and the deposit of mud
and debris on public roads, to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority.
11. The owner of the land must enter into agreements with the relevant
authorities for the provision of water supply, drainage, sewerage
facilities, electricity and gas services to each lot shown on the
endorsed plan in accordance with the authoritys requirements and
relevant legislation at the time.
12. All existing and proposed easements and sites for existing or
required utility services and roads on the land must be set aside in
the plan of subdivision submitted for certification in favour of the
relevant authority for which the easement or site is to be created.
13. The plan of subdivision submitted for certification under the

Subdivision Act 1988 must be referred to the relevant authority in
accordance with Section 8 of that Act.
14. The owner of the land must enter into an agreement with:
a telecommunications network or service provider for the
provision of telecommunication services to each lot shown on
the endorsed plan in accordance with the providers
requirements and relevant legislation at the time; and
a suitably qualified person for the provision of fibre ready
telecommunication facilities to each lot shown on the
endorsed plan in accordance with any industry specifications
or any standards set by the Australian Communications and
Media Authority, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the
land is in an area where the National Broadband Network will
not be provided by optical fibre.
15. Before the issue of a Statement of Compliance for any stage of the
subdivision under the Subdivision Act 1988, the owner of the land
must provide written confirmation from:
a telecommunications network or service provider that all lots
are connected to or are ready for connection to
telecommunications services in accordance with the
providers requirements and relevant legislation at the time;
and
Page 52

a suitably qualified person that fibre ready telecommunication

facilities have been provided in accordance with any industry
specifications or any standards set by the Australian
Communications and Media Authority, unless the applicant
can demonstrate that the land is in an area where the National
Broadband Network will not be provided by optical fibre.
16. Prior to the commencement of works, plans detailing the method of

construction of the driveway and installation of services to Lot 2
must be submitted to, and approved by the Responsible Authority.
The method of construction shall be based on the recommendations
of a qualified arborist in order to protect the two trees located on the
adjoining site to the north, as identified on the endorsed plans, to the
17. Unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority,
the following actions must not be undertaken within the canopy lines
of the two trees to be protected on the adjoining site to the north, as
identified on the endorsed plans, to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority:
a) Materials or equipment stored within the zone;
b) Nothing is to be attached to any tree (including temporary service
wires, nails, screws or any other fixing device);
c) Open cut trenching or excavation works (whether or not for laying
of services) undertaken within the zone;
d) Changes to the soil grade level within the zone.
MRSC Engineering Conditions

18. Prior to the commencement of works, an Asset Protection Permit
must be obtained from Council for any of the following
circumstances:
a) Entering a building site by means of a motor vehicle having a
b) Occupying a road for works.
c) Connecting any land to a stormwater drain.
d) Opening, altering or repairing a road.
e) Opening, altering or repairing a drain.
f) Accessing a building site from a point other than a crossover.
19. Prior to the commencement of works, Engineering Plans must be

submitted to and approved by Responsible Authority including
payment of plan checking and supervision fees. The plans must
include:
a) All necessary computations and supporting design
documentation for any structure, civil and drainage infrastructure
and geotechnical investigation report.
Page 53

b) Details of any cut and fill earthworks.

c) Provision for all services and conduits (underground), including
alignments and offsets.
d) New crossover to each lot.
e) Details of a pumped drainage system to provide underground
stormwater drainage to all lots in the subdivision within own
boundaries.
f) Details of the stormwater quality treatment system. Alternatively,
payment of the stormwater quality offset contribution to the
20. Prior to issue of a Statement of Compliance, all works shown on the

approved Engineering Plans must be constructed or carried out all to
the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
21. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings, the areas set aside for the
parking of vehicles and access driveways as shown on the endorsed
plans must be:
a) Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in
accordance with the plans.
b) Drained and maintained.
Car spaces, access lanes and driveways must be kept available for
these purposes at all times.
22. The subdivision is to be provided with a drainage system to a design

approved by the Responsible Authority and such that:
a) The subdivision as a whole is provided with legal point/s of
discharge of drainage. All new drainage is to be connected via
underground piping into Councils existing drainage network.
b) All drainage courses or outfall drainage lines required to the legal
point of discharge and which pass through lands other than those
within the boundaries of the subdivision must be constructed at
no cost to the Responsible Authority.
c) All drainage courses located within allotments must be contained
within expressed drainage easements.
d) Objectives of the Best Practice Environmental Management
Guidelines (CSIRO 1999) are satisfied.
23. The subdivision is to be constructed in accordance with Macedon

Page 54

24. No polluted and/or sediment laden run-off is to be discharged directly

or indirectly into drains or watercourses. Soil erosion control
measures must be employed throughout the development works in
accordance with Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution
Control (EPA 1991) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Goulburn-Murray Water Conditions

25. Each lot must be provided with connection to the reticulated
sewerage system in accordance with the requirements of the relevant
urban water authority.
26. All construction and ongoing activities must be in accordance with

sediment control principles outlined in Construction Techniques for
Sediment Pollution Control (EPA, 1991).
VicRoads Conditions
27. Before the plan of subdivision is submitted to the Responsible
Authority for certification under the Subdivision Act 1988, a
functional layout plan must be submitted to and approved by the
Responsible Authority. When approved by the Responsible
Authority, the plans may be endorsed by the Responsible Authority
and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be annotated to
show but not be restricted to:
a) Upgrade of the service road for the full frontage of the proposed
subdivision, including footpaths.
b) All existing (including any to be closed) and proposed access
points; and
c) All services and infrastructure (e.g. power poles etc) to be
relocated.
28. Upon written approval of the functional layout, a detailed engineering

layout must be submitted to the Responsible Authority for written
approval.
29. Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for the subdivision:

a) Upgrade of the service road for the full frontage of the proposed
b) All works must be constructed to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority and at no cost to VicRoads.
30. Earthworks must not change the rate of flow or the discharge point of
flood water onto the Macedon Woodend Road (High Street) road
reserve.
Page 55

Expiry of Permit
a) The development is not commenced within two years of the
b) The development is not completed within four years of the date
of this permit.
c) The plan of subdivision is not certified within two years of the
d) The plan of subdivision is not registered at the Land Registry
within five years of the certification of the subdivision.
In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment

Act 1987, an application may be submitted to the Responsible
Authority for an extension of the periods referred to in this
condition.
Notes:
Future owners of the land must be made aware of the existence of this
permit.
VicRoads Notes:
Separate consent for works within the road reserve and the
specifications of these works is required under the Road Management
Act. For the purposes of this application the works will include provision
of:
i. Upgrade of the service road for the full frontage of the proposed
ii. Any other works in the arterial road reserve
iii. Reinstatement of any disused crossovers made redundant by this
permit.
Please forward details to nr.mailbox@roads.vic.gov.au. Further

information regarding VicRoads consent to work within the road
reserve can be found on the VicRoads Website:
https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/business-and-industry/design-and-
management/working-within-the-road-reserve or by or telephoning (03)
5434 5094.
The discharge of any concentrated drainage onto the Macedon

Woodend Road (High Street) road reserve is not permitted unless
approved in writing by VicRoads.
Page 56

Subject Land and Surrounds

The application site is located on the western side of High Street, adjacent to
an informal service road which runs parallel to the main carriageway. The site
has an area of 1276m and is generally of rectangular shape, although it
widens slightly towards the rear.
Development on the site currently consists of a cluster of dilapidated sheds,

which have previously been used for the storage of building materials, and are
located towards the rear. The site is generally overgrown and contains a
number of established non-native trees. These include a group of three
cypresses near the front boundary, an oak tree with a wide canopy in the
centre and another smaller oak tree near the north boundary towards the rear.
There are also a number of less significant trees and shrubs. There is no
native vegetation on the site.
The topography is generally flat, with a small slope towards the south west.
Fencing comprises a mix of timber, tin and wire, with various heights and in
various states of repair. A redundant power pole is located in the centre.
Access to the site is via the access road. A gate and existing access point is
located near the north end of the frontage. A semi-formed driveway runs
along the north boundary of the site.
The site is adjoined by established residential dwellings on all sides. The

dwelling on the site to the south (an historic building known as Beth Shan) is
located immediately adjacent to the north boundary of that site and its
verandah extends partly into the road reserve. The site to the north includes
large trees close to the south boundary, which partially overhang the
application site.
The existing built form character within the area comprises a mix of both
single and two (2) storey dwellings. It is noted that there are three (3) two (2)
storey dwellings (located at 125, 133 and 137 High Street) within the
immediate block containing the application site.
High Street is identified as a Road Zone Category 1 in the planning scheme.

This is the main arterial route through the town centre and carries a moderate
level of traffic. The road is set at a level approximately 1.5m higher than the
adjacent residential properties. None of the properties have direct access to
the road, instead utilising the informal unsealed service road, with a small
number of existing links to High Street.
Page 57


site
covenants, Section 173 agreements or restrictions have been registered on
No relevant planning permit history for the subject property has been found.
The Proposal
The applicant is seeking approval for the development of the site with two (2)
dwellings, a subsequent two (2) lot subdivision, the removal of existing non-
native vegetation and the alteration of access to the Road Zone Category 1.
The front part of the site is proposed to be developed with a two (2) storey
dwelling, which will be setback a minimum of 3m from the street boundary.
The building will have a maximum height of 6.6m and a total floor area of
316.4m. This includes a double garage, which will be located on the south
side of the dwelling, adjoining the boundary and will be setback 5m from the
front wall of the dwelling. A new access from the service road will be
established in this location.
The dwelling design is modern, including sloping skillion roof forms and a
small balcony at first floor level at the front of the building. It will be clad with a
mix of corten wall cladding and vertical timber cladding and have a Colorbond
steel roof. The colour palette submitted with the application indicates that a
range of natural red-brown tones will be used for the walls, with Colorbond
Dune for the roof.
The dwelling will be adjoined to the north by an area of secluded private open
space, exceeding 130m in area. This area will be enclosed with a 1.8m high
fence.
The rear part of the site is proposed to be developed with a single storey
dwelling, which will have a maximum height of 3.8m and a total floor area of
251.69m. This includes a double garage located on the north side boundary.
The building will be setback 2m from the south side boundary.
The building will be clad with a mix of Colorbond, brick and cement sheet,
using a range of grey tones. The roof will be Colorbond Dune.
The dwelling will be adjoined to the north by an area of secluded private open
space, exceeding 127m in area.
Page 58

Access to the rear lot is via a 4.2m wide driveway, which will be provided
along the north side of the site. The applicant is proposing that this will
comprise a 3m wide carriageway, with landscaping on each side. Additional
landscaping is also proposed on the adjacent parts of the front lot and no
fencing is proposed on the south side of the driveway.
The development will require the removal of most of the existing vegetation on
the site, including three (3) large cypress trees at the front of the site, two (2)
oak trees in the middle of the site and two (2) willow trees near the north-west
corner.
The proposed subdivision of the site will result in two (2) lots as follows:
Lot 1 will have an area of 601m and will comprise the dwelling proposed for
the front of the site.
Lot 2 will have an area of 663.55m and will comprise the dwelling proposed
for the rear of the site, including the access to this site.
Amendments to Plans
It should be noted that the plans currently under consideration have been
significantly amended from those originally submitted. These changes were
made following discussions with Council officers and the receipt of advice
from referral authorities. The changes of most significant note were:
Redesign of the dwelling proposed for Lot 1, including the setting back of the
upper storey from the ground level and provision of a small balcony on the
front elevation; the inclusion of sloping roof forms and overhanging eaves;
and clarification of colour tones to be used for exterior surfaces.
Re-siting of the dwelling proposed for Lot 1, including increasing the street
setback from 1.9m to 3m; setting back the garage 5m from the front wall; and
increasing the south boundary setback for the dwelling from 1.5m to 2m.
Re-siting of the dwelling proposed for Lot 2 to achieve a 2m setback from the
south side boundary and repositioning the garage to the north side of the site,
adjacent to an existing outbuilding on the adjoining site.
Reduction in the width of the battleaxe access to Lot 2 from 6m to 4.2m and
the provision of additional information as to how this space will be treated in
terms of fencing and landscaping.
Removal of two (2) existing oak trees which were previously proposed to be
retained. Given the proposed setback between these trees and the
development shown on the original plans, it was not considered feasible for
these trees to be retained.
Proposed protection measures for trees on adjoining lot to north.
Page 59

SPPF
11.05-2 Melbournes Hinterland Areas
15.01 Urban Environment
16.01 Residential Development
18.02-5 Car Parking
LPPF
21.04 Settlement
21.05 Environment and Landscape Values
21.08 Built Environment and Heritage
21.09 Housing
21.13-3 Woodend
Zone
32.08 General Residential Zone
Overlays
42.01 Environmental Significance Overlay
52.01 Public Open Space Contribution and Subdivision
52.06 Car Parking
52.29 Land Adjacent to a Road Zone Category 1
55 Two or More Dwellings on a Lot
56 Residential Subdivision
General Provisions
Permit Trigger
Clause No Details
32.08-2 A permit is required to subdivide land in the General Residential Zone.
32.08-4 A permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot in the General
Residential Zone.
42.01-2 A permit is required to remove vegetation on a site affected by an
Environmental Significance Overlay.
52.29 A permit is required to create or alter access; or subdivide adjacent to a Road
Zone Category 1.
Page 60


1 Is the subject property within an area of cultural Yes
Regulations 2007?
2 Does the application proposal include significant Yes
3 Is the application proposal an exempt activity as Yes
Regulations 2007?
4 Is the application proposal a high impact activity No
Regulations 2007?

Regulations 2007.
The Process to Date
Referral

Western Water No response received (response requested 14
June 2016)
Goulburn Murray Water No objection, subject to conditions
VicRoads No objection, subject to conditions

MRSC Strategic Planning No objection
MRSC Heritage Advisor No objection, subject to conditions
MRSC Infrastructure, Engineering and No objection, subject to conditions
Major Projects
MRSC Arborist No objection, subject to conditions
Advertising

application was advertised by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of
surrounding and adjoining land for a period of 14 days. Three (3) objections
have been received to date.
Page 61

The following is a summary of the objections received:

Design of front dwelling is at odds with surrounding streetscape and historic
character.
Front dwelling is at odds with strategies contained within C98.
Noise impacts from driveway/garage to existing dwelling to south.
Request that no parking space is provided in front of garage to front dwelling.
Request retention of oak trees.
Impact on existing trees near driveway on site to north and request for
permeable surface.
Officer Assessment
State policy promotes growth and development of settlements within

Melbournes hinterland area, while maintaining their attractiveness and
amenity. Land has been identified and zoned as appropriate for residential
development.
The policies seek a high quality urban environment, which is liveable and
attractive, while minimising impact on important natural values, such as
significant vegetation.
State policy also promotes the provision of a range of housing types to meet
diverse needs and which are in or close to activity centres and employment
corridors and sites that offer good access to services and transport.
The provision of an adequate supply of car parking is anticipated, with an

emphasis on protecting the amenity of residential areas from impacts of road
congestion created by on-street parking.
The proposal is considered to meet the objectives in these policies in

providing for infill residential development on a site within an existing
settlement and which is zoned for such a use. The development is generally
considered to achieve the character objectives for this area and will offer a
diversity of housing types for the area. The site is located within close
proximity to the town centre, with good access to services and transport and
provides for adequate levels of on-site parking to protect the road function and
amenity of the area.
An updated Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) was gazetted on 10

September 2015. The updated MSS generally aims to achieve outcomes
which include:
Page 62

Providing for a population increase across the Shire of 16,000 residents by

2036, with the majority of this growth within larger settlements.
Providing for development and growth within existing settlement boundaries
and where adequate services are available.
Ensuring that development is sustainable and respects character of towns
and settlements.
Protection of water catchments and retention and enhancement of native
vegetation.
In relation to Woodend, Clause 21.04 states that the town will follow a modest
growth path and remain a District Town, with a population of less than 6000
people. This is in recognition of the valued character of the town and
environmental constraints.
Clause 21.13-3 states three objectives for Woodend, which are:

To reinforce key urban functions and the role of Woodend as a district town.
To protect Woodends landscape and township character.
To substantially restrict development in areas subject to flooding and of high
bushfire risk.
The first and third objectives generally direct infill development to within the
existing town boundary and to restrict development in areas subject to natural
hazards. These objectives are satisfied given the application site is located
within the existing township and is not subject to any elevated flooding or
bushfire risk. The second objective is primarily concerned with the landscape
and township character and one of the strategies associated with this
objective is to encourage development that protects and adds to the
landscape, respects the urban character of the town and that enhances
streetscapes. It is considered that the development is consistent with this
objective, as will be discussed further below.
Woodend Structure Plan and C98
The Woodend Structure Plan was adopted by Council on 28 May 2014. The
structure plan aims to provide a long term vision to guide growth and
development of the town for the next 15-20+ years. The recommendations
contained within the structure plan are to be implemented through planning
scheme amendment C98. This amendment has been considered by a Panel
and Council adopted the Panels recommendations at its meeting on 24
August 2016. The amendment has been submitted to the Minister of Planning
for approval.
Page 63

The application site is proposed to be located within the Historic Residential

neighbourhood character precinct, which will be rezoned as a Neighbourhood
Residential Zone. It is noted that the Panel gave significant consideration to
the extent of this precinct in their report and was not satisfied that Council had
demonstrated that the NRZ should be applied to some of the proposed areas
(generally to the west of the town centre). They agreed however that the
subject site and surrounding area (being the block south of Brewster Street
and north of Five Mile Creek) should be retained within this precinct as it has
a more consistent historic character and is more distant from the town centre
and railway station. (page 51 of Panel report).
This precinct is therefore proposed to be rezoned as a Neighbourhood

Residential Zone. A new schedule (NRZ2) is proposed to be introduced,
which will include variations to Clause 55 to ensure that future developments
meet a preferred future character of distinctive streetscapes of detached,
small cottages and large heritage dwellings set in established garden
surrounds; new development that integrates with the precincts historic
buildings and features; and low front fences that allow views of front gardens.
These include 2m setbacks from side or rear boundaries; maximum site
coverage of 40%; minimum permeability of 30%; the provision of at least two
(2) canopy trees; garages or carport walls allowed on boundaries where they
are setback 5m behind the front wall of a dwelling and do not abut an existing
building on the neighbouring site; and for private open space to have a
minimum dimension of 5m.
In addition a minimum subdivision area of 600m and a maximum height of

9m is specified in the schedule.
It is also proposed to make a number of changes to Clause 21.13, to include a

number of strategies to achieve the character objectives for the area. These
are:
Strategy 8.1 Maintain the garden setting of dwellings through the use of
traditional front and rear setbacks, appropriate building
footprints, accommodation of adequate landscaping and
minimisation of hard surfaces.
Strategy 8.2 Support innovative, contemporary architectural responses and

the use of pitched roofs, colours and finishes that are
complementary to the historic character of the area.
Strategy 8.3 Maintain the predominant single storey character of the

streetscape by minimising the visibility of second storey
development from the street.
This could be achieved by avoiding sheer two storey front walls, containing
the second storey within the roof form or setting it behind the
first storey roof.
Page 64

Strategy 8.4 Improve the vegetation cover by retaining and/or planting

canopy trees.
Strategy 8.5 Maintain the streetscape pattern of detached dwellings.
Strategy 8.6 Require garages and carports to be set back behind the front
faade of dwellings or sited to the rear of the property.
Strategy 8.7 Avoid front fences over 1.2 metres in height.
Strategy 8.8 Improve the avenue street tree planting where required.
Strategy 8.9 Maintain the historic country town character of the

streetscape, such as the grassed verges and bluestone kerb
and gutters.
It is considered that the proposal will be generally consistent with the

outcomes sought through C98. While multi-unit development is not
specifically encouraged within this precinct, the proposed provisions recognise
that there is some opportunity for infill development. Of particular note, both
lots created by the subdivision are able to meet the minimum lot size required
within the precinct and therefore the proposal would not be prohibited by the
amended planning scheme.
The proposed development is considered to align with the above strategies in

that:
Both dwellings achieve setbacks from street and internal boundaries which
are consistent with other buildings existing in the area.
Coverage of buildings and impermeable surfaces is moderate, allowing for
large parts of the site to be retained as permeable surface and provide
opportunities for landscaping.
The design of the two (2) dwellings is considered to be an innovative,
contemporary response and complementary to the historic character of the
area. The Councils Heritage Advisor has reviewed the design and has
supported the proposal (following amendments), particularly in relation to the
articulation of the buildings, roof overhangs and use of varied and dark
materials.
The dwelling at the front of the site will be two (2) storey, however the
amended design includes the setting back of the top storey in order to reduce
the visual prominence. It is further noted that three (3) of the existing five (5)
dwellings existing on this block are two (2) storey and therefore a two (2)
storey dwelling is not inconsistent with the existing character of the local area.
The loss of existing trees is unavoidable in this instance, given the locations
on site. The proposed layout will allow for the planting of additional trees,
within the front setback and rear yards of the dwellings.
Page 65

The streetscape of the locality is varied in relation to the setbacks between

buildings and side boundaries. While both lots will include development to a
side boundary, it is considered that the setbacks of these elements from the
street are appropriate to minimise its visual impact on the streetscape and
maintain a generally detached appearance.
The front fencing will be limited to a 1.1m high picket fence. In addition, no
fencing is proposed on the south side of the driveway to the rear lot, in order
to maintain an open feel.
There is no impact on existing street trees or the existing streetscape
features.
In relation to the proposed variations to the Clause 55 (Rescode) standards

listed in the proposed schedule, the proposal will accord to these as follows:
Both lots will achieve the minimum lot size of 600m.
Both dwellings achieve a minimum setback of 2m from side and rear
boundaries (not including garages).
Both dwellings include garages adjacent to boundaries, with both being
appropriately set back from the frontage.
The total building coverage is 38% of the site.
The permeable surfaces of the site exceed 50%.
At least two (2) canopy trees can be provided in association with the
development.
Both private open spaces include dimensions in excess of 5m.
The maximum height of both dwellings is less than 9m.
It is therefore considered that the development and subdivision will

appropriately accord to the outcomes sought by C98.
General Residential Zone
The purposes of the General Residential Zone are to encourage residential

development that respects the neighbourhood character and to provide for
residential development at a range of densities with a variety of dwellings to
meet the housing needs of all households. A planning permit is required to
construct two (2) or more dwellings on a lot and to subdivide land. The key
decision guideline in Clause 32.08-10 is the consideration of the objectives,
standards and decision guidelines of Clauses 55 and 56.
The proposal is consistent with the outcomes sought by the General

Residential Zone by providing for an infill development and additional
residential opportunities, with varied lot densities and dwelling types and sizes
in an established residential area to meet the housing needs of different
households.
Page 66

A further key outcome sought within the purpose of the zone is to encourage
development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area. This is
reinforced by Clause 55.02-1 which aims to ensure that the design respects
the existing neighbourhood character or contributes to a preferred
neighbourhood character and to ensure that development responds to the
features of the site and surrounding area.
The character study which was prepared to support the Woodend Structure
Plan and C98 identified the character of the local area as Historic
Residential. This assessment was endorsed by the Panel. The character of
this area is described as follows:
This area has a clearly defined historic character, representative of the

early settlement of Woodend. This is due to the many older buildings,
including Victorian Edwardian era timber cottages, and the wide tree-lined
streets. Buildings are mostly single storey and set in formal established
gardens. Garages where present, are usually set to the side or rear of
buildings.
Streets are laid out in a formal grid pattern, and the wide road reserves
have grassed verges with exotic avenue planting, which create a traditional
country town character.
Lot sizes are on average around 1,000m. The area is included in the
Residential 1 Zone [now General Residential Zone], and HO, LSIO and
ESO controls apply.
Due to the high number of older buildings and the relatively intact nature of
these streets, it is recommended that this area is further investigated for
additional development control through a specific schedule to the
Neighbourhood Residential Zone. This would require new buildings, where
appropriate, to achieve a high level of consistency with the established
character.
There is potential for infill development within this area, provided that it is
designed to be in keeping with the historic character.
The preferred future character is described as:
The Historic Residential precinct will be defined by its distinctive

streetscapes of small cottages and large heritage dwellings set in
established garden surrounds. This includes the continued presence of the
towns older buildings, and new development that is designed to integrate
with and maintain the significance of key features of the existing historic
character.
Page 67

The proposed development and subdivision is considered to generally

respect the neighbourhood character and respond to the features of the site
and surrounding area. The key matters for consideration relate to the
development on Lot 1, given the development proposed for Lot 2 is modest
in scale, simple in design and located at the rear of the site where it is
considered to have minimal impact on the character of the area.
The dwelling proposed for Lot 1 is located close to the front of the site, two
(2) storey and of a modern design which is clearly different from other
existing dwellings in the area. It is acknowledged that this building will
appear as new development, and it is noted that the preferred future
character objective, which is proposed to be introduced into the planning
scheme through C98 aims for new development that integrates with the
precincts historic buildings and features, rather than replicating it or
developing more of the same.
The application site and surrounds are not subject to a precinct Heritage
Overlay, however, it is acknowledged there is built development within the
immediate locality which has the type of historic qualities acknowledged by
the precinct description. The two (2) immediately adjoining sites to the
south (125 and 127 High Street) contain a large heritage dwelling (Islay
House) and a small cottage (Beth Shan) respectively. Islay House is
subject to a site specific Heritage Overlay (HO109). Beth Shan is not
subject to a Heritage Overlay but is noted to be of significance within the
Macedon Ranges Cultural Heritage and Landscape Study. Given the
proximity of the proposed dwelling to Beth Shan (which is located right on
the southern boundary at the front of the application site), it is considered
appropriate to assess the impact of the new development on this building in
particular.
The design of the building has been reviewed by Councils Heritage

Advisor. The plans originally submitted were not supported as they showed
elements considered quite foreign to the existing context of Woodend and
the immediate environs, such as the flat roof and squared forms. The
amended plans are considered far more complementary to the existing and
preferred neighbourhood character, including the greater articulation of the
building, the roof forms and overhangs and the variation of materials,
including darker tones. Some minor changes are recommended in the
colour scheme to ensure an appropriate level of contrast and visual
recession occurs.
The proposed location of the garage on the side boundary directly adjoining
this building has been carefully considered. This was also noted by the
Heritage Advisor as an original concern, as the original proposal appeared
to impose on the cottage.
Page 68

It is noted that the owner/resident of the adjoining cottage has requested

that the garage be moved forward on site, to avoid parking within the
driveway, however, it is considered that it is appropriate to retain the
proposed setback in order to ensure it does not visually dominate the small
cottage and is consistent with the outcomes sought through C98.
The overall scale of the building is appropriate, having regard to the

existing scale of development within the local area. The proposed two (2)
storey design is not opposed, noting that there are a number of two (2)
storey dwellings within this block (including Islay House), the maximum
height of the building (6.625m) is significantly less than the 9m maximum
height proposed through C98 and the upper storey element comprises only
39% of the ground floor area. The width of the upper level is only 5.34m as
viewed from the street and is set back from the front wall of the ground
level, to further reduce prominence.
The site currently contains a number of trees, which are proposed to be

removed to facilitate the development. These are three (3) substantial
cypress trees, located on the front boundary, two (2) oak trees, one which is
located close to the north boundary and one which is located in the centre of
the site and two (2) willow trees, located in the north-west corner. None of
these trees are native and therefore protection under the planning scheme is
limited to the Environmental Significance Overlay, which considers impact on
the water catchment only. In addition, most of the trees would be exempt
from a permit under Clause 52.48 (Bushfire Exemptions) due to their locations
within 2m of a boundary fence or 10m of an existing dwelling. While it is
acknowledged that existing mature vegetation does contribute to the character
of the area, given the lack of protection afforded by the planning scheme, it is
considered unreasonable to require retention and protection of any of these
trees as part of this development. A more appropriate approach is to require
the planting of new trees within the front and rear yards of the new dwellings,
which is a practical option and indicatively shown on the application plans.
Furthermore, there are substantial trees located on the road reserve fronting
this site, which also afford a significant amenity to this locality.
It is also noted that there are existing trees on the adjoining site to the north
(127 High Street), which are located near the common boundary and partly
overhang the application site. No development is proposed within the canopy
lines of these trees, however, works associated with the construction of the
driveway to Lot 2 does have the potential to impact these trees. The
submission received from the owner of the adjoining site indicates the desire
for these trees to be retained and requests for the driveway to be constructed
of permeable, drained surface in order to ensure these trees are protected.
The applicant has confirmed they intend to construct the driveway of granitic
sand and for no excavation to be undertaken during the upgrade works.
Conditions on the permit will be required to secure this and this approach is
supported by Councils arborist.
Page 69

The applicant proposes a battleaxe style driveway to the dwelling on Lot 2.

Such an arrangement does have the potential to impact negatively on the
character of the area, given there are currently no battleaxe subdivisions
within the local area. In addition, the applicant proposes to reduce the width
of this access from 6m (as specified in Councils Battleaxe Allotment Policy
Clause 22.05) to 4.2m. This narrowed width means there is more potential for
a gun barrel effect, due to lack of landscaping and potential for high fencing
to each side.
In this instance, however, the applicant is proposing that this area will be
treated in a way to visually create a seamless boundary between the two
sites. The carriageway will be formed with a width of 3m and landscaping will
be provided to both sides. The applicant has also proposed that there will be
no fencing between Lots 1 and 2 and for the landscaped area to extend to the
building on Lot 1. This treatment will assist in retaining an open, attractive
frontage and can be secured through a Section 173 agreement.
An assessment in accordance with the relevant provisions of Clause 55 (as

currently included within the planning scheme) has been undertaken and is
kept on file. The report demonstrates that the design meets all applicable
objectives. As discussed previously, C98 proposes to vary a number of these
standards, however, it is considered that the development will appropriately
accord to the relevant objectives.
The development is able to be serviced via existing reticulated water,

sewerage, electricity and telecommunications services in the area. The
Councils Engineering Unit have reviewed the proposal in respect to
stormwater management and have no objection. It is noted that the concept
outlined on the application plans (generally showing a charged drainage
system) is not considered acceptable by Engineering, however, an alternative
solution (a pumped system) would be appropriate. Amendments will be
required to the plans for endorsement on this basis.
On this basis, the proposal is considered to meet the purpose of the General
Residential Zone, in providing for infill residential development which is
respectful of the character of the area.
Parking and Access
The planning scheme requires that car parking is provided in association with
new developments, including ensuring that an appropriate number of spaces
are provided having regard to the likely demand, ensuring that car parking
does not adversely affect the amenity of the locality and ensuring the design
and location of car parking is a high standard and enables easy and efficient
use.
Page 70

The planning scheme required one (1) parking space for a two (2) bedroom
dwelling and two (2) parking spaces for a dwelling of three (3) or more
bedrooms. The design includes a double garage for each dwelling, the
dimensions of which comply with the requirements of Clause 52.06. In
addition, the driveways of both dwellings include space for tandem parking
outside the garage. This is considered adequate to cater for normal demand
generated by the dwellings.
Access to the front lot will be via a new 6m wide crossing and driveway. It is
noted that Engineering have requested that the crossover be reduced in width
to 3.5m and this will be required to be shown on amended plans. Access to
the rear lot will be via the existing access and driveway on the north side of
the site, which will be upgraded. It is noted that the access area does not
include adequate manoeuvring space to allow vehicles to turn on site and
leave in a forward direction. Councils Engineering Unit have advised they
would have no objection to vehicles reversing from the site, given the
driveway only services one dwelling and the access is onto the service road
only, not High Street. It is further noted that VicRoads did not have any
objection to the proposal.
Catchment Management and Protection
The site is affected by Environmental Significance Overlay (Schedule 4). This

overlay applies to properties within Eppalock Proclaimed Catchment and aims
to ensure the protection and maintenance of water quality and water yield
within the Eppalock Water Supply Catchment Area.
Both lots created by the subdivision will be connected to reticulated sewerage

so it is unlikely that the subdivision will impact the water quality of the area.
The development will require the removal of a number of existing trees,
however this is not considered to have a discernible impact on the water
catchment. The application has been referred to Goulburn-Murray Water and
Western Water, the water catchment authorities for this area. No objections
have been received.
On this basis, the proposal is not considered to adversely impact the water
quality and yield of the Eppalock Water Supply Catchment.
Page 71

Impact on Road Zone Category 1
High Street is identified as a Category 1 Road Zone by the planning scheme.

This zoning applies to significant roads and a planning permit is required
where it is proposed to create a new access, alter an existing access or
subdivide adjacent to these roads, in order to ensure the impacts on the
operation of the road and public safety are minimised.
In this instance, High Street is adjoined by a service road, which runs between
the main road carriageway and the application site. It is formed with an
unsealed surface adjacent to the application site and neighbouring properties.
The application includes the creation of a new access to this service road and
alteration of an existing access.
The application has been referred to VicRoads, who have advised they have
no objection to the proposal, subject to conditions requiring the upgrade of the
service road adjacent to the site. Specific details of the required upgrade are
not indicated, however, given the width of the existing service road and the
width of the road reserve itself, it is unlikely that these works would have any
impact on existing street trees or other streetscape features.
Public Open Space Contribution
Pursuant to Clause 52.01 of the planning scheme, a person who proposes to

subdivide land must make a contribution to Council for public open space.
The contribution can be exempted if the proposal is for a two lot subdivision
and Council considers that each lot is unlikely to be further subdivided.
If the proposal were to be approved, it is considered unlikely in this instance

that the lots would then be further subdivided. Both lots would be small in the
context of the surrounding area and lots smaller than 600m will be prohibited
under the proposed Neighbourhood Residential Zone schedule. It is therefore
considered that no public open space contribution should be required for this
subdivision.
Page 72

Matters Raised by Objectors
Issue: Response:
Design of front dwelling is at odds with It is acknowledged that the design of this
surrounding streetscape and historic proposed dwelling is modern and therefore very
character. different than other dwellings existing in the area.
However, the provisions of the planning scheme
and strategies contained within C98 do not
require new development to match what is
already there, rather that they respect it. It is
considered that the scale, siting and use of
colours and materials are complementary to
existing development.
Front dwelling is at odds with strategies For the reasons discussed above, it is considered
contained within C98. that this dwelling generally accords to the
strategies contained within C98.
Noise impacts from driveway/garage to It is acknowledged that the dwelling on the

existing dwelling to south. adjoining site is located right on the boundary and
is an older building within little noise insulation.
The submitter requested an acoustic fence along
the boundary in order to reduce noise impacts.
This is a reasonable suggestion and is
recommended as a condition if the permit is
granted.
Request that no parking space is The double garage proposed in conjunction with
provided in front of garage to front Lot 1 meets the requirements of Clause 52.06.
dwelling. Tandem parking within the driveway is however
possible and cannot be controlled by Council.
The setting back of the garage is considered
preferable from a character perspective.
Request retention of oak trees. The loss of these two (2) trees is considered
unavoidable given their locations on the site and
lack of significant protection afforded by the
planning scheme. The site layout provides
opportunities for replacement planting to mitigate
the loss of trees.
Impact on existing trees near driveway The applicant has proposed that a permeable
on site to north and request for surface will be used for the driveway and no
permeable surface. excavation will occur in its construction.
Page 73

Conclusion
Infill development and subdivision within serviced areas within existing

township boundaries is broadly encouraged by the SPPF and LPPF. The
MSS and LPPF also expect that a moderate level of growth will occur within
Woodend but it is clear that any development must respond appropriately to
the towns character. The recently adopted planning scheme amendment has
provided further guidance as to the preferred future character for this area and
clear policy direction to which developments must accord.
As demonstrated in the above assessment, the development and subdivision

is supported by Council officers, as the proposal is consistent with the State
and Local Planning Policy Framework, including the amendments contained
within C98 in terms of its location and design and the objectives of Clause 55.
While the design of the dwelling on Lot 1 in particular is modern and different
to those existing within the area, it is considered respectful of the preferred
neighbourhood character and appropriately responds to the features of the
site and surrounds. For these reasons, it is recommended that the application
is approved by Council.
Page 74
10. PE.4 APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN DP/2016/4

DEVELOPMENT PLAN AT 81 WILLOWBANK ROAD,
GISBORNE
Officer: Hayley Plank, Senior Planner
File Ref: DP/2016/4

practice planning and development
Attachment: Plan
Applicant: Michael Stone on behalf of M & L

Projects Pty Ltd
Date of Receipt of Application: 1 December 2016
Trigger for Report to Council: Request to approve Development

Plan
Synopsis:
The proposal relates to a 4135m site on the south side of Willowbank Road,
which is currently developed with a single storey dwelling and outbuildings
and contains a number of existing mature trees.
The area is affected by Development Plan Overlay (Schedule 4) (DPO4) and

several Development Plans showing future residential subdivision and
associated infrastructure, although these have all excluded the application
site.
The applicant seeks approval for a Development Plan relating solely to the
application site. This would provide for three (3) residential lots, ranging in
area between 930m and 2260m. The Development Plan does not include
any roads, public open space or other infrastructure. Existing significant
vegetation is proposed to be retained. The Development Plan also indicates
the location of future access to each lot and works to be undertaken to
upgrade Willowbank Road along the site frontage.
The Development Plan as submitted is considered to accord to the relevant

provisions within the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks, the
purpose of the General Residential Zone and the key principles outlined within
DPO4. The lot layout and areas, proposed retention of vegetation and
upgrade of Willowbank Road is considered appropriate. No objections have
been received from referral authorities or any adjoining residents.
Page 75

GISBORNE (Continued)
On this basis, it is recommended that the Development Plan as submitted is

approved.
That Council approve the Development Plan titled Development Plan,

81 Willowbank Road, covering the land at Lot 2 PS 143249, 81
Willowbank Road, Gisborne, prepared for the purposes of Clause 43.04,
Schedule 4 of the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme.
Page 76

Subject Land and Surrounds
The application site is located on the south side of Willowbank Road,

approximately 2.2km to the south-east of the Gisborne town centre. It is a
roughly square shaped lot and has an area of 4135m.
The site contains a single storey dwelling, located towards the rear of the site,
approximately 45m from the road frontage. The dwelling includes an attached
carport at its east end and two (2) small outbuildings.
Access is provided via an existing unsealed crossover from Willowbank Road,

located in the centre of the frontage. The site is fenced with post and wire
fencing to the road and both sides and a 1.8m high timber fence to the rear.
There are a significant number of scattered trees throughout the site,

particularly within the front setback area and along the east boundary. These
are a mix of native and non-native species and of various sizes. The site also
includes a typical level of garden vegetation, generally surrounding the
dwelling.
The application site and surrounding area is covered by DPO4. As such, the
existing character comprises a mix of larger original lots (similar in size to the
application site), containing a single dwelling, and smaller residential lots
created by more recent subdivision. The adjoining site to the west (85
Willowbank Road) has an area of over 4000m and contains a dwelling. The
adjoining land to the south has been subdivided into lots of approximately
600-1000m and the site is immediately adjoined to the south by three (3)
developed residential lots, fronting Vanclave Crescent. This subdivision is in
accordance with approved Development Plan DP/2009/12. To the east, 75
Willowbank Road is a large site in excess of 5000m containing an existing
dwelling. There is no existing development plan relating to this site. Land to
the north side of Willowbank Road is also subject to an approved
Development Plan (DP/2011/7), however at this stage has not been
intensively developed and comprises a small number of dwellings on larger
lots.

site
covenants, Section 173 agreements or restrictions have been registered on
Page 77

No relevant planning permit history for the subject property has been found.
The Proposal
The applicant is seeking approval for a Development Plan, covering the land
contained within the boundaries of 81 Willowbank Road.
The submitted Development Plan shows a proposed subdivision layout

comprising three (3) residential lots. This layout will include two (2) vacant
lots fronting Willowbank Road, with areas of 930m and 945m, and a 2260m
lot containing the existing dwelling and accessed via a 6m wide battle axe
access from Willowbank Road.
The Development Plan does not propose any new roads and all lots will have
direct access to Willowbank Road. The Development Plan indicates the
proposed locations of crossovers to each new lot.
The Development Plan includes a note stating that works will be undertaken
to upgrade Willowbank Road with widened road pavement, kerb and channel,
underground drainage and a footpath along the frontage of the application
site. The carriageway is also proposed to be widened to 9.1m.
The location and extent of existing trees to be retained have also been
indicated on the Development Plan. A note confirms that these trees are
intended to be subject to further assessment as part of the subdivision permit
application process.
The Development Plan does not include the provision of any public open
space or other reserves within the application site. There is no proposed
staging plan.
It is noted that an application for a planning permit for a three (3) lot
subdivision has been lodged with Council (PLN/2016/525) and is awaiting the
outcome of this Development Plan application.
Page 78


1 Is the subject property within an area of cultural heritage No
sensitivity as defined within the cultural heritage
sensitivity mapping or as defined in Part 2 Division 3 or 4
of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007?
2 Does the application proposal include significant ground N/A
disturbance as defined in Regulation 4 Aboriginal
Heritage Regulations 2007?
3 Is the application proposal an exempt activity as defined N/A
in Part 2 Division 2 Aboriginal Heritage Regulations
2007?
4 Is the application proposal a high impact activity as N/A
Regulations 2007?

Regulations 2007.
Referral
The application was referred to the following external authorities and MRSC
internal units:
Western Water
Powercor
Downer Infrastructure Services
Melbourne Water
MRSC Engineering Unit
MRSC Arborist
No objection to the proposal was received and authorities have offered

standard conditions for the planning application for subdivision.
Advertising
The Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme requires that an application for a

Development Plan and any amendment to a plan, which is located within the
area affected by DPO4, must be publicly exhibited for a period of two (2)
weeks prior to approval. The Responsible Authority must take into account
any comments received when considering the Development Plan or any
amendment to the plan.
Page 79

DEVELOPMENT PLAN AT 81 WILLOWBANK ROAD
The application was advertised by sending notices to the owners and

occupiers of surrounding and adjoining land and by requiring a notice to be
erected on the land for a period of 14 days. No comments or objections have
been received.
Officer Assessment
State and Local Planning Policy Framework
The State Planning Policy Framework generally aims to encourage residential

development within existing settlements, with provision for increased densities
in appropriate locations close to services and transport. The policies are also
particularly clear in their intent to respect neighbourhood character and
enhancing the character and identities of towns, through consideration of the
site context and urban form.
Clause 21.13-1 within the Local Planning Policy Framework sets out a number
of objectives and strategies to guide subdivision and development within the
Gisborne township. Of particular relevance, Objective 3 aims to manage
urban growth and development in Gisborne in a co-ordinated and
environmentally sustainable manner that ensures Gisborne remains a semi-
rural township that respects the established village character, natural setting,
topography and view lines of the area.
The relevant strategies associated with the objective include:

Strategy 1.1 Manage urban growth and development in Gisborne and New
Gisborne in accordance with the Gisborne/New Gisborne
Framework Plan included in this sub-clause.
Strategy 1.2 Contain urban development within the defined township
boundary as indicated on the Gisborne/New Gisborne
Strategy 1.3 Manage the existing supply of land zoned General Residential
Zone to achieve appropriate, timely, sequential and fully
serviced development outcomes.
Strategy 1.9 Provide a range of conventional residential development
opportunities and densities in other residential areas that is
cognisant of the semi-rural character and village setting of
Gisborne/New Gisborne. Within the context of Gisborne and
New Gisborne conventional residential development includes
lots ranging between 500-1,500 square metres in area (with
an average lot size not less than 800 square metres in any
new subdivision).
Strategy 1.10 Encourage wide lot frontages in residential developments to
provide space between buildings and a high quality
landscaped setting for new development.
Page 80

The Gisborne/New Gisborne Framework Plan appended to this clause

indicates that the application site is located on existing residential zoned land.
The Plan also shows an indicative bicycle and pedestrian network along
Willowbank Road.
General Residential Zone and Development Plan Overlay
The purposes of the General Residential Zone include to encourage

development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area; and to
provide a diversity of housing types and moderate housing growth in locations
offering good access to services and transport. The application site is
located within the area covered by DPO4, which relates to Gisborne
Residential Areas and aims to ensure the co-ordinated and sequential
development of the land to provide for the immediate and longer term
residential requirements of Gisborne. The Gisborne / New Gisborne Outline
Development Plan Revised Final Report, September 2009 (ODP) provides the
basis for this schedule.
The schedule states that any development plan that is prepared should
implement the following key principles:
Encouraging housing choice and the development of a variety of lot sizes and
types within the context of a semi-rural township.
Establishing open space networks that provide both pedestrian and cycling
link, passive and active recreation needs, and protection of environmental
features and drainage functions.
Limiting the visual intrusion of development around key township entrances,
the Calder Freeway, Jacksons Creek escarpment and Rosslynne Reservoir.
Protecting areas of remnant indigenous and significant exotic vegetation.
Recognising and protecting cultural, environmental, landscape and heritage
assets.
Increasing stormwater capture and reuse to reduce water usage and impacts
on existing drainage infrastructure.
Providing for physical and social infrastructure and the orderly staging of
development.
Encouraging current sustainable development principles and high quality
urban design.
The schedule sets out a number of requirements for development plans,

including a variety of lot sizes, assessment of existing significant vegetation, a
legible movement network and public space network, landscaping concept
and infrastructure. The schedule also specifically notes that a low density
interface to Willowbank Road and pedestrian, vehicle and bicycle linkages to
areas further to the east are incorporated into a development plan for this
area.
Page 81

Consideration
The proposed development plan is considered to be generally in accordance

with the requirements as set out in DPO4. The development plan relates to a
discrete site fronting Willowbank Road, which has never been part of an
approved development plan, and it is not necessary to provide roading, public
open space or other significant infrastructure within the site.
Lot Sizes and Dimensions
The submitted development plan shows a subdivision layout comprising three

(3) residential lots. The lots will range in area from 930m to 2260m, with an
average of 1378m. This accords to the preferred lot size specified in Clause
21.13-1, which requires lots ranging between 500-1500m, with an average lot
size of not less than 800m. This also accords to the low density interface to
Willowbank Road specifically required for this area.
Two (2) lots will have direct frontage to Willowbank Road, with the widths of
these frontages in excess of 26m each. This width is considered to be in
accordance with Clause 21.13-1, which encourages wide frontages, and
consistent with the width of lots fronting Willowbank Road shown in other
approved development plans.
One (1) lot is proposed to be a rear lot, accessed via a battle axe driveway
from Willowbank Road. The battle axe driveway is proposed to have a width
of 6m, consistent with the requirements specified in Clause 22.05 Battle Axe
Allotment Policy. The final design of this driveway (including surfacing and
landscaping) will be considered through the subdivision permit application.
All of the lots are considered of sufficient area and dimension to enable a
future building development which is consistent with the semi-rural, village
character of the area. Development on the two (2) vacant lots will be
restricted in part by protection zones associated with existing trees to be
retained, however, it is still considered that generous and flexible building
envelopes will be able to be provided on each lot.
Roading and Access
As noted above, there are no new roads proposed as part of this

Development Plan.
Access to all lots is proposed directly from Willowbank Road. The

Development Plan includes indicative locations for new crossings for each of
the lots. The existing crossover is proposed to be removed and reinstated.
Councils Engineering Unit have advised they have no objection to the
proposed access arrangements or the indicative locations for access.
Page 82

The Development Plan includes a note stating that works are to be

undertaken to upgrade Willowbank Road with a widened road pavement, kerb
and channel, underground drainage and footpath along the frontage of the
subject property. Willowbank Road will be widened to create a 9.1m wide
carriageway. This requirement is consistent with the requirement of the
schedule to provide vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle links towards the east and
has been a requirement of other Development Plans and subdivision permits
in this locality.
Vegetation
There are a number of existing mature trees on the application site. The
application is accompanied by an Arboricultural Assessment, prepared by
Treetec Professional Tree Services, which has assessed each tree in relation
to its species, size, health, amenity value and retention value. A
recommendation has been made in relation to each tree resulting in the
majority being retained.
Based on the detailed recommendations, the Development Plan shows a total

of 16 trees which are proposed to be retained, with a detailed assessment to
be undertaken as part of a subdivision permit application. These include two
(2) large trees on Lot 1, five (5) trees on Lot 2 and nine (9) trees on Lot 3.
The trees which are not proposed to be retained have been inspected by
Councils arborist and he has agreed with the recommendations of the
applicants arborist that it is appropriate for these to be removed.
Landscaping
The Development Plan does not include any detail of proposed landscaping of
public spaces. This is considered acceptable given the small area covered by
the Development Plan and the minimal amount of public space included. It is
acknowledged that street planting along the Willowbank Road frontage will be
necessary and conditions to this effect can be imposed as part of a
subdivision permit.
Drainage
The proposed Development Plan does not include any land dedicated to
drainage purposes (such as a retarding basin) or any significant drainage
infrastructure. The Councils Engineering Unit have not raised any concerns
with the Development Plan in this respect and conditions relating to drainage
will be imposed on any future subdivision permit.
Page 83

DEVELOPMENT PLAN AT 81 WILLOWBANK ROAD
Public Open Space
No public open space is provided within the Development Plan area. A

monetary contribution of 5% cash-in-lieu of public open space would therefore
be required as part of any future subdivision permit.
Development Contributions
The land is subject to the Development Contributions Overlay (Schedule 2)

(DCPO2), which has placed a mechanism in the planning scheme by which
Council can levy development contributions on landowners/developers in
Gisborne for scheduled infrastructure as documented in the Gisborne
Development Contributions Plan. Under the provisions of the DCPO2, the lots
created by subdivision will be subject to a contribution of $1502.73 (as at 1
July 2013) per additional lot created.
Conclusion
The Development Plan layout represents a good planning outcome having

regard to the policy framework and planning controls of the Macedon Ranges
Planning Scheme. The proposed lot layout and associated infrastructure is
considered appropriate and consistent with the previously approved
Development Plans within the local area. In view of the above, it is
recommended that Council approves the Development Plan as submitted.
Page 84

FOR THE USE & DEVELOPMENT OF EXTENSIVE ANIMAL
HUSBANDRY & AGISTMENT, (TWELVE (12) HORSES), THE
DEVELOPMENT OF AN OLYMPIC SIZE INDOOR HORSE
TRAINING ARENA & THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING
INDOOR HORSE TRAINING ARENA IN ACCORDANCE WITH
ENDORSED PLANS AT 38 SYNDICATE ROAD, MOUNT
MACEDON, VIC LOT 2 PS 621107T
Officer: Amy Lanfranchi, Town Planner

Attachments: 2
Applicant: Caddick Designs
Date of Receipt of Application: 18 May 2016
Synopsis:
The subject site is located on the south side of Syndicate Road in Mount
Macedon, has an area of 18ha and is bound by properties in 15 different
ownerships. The property contains a dwelling and caretakers dwelling,
stables for eight horses, an indoor horse training arena, a horse running track,
outbuildings and paddocks.
The application seeks permission to use the land for extensive animal
husbandry, for a maximum of 12 horses. In addition, the applicant applies to
construct an Olympic size indoor horse training arena, and to convert the
existing indoor horse training arena into additional stables (four boxes) and
storage space.
The proposal was considered against the provisions of the Rural

Conservation Zone 1 and Significant Landscape Overlay 1, with consideration
on impact to amenity, environment and water quality. The application was
referred to Melbourne Water, CFA, MRSC Engineering and MRSC Economic
Development. No objections were received. The application was advertised
to local residents and one objection was received from an adjoining
neighbour. The issue raised was the generation of dust from the driveway,
the display of a small Drive Slowly sign has been agreed to by the applicant
which is considered a suitable response. The application is considered to be
consistent with the area and the relevant planning provisions.
Page 85

AT 38 SYNDICATE ROAD, MOUNT MACEDON (Continued)
The site is considered appropriate for the proposed use for a range of
reasons, largely related to the fact that it has historically had equine uses on
it, considered to be large enough to sustain twelve (12) horses by extensive
practices (grazing), and the protected nature of the property.
The proposed development holds no concerns due to the fact of no adverse
amenity impact due to its location, open nature, muted colours and vegetation
screening, and that the existing indoor horse training arena will be converted
for stable and storage purposes.
There is no vegetation to be removed. The proposed cut (1.2m maximum)

and fill (0.4m maximum) is not a point of concern.
The issuing of a planning permit with conditions would provide clarity and
appropriate control of the land use into the future.
That the Council resolve to issue a Notice of Decision to grant a

planning permit for the use of the land for extensive animal husbandry
and agistment (twelve (12) horses), the development of an Olympic size
indoor horse training arena and the conversion of an existing indoor
horse training arena, in accordance with endorsed plans, for the land at
Lot 2 PS 521107T, 38 Syndicate Road Gisborne, subject to the
conditions below:
1. Before the development commences, three copies of plans to the

satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and
approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans
will be endorsed and then form a part of this permit. The plans must
be generally in accordance with the submitted plans prepared by
Caddick Designs/Central Steelbuild, submitted to Council 17 January
2017, but modified to show:
a. The deletion of reference to Surf Mist, to be replaced with an
alternate colour that is considered to be consistent with condition
10.
b. The location of the direction sign, required by condition 2.
c. The amendment of the note stating No native vegetation is to be
removed for the proposed horse training arena or the access
driveway to instead read No vegetation is to be removed or
impacted for the proposed horse arena or for the access
driveway.
d. The location of the existing horse track, located on the southern
portion of the property (including measurements from two (2)
boundary setbacks).
Page 86

e. The design (including supporting structure), colours and

materials of the direction sign required by condition 2.
f. The proposed conversion of the existing indoor horse training
arena as required by condition 4.
2. A direction sign must be erected within one (1) month of the permit
being issued, and in accordance with the following requirements to
the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:
a. Located within the property boundaries, at the front entrance of
the site, so as to be seen by vehicles entering the site.
b. Direct drivers to Drive slowly.
c. A maximum of 0.3m2 in size.
d. Designed to be harmonious to the environment.
The sign must be constructed and maintained to the satisfaction of
3. Unless with the prior written consent from the Responsible Authority,
agistees may only visit the property between the following times:
Monday Sunday (7 days a week): 7am 5pm
4. Within one month of the permitted Olympic size indoor horse training
arena being constructed, the existing indoor horse training arena
must be converted, by creating four stable boxes and storage area, to
5. Unless with the prior written consent from the Responsible Authority,
the number of horses kept on the property at any one time must not
exceed 12, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. This
number is the total horses allowed on the site; and includes both
horses owned by the landowner and horses which are agisted on the
land.
6. Only the owners of the horses referred to in condition 5 can use the
equine facilities on the land, including the Olympic size horse
training arena, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
7. The property must not be used for the purposes of breeding horses,
or for training horses or riders which are not residents of the land, to
8. The amenity of the locality must not be adversely affected by the
activity on the site, the appearance of any buildings, works or
materials, emissions from the premises or in any other way, to the
Page 87

10. The nature and colour of building materials employed in the

construction of the buildings and works hereby permitted shall be
harmonious with the environment, to the satisfaction of the
MRSC Engineering conditions
11. Prior to any development works being undertaken, an Asset
Protection Permit must be obtained from Council for any of the
following:
a. Works within Council road reserves or on Council stormwater
drainage assets.
b. Entry into a building site by means of a motor vehicle having a
c. New crossover or existing crossover upgrading works.
12. Stormwater run-off from the development must be connected into the
existing watercourse on-site to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority.
13. No polluted/sediment laden run-off is to be discharged directly or
indirectly into drains or watercourses. Soil erosion control measures
must be employed throughout the development works in accordance
with Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control (EPA
1991) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Melbourne Water conditions
14. Finished surface level of the arena/shed must be set no lower than
445.4 metres to the Australian Height Datum, which is 300mm above
the applicable flood level of 445.1m to AHD.
15. Pollution and sediment laden runoff shall not be discharged directly
or indirectly into Melbourne Waters drains or waterways.
CFA conditions
16. Defendable space must be created for a distance of 10 metres around
the proposed building where vegetation (and other flammable
materials) during the declared fire danger period will be managed in
accordance with the following:
a. Grass must be short cropped.
b. All leaves and vegetation debris must be removed at regular
intervals.
c. Flammable objects must not be located close to the vulnerable
parts of the buildings.
d. Shrubs must not be located under the canopy of trees.
e. Trees must not overhang or touch any elements of the building.
f. The canopy trees must be separated by at least 2 metres.
Page 88

g. There must be a clearance of at least 2 metres between the lowest

tree branches and ground level.
Expiration of permit
a. The development is not commenced within two years of the date
of this permit.
b. The development is not completed within four years of the date of
this permit.
c. The use of the Olympic size horse training arena and the
agistment of twelve (12) horses as permitted by this permit is not
commenced within two years of the completion of the
development.
The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a
request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within six
months afterwards.
Notes:
Future owners must be made aware of this permit.
The applicable flood level for this property that has a probability of
occurrence of 1% in any one year is 445.1 metres to the Australian
Height Datum (AHD).
Page 89

Subject Land
The subject site is an irregular allotment of 18.1ha, located in Mount

Macedon. It gains access from Syndicate Road by an extended driveway, and
is bound by 15 separate properties. The property currently contains a main
dwelling and a caretakers dwelling, a stables which accommodates eight (8)
horses, an existing indoor horse training arena, a horse running track,
outbuildings and paddocks.
The existing use of the subject land includes the keeping and agistment of
horses. No permit exists for this use, and whilst it appears is has been
occurring from some time (by the previous owner), no existing use rights have
been proven. A review of Council records, specifically site inspection notes
from 21 January 1999, stipulate that the property was used for a horse
training establishment. The application made 7 December 1998 declares that
the land use of the time was for a horse stud and equestrian complex.
Access to the site is gained from Syndicate Road, by a long narrow driveway
which then opens up to a property of 18.1ha nestled in something of a valley.
The property is bound by extensive, established vegetation. There are several
drainage lines traversing through the property.
The property is virtually hidden from surrounding properties. Existing

development is generally clustered together in discreet locations, screened by
vegetation, with exception of the large American-Federation style home in a
western location within the property.
It is important to note that under the Rural Conservation Zone two (2)
dwellings are prohibited on the land. In 1999, a permit was issued to allow the
conversion of an existing dwelling into Caretakers dwelling, when approval
was granted for the landowners dwelling. There is no resolved insight on the
application (PLN/1998/842) as to whether the Caretakers dwelling was for the
purpose of equine care, or general property management; however the
definition (from the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme) of a Caretakers
dwelling is a dwelling on the same site as a building, operation, or plant, and
occupied by a supervisor of that building, operation, or plant.
Surrounds
The surrounding area reflects an undulating landscape with established, large

vegetation, consisting of both native and exotic species. Properties are of
varying sizes and shapes, reflective of historic subdivisions.
The majority of the properties in the immediate vicinity are utilised for rural
living purposes, with large homes making up much of the housing stock.
Page 90

Properties are generally well maintained, and well screened from roads and
other properties. Small scale rural practices are not uncommon in the area,
with residents owning poultry, horses or a small number of other animals.
The surrounding dwellings are generally well set back from the active
components of the property, however the dwelling resided in by the objector is
located about 12metres from the property boundary of the driveway shaft.
The property south/southeast of the subject site is Bolobek, a notable historic

property of the area. The history and current use of this site includes
agricultural practices (Merino/Border Leicester ewes, Angus cattle, and hay
production). Additionally, accommodation, events and garden tours are open
to the public.

site
A Section 173 Agreement applies to the site, which prohibits further

subdivision of the land. This agreement does not hold implications for the
planning permit application.

A search of Councils records has found the following permit history:
Permit Number Description

1997/532 Dam
1998/842 Construction of a dwelling and conversion of existing dwelling into a
caretakers residence
2003/48 Dam
2005/224 Dwelling extension
The Proposal
The applicant seeks permission to use the land for extensive animal
husbandry and agistment (twelve (12) horses), and to develop the land for an
Olympic size indoor horse training arena.
The application was originally made solely for the Olympic size indoor horse
training arena. It was detailed that the applicant would either need to prove
existing use rights for equine related activities or to make application for land
use. The applicant chose to apply for the land use and development, and
amended the application accordingly.
The extensive animal husbandry and agistment is proposed to entail the

keeping of twelve (12) horses on the site. The current proposal designates
that four (4) horses are owned by the property owner and eight (8) which are
agisted. This is a reflection of what is currently occurring on the site.
Page 91

It is noted, that the horse ownership arrangements may alter, however the
maximum horses in total proposed to be permitted is twelve (12). Owners of
agisted horses are able to visit the site and exercise their horse.
In addition, the proposal includes an indoor Olympic size horse training arena.
The structure is proposed to be 20 metres x 60 metres, with a height of 6.5
metres (at the apex). It is partially enclosed (open on two sides) and
constructed of Colorbond, with proposed colours of Ironstone and Surfmist.
It is to be located south of the existing stables and arena, behind a screen of
existing established trees. It has a proposed fill of a maximum of 0.4m (to the
south) and up to 1.2m cut at the north, to result in a finished surface level of
455.1m to Australian Height Datum (AHD).
The Olympic size indoor horse training arena is to be used for personal use
only by the landowner and agistees. The Olympic size arena is required by
the property owner who is a Grand Prix Dressage competitor, and needs to
ensure she can practise her routines on an appropriately sized arena. It is
intended that this arena replace the existing indoor horse training arena.
The existing indoor horse training arena is to be converted into additional

stable area (four boxes) and storage space; and as such will not result in two
indoor horse training arenas on the property.
No vegetation is proposed to be removed or impacted.
18. Relevant definitions - Clause 73 and Clause 74

Extensive Land used to keep or breed farm animals, including birds, at an
animal intensity where the animals' main food source is obtained by grazing,
husbandry browsing, or foraging on plants grown on the land.
Direction sign A sign not exceeding 0.3 square metre that directs vehicles or
pedestrians. It does not include a sign that contains commercial
information.
Clause No. 19. Clause name

12 Environmental and landscape values
13 Environmental risks
14 Natural resource management
17 Economic development
Page 92

Clause No. 20. Clause name

21 Municipal profile
21.05 Environment and landscape values
21.06 Environmental risks
21.07 Natural resource management
21.10 Economic development and tourism
21.13 Local areas and small settlements
22.01 Macedon Ranges and surrounds
Zoning

35.06 Rural Conservation Zone 1
Overlay

42.01 Environmental Significance Overlay 5
42.02 Vegetation Protection Overlay 9
42.03 Significant Landscape Overlay 1
44.06 Bushfire Management Overlay
45.05 Restructure Overlay 10

52.47 Planning for bushfire
General Provisions

Permit triggers

35.06-1 Use of the land within the RCZ for animal keeping and agistment
35.06-5 Buildings and works associated with a Section 2 Use
42.03-2 Buildings and works within the Significant Landscape Overlay
Page 93


1 Is the subject property within an area of cultural No
Regulations 2007?
2 Does the application proposal include significant N/A
3 Is the application proposal an exempt activity as N/A
Regulations 2007?
4 Is the application proposal a high impact activity N/A
Regulations 2007?

Regulations 2007.
The Process to Date

Referral
Nil N/A

CFA No objection with conditions
Melbourne Water No objection with conditions
MRSC Engineering No objection with conditions
MRSC Economic Development No objection and is considered consistent with the
Macedon Ranges Equine Strategy
Advertising
application was advertised by sending notices to the owners and the
occupiers of the surrounding/adjoining land, and by requiring a notice to be
erected on the land for a period of 14 days. This process occurred on two
occasions, due to the application being amended to include the use of the
land.
Page 94

One (1) objection was received (in two parts), relating to dust caused by
vehicles utilising the driveway. The objectors home is situated about12 metres
from the property boundary of the driveway shaft for 38 Syndicate Road (and
about 20 metres from the driveway itself), separated by a dense vegetation
screen. It was verbally communicated that the dust rises over the vegetation
screen and enters the windows of their kitchen, thus impacting their lifestyle
and causing them to keep the windows closed. A proposal for the sealing of
120 metres of the driveway was indicated as the objectors final solution to the
issue, which the applicant was not willing to undertake.
The objection is reviewed further in the body of this report.
Officer Assessment
General
A planning permit is required under the provisions of the Rural Conservation

Zone for both the use and proposed development, and under the Significant
Landscape Overlay for the proposed development. Whilst the property is also
within the Bushfire Management Overlay, Environmental Significance Overlay,
Vegetation Protection Overlay and Restructure Overlay; a planning permit is
not triggered by these controls.
It is noted that there is infrastructure on site, and anecdotal evidence that the
site has some form of existing use rights for equine purposes. The
infrastructure and verbal communications from the owner imply that not only
do these rights potentially apply but that they are far more extensive (horse
training lessons, weddings etc.) than what is proposed by this application.
However the owner has not sought Councils confirmation of existing use
rights through a formalised process.
Instead the applicant has applied for a proposal of a lesser intensity that can
be more appropriately controlled through permit conditions which is positive
for the surrounding area.
The correct definition for the proposed land use has been a point of
discussion, and change, throughout the process. Whilst previously it was
referred to as animal keeping, it is considered appropriate to use the term
extensive animal husbandry. This is consistent with recent granting planning
permits of a similar nature, and is considered to accurately encapsulate the
proposed activity. Animal keeping was moved away from as it makes
reference to domestic pets, when this application is that of an agricultural
pursuit.
Page 95

Extensive animal husbandry refers to the keeping or breeding animals;

however a permit condition has been imposed to prohibit the breeding of
horses. This is due to the fact that it is not a part of the applicants proposal,
and to ensure the future compliance with the number of horses permitted on
the site.
Objection and advertising
As noted above, an objection was received by a neighbouring property, which

outlines concerns about the emission of dust from the existing driveway.
It is considered that the use of a small sign to say Drive Slowly as initially
suggested by the objector is an appropriate response to the objection, given
that the sealing of 120m of driveway is considered onerous and inconsistent
with the rural setting of the area.
It is important to note that there were no objections in relation to the proposed

use.
State Planning Policy Framework and Local Planning Policy Framework
Landscape values
The Macedon Ranges and Mount Macedon are known at a local, state and
national level for their beauty, contribution to biodiversity, and characteristics
offering recreational and tourism pursuits.
The protection of the amenity of these assets is paramount, and as such, land
use and development must be considered with regard to these values.
Clause 21.05-2 holds objectives to maintain and enhance the existing rural
landscapes and to maintain the ranges, major hills and ridges as significant
visual backdrops to the Shire.
The proposed development is considered to be in full alignment with the

objectives and strategies of the relevant policies.
The horse training arena is considered to have minimal visual impact due to
the partially open nature of the building and the fact that it is nestled into a
location which has both vegetation and topographical screening. The
proposed colours are Colorbond Woodland Grey, and Colorbond Surf Mist.
Woodland Grey is an acceptable colour, however the use of Surf Mist is
considered inappropriate (due to reflective nature) and required to be changed
by way of permit condition.
Page 96

Environmental risks
Whilst the proposed use and development does not trigger a permit under the
Bushfire Management Overlay, the site is located within an area of bushfire
risk and as such, consideration is made on this matter.
It is local policy to prioritise fire risk in planning decisions, avoid increasing

bushfire risk and minimise exposure of people to bushfire risk (Clause 21.06-
3).
The application was referred to CFA who have no objection or notable

concerns to the application, and provided conditions to ensure the proposed
development does not increase bushfire risk. The conditions relate to property
maintenance, which align to the current keeping of the site. The conditions
would be applied to a permit. These conditions may result in the requirement
to lop some trees to achieve appropriate separation for defendable space;
however this is deemed able to be done in alignment with vegetation lopping
exemptions and with no anticipated notable implication to the vegetation.
Natural resources
Clause 21.07-2 provides an objective for sustainable rural land management,
which is to ensure land in rural areas is managed in a sustainable manner to
improve the condition of the environment.
The application is considered consistent with policy to promote sustainable

rural uses. This is considered to be highly relevant to the site due to the Rural
Conservation Zone, Environmental Significance Overlay, Vegetation
Protection Overlay and Bushfire Management Overlay.
It is achieved by the fact that the proposal is comparatively low impact (up to
12 horses on a site of 18ha), the established nature of the majority of the
required infrastructure required for the use, and the appropriate consideration
of the environment when electing placement of the horse training arena.
Economic development
Economic development within the Shire, including equine and tourism
development, is encouraged provided it does not compromise environmental
values. (Macedon Ranges Equine Strategy 2012).
It is considered that the proposal does not adversely impact or compromise to

environmental values, due to the siting of the proposed building and the low
impact nature of the use.
Page 97

Clause 21.10 notes the Macedon Ranges Equine Strategy 2012 as a

reference document. This adopted Equine Strategy, which identifies that the
horse is an important part of the culture and ethos of the Macedon Ranges
and it makes significant contribution to the local economy, with a potential
economic impact of $140 million per annum (based on the 2009/10 financial
year).
The application site is considered a good location for equine related activities
based on the existing infrastructure and the historic use of the site.
Additionally, it is well screened, and holds access to an all-weather sealed
road.
Rural Conservation Zone

The purpose of the Rural Conservation Zone is to protect and enhance the
natural environment, natural resources and the biodiversity of an area, and to
ensure that use and development is consistent with sustainable land
management.
Schedule 1 to this zone identifies conservation values which relate to the

preservation of the existing forest mosaic, to ensure that land use within water
catchments do not compromise water quality, to protect flora and fauna, to
protect character and landscape values of the area, and to achieve
agricultural practice.
The application is considered to be wholly consistent with the purpose and

decision guidelines of the zone, due to the following consideration:
The keeping of horses on the land, for both private and agistment purposes, is
considered to be defined as extensive animal husbandry, and more broadly,
agriculture. The relevant decision guidelines to this are as follows:
Whether the site is suitable for the use or development and the
compatibility of the proposal with adjoining land uses.
The environmental capacity of the site to sustain the rural enterprise.
Whether the use or development will have an adverse impact on
surrounding land uses.
The need to minimise any adverse impacts of siting, design, height, bulk,
and colours and materials to be used, on landscape features, major roads
and vistas.
The location and design of existing and proposed infrastructure services
which minimises the visual impact on the landscape.
The protection and enhancement of the natural environment of the area,
including the retention of vegetation and faunal habitats and the need to
revegetate land including riparian buffers along waterways, gullies,
ridgelines, property boundaries and saline discharge and recharge areas.
Page 98

It is considered that the subject site has the capacity to sustain the extensive
animal husbandry due to the low number of horses, the existing cleared
nature of the site and the existing provision of water. The proposed use and
development will not have an adverse impact on the surrounding area, due to
the consistency with the horse keeping in the broader area, the size of the
property, the screened nature of the property (both by vegetation and
topography), and the siting of the proposed Olympic size indoor horse training
arena.
Only agistees may attend the site to interact and ride their horses, which is
considered a use which is in conjunction with the use of the land for
agistment, and as such is not a land use in its own right, nor is it required to
be defined separately (e.g. such as a place of assembly). The hours of
visitation, proposed by the applicant, are proposed as a permit condition in
response to this aspect of the application.
Additionally the fact that no objections were received with concern regarding
the use or the development (but rather dust issues which are not solely tied to
this use) indicates the lack of impact to surrounding properties.
Significant Landscape Overlay

The intention of the Significant Landscape Overlay is to identify significant
landscapes and ensure the character is conserved and enhanced.
The decision guidelines at Clause 42.03-4 require the review of matters such
as the significance of the landscape, the need to remove vegetation for
bushfire protection, the impact of the proposed buildings and works due to
height, bulk, colour, general appearance and vegetation removal, and the
extent to which the buildings are designed to enhance or promote the
landscape character.
The proposed horse training arena is considered to comply. This siting is in a

location that is not highly visible from adjoining properties
Clause 52.05 Advertising signage
As discussed above, the provision of a small sign asking visitors to drive

slowly is recommended to mitigate the concerns of the objector in regards to
dust.
A direction sign of 0.3m2 in Rural Conservation Zone is an as of right sign,

and as such the sign does not need assessment against the zone or Clause
52.05. Clause 62.02-2 exempts buildings and works associated with signage
from requiring a permit, and as such, the direction to establish this sign does
not require planning permission, and is not required to be captured by the
permit preamble.
Page 99

Clause 52.06 Car parking
The purpose of Clause 52.06 is to ensure that car parking is provided in an

appropriate manner, which provides for the likely demand for parking related
to the activity on the land, supports transport alternatives, designed in a way
which does not adversely affect the amenity of the area and which ensures
that the design and location of the car parking is of a high standard which
promotes safety and efficient use.
The table at Clause 52.06-5 designates a car parking requirement for

particular uses (if listed), and this number must be provided on site. If this
number of parking cannot be provided on site, the applicant must seek a car
parking waiver.
There is no designated car parking requirement for the proposed use. It is

considered that the only additional parking requirement is based on agistees
occasional access of the site. There is ample, well maintained space of an all-
weather standard for vehicles to park. No formal car parking is deemed
necessary.
Conclusion
The application has been assessed against the requirement of the Macedon
Ranges Planning Scheme and is deemed to comply with the provisions set
out under the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks, including the
MSS, and is consistent with the purposes of the Rural Conservation Zone,
and provision of the Significant Landscape Overlay.
The proposed land use and development is appropriate for the subject site,
subject to conditions related to horse numbers, the use of the proposed arena
and decommissioning/removal of the existing arena, building colours, siting of
the development, plus other general conditions.
In view of the above, the application should be supported.
Page 100
10. PE.6 PRIVATE SPONSORED PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT

REQUEST AT 200 220 & 230 HAMILTON ROAD, NEW
GISBORNE
Officer: Gareth Hately, Coordinator of Strategic Planning
RM8 Ref: F160
Council Plan Relationship: Our lifestyle, culture and sense of

place are strengthened by best
Attachments:
1 - Subject site
2 - Development Proposal
Concept Plan
3 - Gisborne/New Gisborne
Outline Development Plan
Synopsis:
Macedon Ranges Shire received a request from Urban Design and

Management on behalf of Reality Property Investments Pty Ltd to rezone two
properties at 200-220 and 230 Hamilton Road, New Gisborne.
The subject site is currently included in Industrial 1 Zone and contains a

variety of small business and vacant buildings.
The amendment request proposes to rezone the two properties to Residential

Growth Zone to enable a 265 lot medium density residential development of
the area. The planning permit application for the residential development does
not form part of the amendment request.
The Gisborne Outline Development Plan adopted by Council and included in

the Macedon Ranges Shire Planning Scheme identifies this area as outside
the township boundary and for existing and future industrial development
subject to further investigation.
It is recommended that Council not support the request to seek authorisation

to prepare a planning scheme amendment on the basis that it represents a
significant change to the adopted strategic direction of the Gisborne Outline
Development Plan and that the strategic merit of rezoning this area for
residential purposes be examined as part of a future review of the Gisborne
Outline Development Plan.
Page 101

That Council resolves to not support the request to seek authorisation

to prepare an amendment to rezone 200-220 and 230 Hamilton Road
from Industrial 1 Zone to Residential Growth Zone based on the
following grounds:
1. The amendment request is contrary to the strategic direction in
the adopted Gisborne Outline Development Plan that aims to limit
urban expansion within the township boundary
2. The amendment request is contrary to the strategic direction in
the adopted Gisborne Outline Development Plan that identifies the
area as an existing and future industrial area subject to further
investigation
3. The amendment request is contrary to the provisions of State and
Local Planning Policy Frameworks, including Councils Municipal
Strategic Statement, particularly Clause 21.13-1
4. The amendment request is contrary to the objective of the
Planning and Environment Act 1987 which aims to provide for
orderly development of land.
Page 102

Background
Subject site and surrounds
The amendment request applies to 200-220 and 230 Hamilton Road, New
Gisborne. The sites have a frontage to Hamilton Road of over 400 metres
and directly abuts the Gisborne Railway Station to the south. The combined
sites have an area of approximately 16 hectares.
The site contains a number of buildings and a car park associated with the
Flexdrive business that ceased operation some time ago. Some of the
buildings are used by small businesses in the area. The site also contains a
small dam in the centre of the property. The extent of contamination of the site
is unknown.
The site is in close vicinity to a range of commercial and community services

including the Gisborne Montessori, Holy Cross Catholic, and New Gisborne
Primary Schools, Commercial 1 Zone land, existing sports facilities and the
proposed open space reserve at 219 Hamilton Road.
The subject site is at Attachment 1.
Site and planning scheme amendment history
The Flexdrive site at 200 220 Hamilton Road has been included in the
Industrial 1 Zone since the inception of the Macedon Ranges Planning
Scheme and was identified as an industrial area in the Gisborne Outline
Development Plan.
230 Hamilton Road was identified as a future industrial area in the Gisborne
Outline Development Plan subject to further investigation on the traffic
impacts on Gisborne.
In 2015, 230 Hamilton Road was rezoned from Rural Living Zone to Industrial
1 Zone by the Minister for Planning at the request of the property owner to
facilitate the industrial development of the area in conjunction with the existing
industrial site at 200 Hamilton Road. Council provided support in writing for
this amendment in 16 October 2014 given its consistency with Gisborne
Outline Development Plan and that the development does not significantly
change the service level, current capacity or safety of Hamilton Road.
Page 103

On 16 October 2016, a planning scheme request from Urban Design and

Management on behalf of Reality Property Investments Pty Ltd was received
by Council proposing to rezoning 200-220 and 230 Hamilton Road to
Residential Growth Zone to facilitate the development of a 265 lot medium
density residential development due to a lack of demand for industrial land. A
copy of a site plan provided by the applicant is at Attachment 2.
Both sites are currently zoned as Industrial 1 Zone.
Officer Assessment
The Gisborne/New Gisborne Outline Development Plan, which was

implemented into the Planning Scheme under Amendment C67, provides a
detailed framework for the future residential, commercial and industrial growth
and development of Gisborne and New Gisborne. This enables the orderly,
sustainable and sequential development of housing, and commercial and
industrial activities.
Urban growth and expansion of township boundary:

The Development Plan draws the township boundary along the railway line,
excluding all land to its north.
Clause 21.13-1 of the Planning Scheme provides clear strategic policy

directions for the Gisborne/New Gisborne area regarding future growth:
Settlement and housing strategies

The Gisborne/New Gisborne Framework Plan states: Restrict urban

expansion to within the township boundary to the year 2031, in line with
population projections. It also identifies areas of investigation for the possible
future expansion of the township boundary, all of which are located south of
the railway line.
A copy of the Gisborne/New Gisborne Framework Plan and the subject site is
at Attachment 2.
Page 104

Industrial land:
The Gisborne/New Gisborne Framework Plan identifies further investigation to
be undertaken to determine whether 230 Hamilton Road should be
developed for industrial purposes or whether new industrial development
should be confined to the area immediately south of the railway line.
This work was undertaken as part of Amendment C90 where the independent
planning panel, in their report dated 16 September 2013, accepted that:
there is demand for additional industrial land in New Gisborne that
warrants additional zoning in the town and that expansion of the existing
industrial land north of the railway line provides a suitable location for this
additional land.
Merit of the rezoning the land for residential purposes

The planning merit of facilitating residential development close to train stations
and community facilities such as open space and schools are acknowledged.
However, the request to rezone land to Residential Growth Zone to facilitate
medium density development in an isolated location in New Gisborne is
considered inappropriate. Without consideration of how this land supports
broader strategic planning for the area, the proposal represents an ad-hoc
rezoning proposal. The Gisborne Outline Development Plan is nearly eight
years old and is nearing the need for a review. A more comprehensive
assessment of the development potential of this site could only form part of
any future review of the Gisborne/New Gisborne Outline Development plan.
Given fundamental strategic planning concerns with the amendment request a

detailed assessment of the possible future development proposed for the site
(medium density development of up to 4 storeys in height, and re-use of the
existing industrial buildings for housing etc.) has not been undertaken. If
Council was to recommend to support the request and seek authorisation to
exhibit the amendment Council officers would need to review the most
appropriate planning controls for the site to provide clear guidance to on what
form of residential development would be appropriate in this location.
Conclusion
Based on the above, it is acknowledged that while the amendment request
presents some merit in supporting new residential development close to a
train station and community facilities and open space, the request is contrary
to the current strategic direction identified for the subject land.
On this basis, it is recommended that that Council resolves to not support the
request to seek authorisation to prepare an amendment to rezone 200 220
& 230 Hamilton Road, New Gisborne and that the merit of rezoning this area
be considered as part of a more comprehensive review of the Gisborne
Structure Plan as opposed to the ad-hoc approach presented by this
amendment.
Page 105
10. PE.7 SAUNDERS ROAD, NEW GISBORNE, REZONING REQUEST
Officer: Suzane Becker, Manager Strategic Planning and

Environment
File Ref: F160

Attachments:
1. Locality Plan
2: Proposed Future Urban
Structure
3. Gisborne/New Gisborne
Framework Plan
Synopsis:
Council has received a rezoning request, involving twenty four (24) properties
in New Gisborne, having a total land area of approximately 140 hectares.
The land is located north of Saunders Road, east of Pierce Rd, south of the
rail line and east of the existing and proposed New Gisborne Industrial Estate.
The proponent for the amendment, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers, is acting on

behalf of R & M Peavey & various other landowners. The request was lodged
with Council on the 1 December 2016. The amendment involves rezoning
land from Rural Living Zone to General Residential Zone with application of a
Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16 New Gisborne Structure Plan. An
indicative structure plan forms part of the amendment documentation. The
amendment does not include the proposed industrial expansion area of the
existing New Gisborne Business Park, however recognises that a sensitive
interface will need to be incorporated into the future planning of the proposed
amendment land.
The land is identified in the Gisborne / New Gisborne Outline Development

Plan, 2009 as outside the town boundary. The Gisborne/ New Gisborne
Framework Plan identifies the site as investigation for possible future
expansion of the town boundary. The proponent argues that the time has
come to include the land in the town boundary for residential development to
address current housing demand and supply issues. The proposed
amendment will allow for the potential for a master planned residential
development in New Gisborne.
The amendment documentation includes a Gisborne / New Gisborne Housing

Supply and Demand analysis undertaken by Spade Consultants, dated 2015.
The report concludes that Gisborne/New Gisborne is currently below the 15-
year land supply, with estimations that there is at best an 11-year land supply,
which is below the minimum 15-year test.
Page 106

(Continued)
The report suggests that the current lack of housing supply is exacerbated by
the current slow land release in smaller development fronts and delay in the
development of larger sites. This has created a constrained housing supply
resulting in higher housing prices and reduced housing affordability in
Gisborne. The proponent believes that this report is the necessary
investigation analysis required to support the rezoning request.
This officers report provides an overview of the amendment request and

concludes that it is considered premature owing to the absence of more
detailed strategic planning in the broader context of Gisborne/New Gisborne.
It is therefore recommended that Council should not pursue authorisation to
prepare and exhibit the amendment to rezone the subject land at this time.
That Council resolves to not support the request to seek authorisation

to prepare an amendment to the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme to
rezone multiple properties located east of the proposed New Gisborne
Industrial Estate, north of Saunders Rd, west of Pierce Rd and south of
the rail line in New Gisborne from Rural Living to General Residential
Zone with a Development Plan Overlay based on the following grounds:
5. The amendment is considered premature in the absence of a more
detailed strategic planning assessment needed to determine the
net community benefit of rezoning the land for urban purposes
and modifying the Gisborne/New Gisborne town boundary.
6. The amendment request is contrary to the objective of the
Planning and Environment Act 1987 which aims to provide for
orderly development of land.
Page 107

(Continued)
Background
As part of the amendment process to introduce the Gisborne / New Gisborne

Outline Development Plan into the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme
(amendment C67), the subject land remained outside the subject town
boundary, however was identified as an Area of investigation for possible
future expansion of the town boundary, Gisborne/New Gisborne Framework
Plan, Clause 21-13.
Any consideration of this site for future development and inclusion within the
current town boundary would need to be considered in the context of its
potential strategic benefit to the future planning of the Gisborne / New
Gisborne Township.
The Amendment Proposal
Subject Site and Surrounds
The amendment request affects multiple properties (24) located north of

Saunders Road, east of Pierce Rd, south of the rail line and east of the
existing and proposed New Gisborne Business Park. The total area of
combined properties is approximately 140 hectares. Refer Attachment 1:
Locality Plan.
Proposed Planning Scheme Controls
The proponent seeks to rezone the land to General Residential Zone and
apply the Development Plan Overlay Schedule 16 New Gisborne Structure
Plan, using existing similar controls already applied to other residential
growth areas within the township.
Planning provisions applied to Gisborne/New Gisborne new urban areas were

applied at a time when there was a lack of clarity from the State Government
as to whether the Urban Growth Zone could be used in regional Victoria. This
lack of clarity no longer exists, with the use of the UGZ is now the preferred
zoning provision in regional and metropolitan growth areas. The application of
the UGZ requires the preparation of a comprehensive Precinct Structure Plan
(PSP) to guide the future development and is incorporated into the scheme as
part of a planning scheme amendment process.
Page 108

(Continued)
The proponent is receptive to the application of the UGZ, however is not

willing to prepare a PSP and other supporting technical assessments to
support the amendment. There is a preference by the proponent for more
detailed strategic work to be undertaken at a later stage, including an
assessment of development contributions. It is not anticipated that the
proponent will be the developer of the land.
The Proposed Future Urban Structure Plan
The proposed future urban structure plan submitted with the amendment
documentation, is a relatively basic plan, which shows a drainage easement
(encumbered open space) traversing a proposed residential development
area. Refer Attachment 2. In addition to the drainage easement, six local
parks are shown. No community needs assessment has been undertaken to
support the amendment request, however the amendment documentation
suggests that community uses (undetermined) will be available at a proposed
local convenience centre identified on Saunders Rd. It is suggested that no
schools are required, as population levels do not warrant a school (no
evidence provided), however children can go to existing schools in Gisborne,
New Gisborne, Sunbury or elsewhere.
The site contains a number of rural living properties some with existing
dwellings and outbuildings. No environmental site survey has been
undertaken, but it is assumed that there is a mix of planted and native
vegetation on the land.
An indicative road layout suggests a central road connecting from Saunders

Rd, to Payne Rd, with other road connection to Pierce Rd. A north south road
is proposed to separate the proposed industrial expansion area from the
proposed residential development. This road will provide a second access
into the current and future industrial estate. There are no details of the
proposed road design, nor details of the pedestrian, cycle or public transport
network. There is a lack of information on traffic volume data, and no details
of road improvements required to the existing network to service the
development. Any upgrade to Pierce Road or the current heritage bridge rail
crossing would be if the Council desired to upgrade this infrastructure.
It is estimated that 103 hectares of land is developable for residential uses,

with an average of 14-15 lots per hectare providing a range of lot sizes from
1000m2, 400m2 and 350m2 providing an overall lot yield of approximately
1500 lots and 3500 4000 persons.
Page 109

(Continued)
The proposed future urban structure plan shows a local convenience centre,
including small supermarket, and the potential for undetermined community
uses, located on Saunders Road. No economic assessment or retail analysis
has been undertaken to determine the need for future retail / commercial uses
on the site. The amendment request acknowledges the future development of
37.6 hectares of additional employment land adjacent the existing Business
Park on the sites western boundary. The dual access road from Saunders
Road is proposed to service the future industrial area and residential
development, creating a buffer between the two land uses.
Local Planning Policy Provisions Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme
The Gisborne/New Gisborne Outline Development Plan, was implemented

into the Planning Scheme under Amendment C67. The Gisborne and New
Gisborne Framework Plan forms part of the planning scheme provisions and,
provides a framework for future residential, commercial and industrial
development in Gisborne and New Gisborne.
The following planning scheme provisions are considered relevant to the

consideration of the rezoning request to expand the town boundary of
Gisborne / New Gisborne and include the subject land for urban purposes.
CLAUSE 21.04 SETTLEMENT
Clause 21.04 sets the objectives and strategies for settlements within the
Macedon Ranges.
Key objectives are:

To deliver the settlement hierarchy vision 2014 to 2036 in accordance
with the Settlement Hierarchy Table
(Gisborne New Gisborne will grow from a Large District Town (10,000)
to a Regional Centre (more than 10,000) from 2011 to 2036).
To provide for development which maximises the benefits of
established and proposed urban infrastructure.
To ensure land use and development in settlements have regard for
environmental assets, hazards and constraints.
With particular regard to Gisborne / New Gisborne the following strategies

apply:
Encourage the development of Gisborne as a regional centre by

facilitating the provision of a large, diverse, employment and housing
base and the provision of higher order goods and services.
Ensure development is consistent with the capacity of settlements to
grow and plan for growth on the following basis:
Page 110

(Continued)
Focus development on and consolidate the roles of the key towns of

Gisborne and Kyneton which have the highest levels of infrastructure,
services and employment.
Provide for township development in line with the settlement hierarchy
vision. Ensure urban development is located:
Within the township boundaries identified on plans in Clause 21.13.
Where adequate services are available.
Some areas within the defined town boundaries may not be suitable
for urban development.
Ensure any rezoning for residential purposes and residential subdivision
are logically sequenced to link with infrastructure provision, do not require
leapfrogging of services, and can be fully serviced at the time of
development.
CLAUSE 21.13 LOCAL AREAS AND SMALL SETTLEMENTS
21.13-1 Gisborne and New Gisborne
Clause 21.13-1 of the Planning Scheme provides clear strategic policy

directions for the Gisborne/New Gisborne area regarding future growth:
Settlement and housing strategies


The subject site is outside the town boundary however is identified as:
Area of investigation for possible future expansion of the town boundary,

Gisborne/New Gisborne Framework Plan, Clause 21-13. (Refer to
Attachment 3)
The Gisborne/New Gisborne Framework Plan states: Restrict urban

expansion to within the township boundary to the year 2031, in line with
population projections. It also identifies areas of investigation for the possible
future expansion of the township boundary.
Any future expansion of the Gisborne/New Gisborne Township would need to

be supported by detailed strategic justification to determine the grounds for
considering the land for inclusion within the town boundary.
Page 111

(Continued)
The proposed amendment request has provided very limited strategic

justification having regard to addressing the requirements of clause 21.04 and
clause 21.13 of the Macedon Planning Scheme.
Officer Assessment
The Gisborne / New Gisborne ODP commenced preparation in 2006 and was
adopted by Council in September 2009. It is now eight years since the plan
was adopted, and 11 years since Council commenced its preparation.
Strategic planning documents such as structure plans usually benefit from a
five yearly monitoring and review process so that they remain relevant to
respond to changing directions, land use pressures and community
development opportunities, not previously anticipated.
As part of the amendment process to introduce the ODP into the Macedon
Ranges Planning Scheme (amendment C67), the land remained outside the
town boundary, however was identified as an Area of investigation for
possible future expansion of the town boundary, Gisborne/New Gisborne
Framework Plan, Clause 21-13.
The proponent relies on the Supply and Demand Housing analysis undertake
by Spade Consulting (2015) to form the strategic justification for the
amendment.
Council is currently reviewing its municipal population forecasts and will have
2016 census information later in the year. The forecast population of
Gisborne/New Gisborne is currently estimated at 10,520 person (2016). The
projected land release timing of development sites identified in the New
Gisborne / Gisborne Framework plan have been affected by infrastructure
servicing constraints and delays caused by fragmented land ownership.
However locations where land has been consolidated into larger land holdings
and infrastructure issues overcome, development has progressed faster than
anticipated (Gisborne South). Council has been advised that these factors
may be affecting the housing supply in Gisborne / New Gisborne.
This matter needs further review by Council, however should not be the only
basis to support an amendment to rezone the subject land. The amendment
lacks strategic justification and should not be considered in isolation of its
impact on the broader planning for Gisborne / New Gisborne Township. The
planning scheme provisions require a detailed investigation to be undertaken
to support any inclusion of this land within the town boundary. This
investigation should consider the wider net community benefits to be gained
from including/not including this land within the town boundary, including an
analysis of population and housing supply trends and other critical issues
affecting the future planning of the town. Any consideration of the future
zoning of this land should be considered in this broader context.
Page 112

(Continued)
The proponents request to apply the General Residential Zone and

Development Plan Overlay is not considered an appropriate use of planning
controls. Since the adoption of the Gisborne/ New Gisborne ODP, the Urban
Growth Zone (UGZ) and preparation and incorporation of Precinct Structure
Plans (PSP) and Development Contribution Plans (DCP) are now the
recommended planning controls for growth areas. More detailed technical
planning studies would be needed to support an amendment.
Conclusion
The proponent has not provided sufficient strategic justification to support the
amendment. It is therefore not recommended that Council seek authorisation
to prepare and exhibit a planning scheme amendment to rezone the land for
urban purposes.
Any consideration to rezone the subject land and modify the Gisborne/New
Gisborne town boundary would be premature in the absence of a detailed
strategic investigation, as required by the Gisborne/New Gisborne Framework
Plan provisions.
Any investigation should determine the broader social, housing, economic,

transport and environmental planning benefits to be achieved by rezoning the
land for urban purposes.
Page 113
10. PE.8 SUNBURY PRECINCT STRUCTURE PLANS, HUME

PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENTS, C207, C208 - COUNCIL
SUBMISSION
Officer: Suzane Becker, Manager Strategic Planning and

Environment
File Ref: F2932

Attachments:
1. Council Submission
2. Context Plan
3 Lancefield Road Precinct
Structure Plan
4. Sunbury South Precinct
Structure Plan
Synopsis:
Planning Scheme Amendments C207 (Sunbury South Precinct Structure

Plan) and C208 (Lancefield Road Precinct Structure Plan) to the Hume
Planning Scheme have been publically exhibited for comment. The Victorian
Planning Authority is the planning authority for Precinct Structure Plan (PSP)
amendments.
This report provides an outline of each amendment and identified matters,

which are put forward as the basis of Councils submission to the Victorian
Planning Authority. The draft submission (refer to Attachment 1 Council
Submission) recognizes a number of positive elements proposed in the
amendments which will guide the future planning of urban growth in Sunbury.
The amendments appear consistent with the Hume City Councils strategic
planning vision for Sunbury.
Even so it is recommended that the VPA include a more detailed regional

assessment of the impact of the proposed growth on surrounding townships
located within the Macedon Ranges Shire Council. In particular, matters
raised in the draft submission relate to the need to have government
commitment to the timing, funding and delivery of key transport infrastructure
projects needed to service this growth, to ensure no detrimental impacts are
experienced to surrounding regional towns in Macedon Ranges Shire Council.
That Council endorse the attached submission to the proposed Sunbury

Precinct Structure Plans, Hume Planning Scheme Amendments, C207,
C208.
Page 114

SUBMISSION (Continued)
Background
The land in the two exhibited Sunbury Precinct Structure Plan amendments
was zoned urban growth zone (UGZ) in August 2010, by the State
Government.
Even so, the growth of the Sunbury township has a long history from its
satellite city designation in the mid 1970s, to the Sunbury Strategy Plan in
1991, to the Sunbury - Hume Integrated Growth Area Plan Spatial Study,
2012 (Hume City Council) and Sunbury Diggers Rest Growth Corridor Plan,
2012 (State Government).
A number of growth scenarios have been proposed for the town, however
currently both the Hume City Council and State Government strategy planning
is expecting Sunbury to grow to a population of approximately 120,000
persons over the next 50 years. The current population of Sunbury is
estimated at 33,000 persons.
The proposed amendments (C207 Sunbury South PSP) and (C208

Lancefield Rd PSP) are two of ultimately four proposed growth fronts planned
for Sunbury (Sunbury West and Sunbury North will be the next PSP areas to
be planned). Combined this will achieve the planned Sunbury population of
120,000 persons, over the next 50 years (2067).
Macedon Ranges Shire Council requested an extension of time from the

Victorian Planning Authority (VPA) to lodge a submission regarding the
amendments (closing date for submissions was the 6 February). Officers
sought an extension of time, which was accepted by the VPA (submission
deadline now 23 February 2017). This extension date allows Council to
formally consider its submission at the 22 February Council meeting.
Proposed Planning Scheme Amendments
The Sunbury South Precinct Structure Plan and Lancefield Rd Precinct

Structure Plans (amendment C207 and C208), include many social,
economic, transport and environmental opportunities to achieve sustainable
development for the Sunbury Township (Refer to Attachment 2 Context
Plan). The amendments were prepared in partnership with the Hume City
Council, VPA and servicing agencies and are considered comprehensive
documents, which will guide the coordinated growth and infrastructure
planning of Sunbury. A key benefit of both plans is the designation of
conservation open space reserve along both the Jacksons Creek and Emu
Creek waterways, which will enable the continuation of a regional open space
network.
Page 115

Amendment C208 - Lancefield Road Precinct Structure Plan

The Lancefield Road precinct is bounded by Racecourse Road and the
Jacksons Creek to the west, the Goonawarra and Rolling Meadows
communities to the south-west, Gellies Road to the south, Emu Creek to the
east, and a future conservation reserve to the north. (Refer to Attachment 3
Lancefield Road Precinct Structure Plan)
The amendment proposes to incorporate the Lancefield Road Precinct

Structure Plan into the Hume Planning Scheme. The amendment rezones the
land to Urban Growth Zone Schedule 10 to facilitate the development of the
land. Two concurrent permit applications for subdivision P18854 and P18855
form part of the amendment (lodged by Villawood Properties, Sunbury Rd and
Wincity P/L, Lancefield Rd).
The PSP includes the creek and open space environs of both the Emu and
Jackson Creeks. Of the 1095 hectares identified for growth, only 514
hectares are developable because of the need to preserve the creek environs
and conservation areas. The PSP anticipates a total population of 22,600
persons and 8080 dwellings, based on an average of 15 dwellings per
developable hectare.
The waterways of Jacksons and Emu Creeks provide north-south habitat

corridors and connectivity through the growth corridor, protecting Grassy
Eucalypt Woodland, Melbourne Yellow Gum, Grey Box Grassy Woodland and
the Growling Grass Frog. The amendment will use the Rural Conservation
Zone to protect the values identified within the Biodiversity Conservation
Strategy for Melbournes Growth Corridors. Regionally significant landscape
values will also be protected through the retention and, where required,
application of the Rural Conservation Zone.
A separate amendment will provide for an Infrastructure Contributions Plan

(ICP) that sets out how local roads, recreation spaces and community facilities
will be funded for land and construction. Drainage infrastructure will be
upgraded to cater for urban development and allow for natural flows into
retarding basins or wetlands.
A logical program for the roll out of infrastructure based upon projected growth
rates has been incorporated into the planning for the precincts through the
Sunbury Infrastructure Co- Ordination and Delivery Strategy. The Strategy is
referenced within the PSPs, and provides decisions around the timing of key
infrastructure (in particular, works in kind credits for delivery of infrastructure
items).
Page 116

The vision for the Lancefield Road PSP is to provide for new neighbourhoods
around the Emu and Jacksons Creek, creek corridors and valley and provides
local level services (two (2) neighbourhood shopping centres, five (5) schools
including 2 secondary, three (3) sporting reserves, bus capable roads and a
regional health facility. An additional rail station is also proposed, although not
linked to the electrified Melbourne service (a V/Line station). This
infrastructure is proposed to also service the established areas of Goonawarra
and Rolling Meadows.
Melbourne - Lancefield Rd is proposed as a central Boulevard road, to be

duplicated as a primary arterial road (6 lane arterial) by 2046.
The precinct is likely to be substantially developed within 25-40 years.
Amendment C207 Sunbury South Precinct Structure Plan

The Sunbury South Precinct is generally bounded by Watsons Road and the
Jacksons Creek to the south, Gellies Road and the Emu Creek to the north
and north-east, the high-voltage transmission line easement to the east and
Vineyard Road to the west. The precinct abuts a number of existing
communities within the Sunbury Township, including Goonawarra and
Jacksons Hill. (Refer to Attachment 4 Sunbury South Precinct Structure
Plan).
The amendment proposes to incorporate the Sunbury South Precinct

Structure Plan into the Hume Planning Scheme and rezone the land to Urban
Growth Zone Schedule 9 to facilitate the development of the land. A
concurrent planning permit forms part of the amendment P18858, Villawood
Properties Sunbury Rd and Redstone Hill Road.
The PSP includes the creek and open space environs of both the Emu and
Jackson Creeks and of the 1798 hectares identified for growth, only 785
hectares are developable, due to the creek environs and conservation areas
to be preserved. The PSP anticipates a total population of 33,000 persons
and 11800 dwellings, based on an average of 15 dwellings per developable
hectare. The PSP also proposes 65 hectares of industrial development.
The waterways of Jacksons and Emu Creeks which provide north-south

habitat corridors and connectivity through the growth corridor, protecting
Grassy Eucalypt Woodland, Melbourne Yellow Gum, Grey Box Grassy
Woodland and the Growling Grass Frog. The amendment will use the Rural
Conservation Zone to protect the values identified within the Biodiversity
Conservation Strategy for Melbournes Growth Corridors. Regionally
significant landscape values will also be protected through the retention and,
where required, application of the Rural Conservation Zone.
Page 117

A separate amendment will provide for an Infrastructure Contributions Plan

(ICP) that sets out how local roads, recreation spaces and community facilities
will be funded for land and construction. Drainage infrastructure will be
upgraded to cater for urban development and allow for natural flows into
retarding basins or wetlands.
Similar to C208, the Sunbury Infrastructure Co- Ordination and Delivery

Strategy is referenced within the PSPs, and decisions around the timing of
key infrastructure (in particular, works in kind credits for delivery of
infrastructure items).
The vision for the Sunbury South PSP is to provide for new neighbourhoods
with a Major Town Centre of 25,000 square metres of retail and commercial
floor space in the Redstone Hill area, a smaller neighbourhood centre of 5,000
square metres in the Harpers Creek Local Town Centre, 45 hectares of
industrial land, five (5) schools, local parks, four sporting reserves, bus
capable roads and a new rail station.
The precinct will be serviced by a number of arterial roads. It is planned that

Melbourne Lancefield Road, Sunbury Road and Vineyard Road will be
planned as ultimate six lane primary arterial roads. The Sunbury Road arterial
will require the construction of the Bulla By Pass road, by 2025, however there
is no definite programme date for its funding and construction.
A proposed southern link road is proposed from Sunbury Rd south to

Vineyard Rd, crossing the Jacksons Creek. It is intended to divert traffic from
Sunbury Rd to Vineyard Rd to reduce pressure on Sunbury Rd. This southern
link road will form part of the ultimate Sunbury Ring Road. The southern link
road will also connect to the prosed rail station, which is planned as an
electrified service.
Another southern access road option considered by the VPA and Hume
Council is extending the local arterial road network further south to the
existing Bulla Diggers Rest Rd /Calder Hwy interchange, which will disperse
traffic from Sunbury Rd to the Calder Hwy. The PSP requires this southern
link road to be constructed by the release of the 3000 lot. This southern
access road is considered to be an interim option until the Sunbury Rd Bulla
By Pass project is constructed.
The precinct is likely to be substantially developed within 25-40 years.
Summary of Councils proposed submission
Council considers that while there are positive aspects of the proposed growth
plans for Sunbury the limited analysis of regional impacts on nearby towns
within Macedon Ranges, has raised a number of concerns.
Page 118

In summary the concerns which are recommended to be raised in Councils

submission are summarized as follows:
1. The uncertainty regarding the delivery of key transport infrastructure projects

namely, the Sunbury Rd Bulla By Pass Road needs resolution. Congestion is
currently experienced at peak periods on Melbourne Lancefield Rd and
Sunbury Road. The further growth in Sunbury will exacerbate current
conditions and adversely impact upon communities living in Riddells Creek,
Monegeetta, Clarkefield, Bolinda, Romsey, Lancefield and Gisborne/New
Gisborne if this matter is not addressed in the short term.
2. The supporting traffic modeling data needs to be reviewed to include regional

traffic volume data for state arterial road networks. Council is seeking the
VPA to coordinate discussions between regional and metropolitan Vic Roads
to review transport modeling data and coordinate road infrastructure projects
for arterial roads, which cover both metropolitan and regional boundaries.
These discussions must have particular regard to metropolitan and regional
community transport needs and focus on upgrade projects for Melbourne
Lancefield Road, Calder Hwy and determining timing, funding and
programming for the Sunbury Road, Bulla By Pass.
3. The Sunbury Rd Bulla By Pass is needed now to cater to existing traffic

congestion, however the amendments have planned for delivery in the year
2025. The By Pass Road is not a programmed project for funding by Vic
Roads, therefore no certainty can be provided that this project will be
undertaken in 2025.
4. Given the uncertain funding and timing of delivery of the Sunbury Rd Bulla
By Pass, Council is reluctant to support the proposed interim option
suggested by the VPA. This involves a southern access road linking Sunbury
Rd to the Calder Hwy / Bulla Diggers Rest Rd interchange, which is planned
to be constructed by developers by the release of the 3000 th lot (Sunbury
South PSP). The interim option is reasonable but must be conditional on the
PSP amendments specifying the programming and committed funding for the
Sunbury Bulla By Pass by a defined date. Without this, there is a risk in
further delay in the delivery of the Sunbury Rd / Bulla By Pass Rd and an
interim option becoming a long term result.
5. It is unclear why it is proposed to prepare a separate amendment to introduce

an Infrastructure Charges Plan Overlay. Without an ICP forming part of the
amendment documentation there is no certainty that the local infrastructure
items identified to service these growing communities, can/cannot be funded
by the standard development contribution levy amount. This places doubt on
what infrastructure will be provided to service these growing suburbs that are
located near Councils regional townships.
Page 119

Greater certainty regarding what local infrastructure projects will be funded by

the ICP levy is required, even if this does not form part of the current
amendment documentation.
6. Planning of facilities adjacent the proposed northern rail station in the

Lancefield Rd PSP should be amended to locate the proposed secondary
school, private hospital and TAFE facility closer to this proposed rail station in
order to service the needs of wider regional catchments of communities such
as Riddells Creek, New Gisborne, Macedon and Woodend.
7. Housing on slopes greater than 15 to 20 % should not be encouraged near

the Jacksons Creek and Emu Creek corridors given the highly erosive soils in
these locations and potential urban design and environmental impacts this
may present to the health of regional waterways and open space networks.
Council requests that the VPA review this design requirement to preventing
development on slopes greater than 15 %.
Conclusion
The Sunbury Precinct Structure Plans (amendment C207 and C208) are
comprehensive documents, which address many planning, and infrastructure
requirements to achieve sustainable development of the Sunbury Township
growth areas. These PSPs whilst responding to key local issues, do not
however adequately address the impact of Sunburys growth, having specific
regard to anticipated transport impacts on neighboring towns within the
Macedon Ranges.
These matters have been raised with the VPA and Council will continue to
work with the VPA to help find suitable solutions. In summary the key issues
are identified in Attachment 1 to this report which is recommended as
Councils submission to the VPA.
Page 120
10. PE.9 SUBMISSION TO THE REVIEW OF NATIVE VEGETATION

CLEARING REGULATIONS
Officer: Michelle Wyatt, Environment Coordinator
File Ref: F3655
Council Plan Relationship: Our environment and landscape is

protected and sustained
Attachment: MRSC
submission; Summary of
proposed assessment pathways
Synopsis:
In 2015 the Victorian Government commenced a review of the planning

regulations governing clearance of native vegetation across the state. This
process included release of a consultation paper in March 2016 which officers
submitted feedback about on behalf of Council.
The Victorian Government have now released the outcomes of the review
including proposed planning scheme changes and revised assessment
guidelines. Public feedback on the outcomes of the review are invited until 8
March 2017.
A draft submission on behalf of Council is provided at Attachment 1 which is

consistent with the feedback provided in 2016.
Overall officers are of the view that, while the proposed changes generally
improve on the existing provisions, many additional improvements could be
made to simplify the application process for applicants, to ensure protection of
threatened species and to limit incremental loss of native vegetation (and by
extension incremental loss of biodiversity) across the landscape. The
submission recommends revising the proposed regulations to apply a
streamlined planning permit assessment process for small vegetation
clearances while still ensuring these proposals protect threatened species and
avoid and minimise vegetation clearance where possible. Feedback has also
been provided about other technical changes proposed as well as monitoring,
reporting and compliance.
That Council endorse the officers submission to the Review of Native

Vegetation Clearing Regulations as provided at Attachment 1.
Page 121

CLEARING REGULATIONS (Continued)
Background
Clearance of native vegetation is regulated through Clause 52.17 of the

Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme. Under this Clause, clearance of native
vegetation on land over 0.4 hectares requires a planning permit. There are a
number of planning permit exemptions including for emergency works,
bushfire mitigation works, farming, property maintenance, fencing and utility
installations.
In 2015 the Victorian Government commenced a review of the existing native

vegetation clearing regulations. This process included release of a
consultation paper in March 2016 which officers submitted feedback about on
behalf of Council.
The Victorian Government have now released the outcomes of the review
including proposed planning scheme changes and revised assessment
guidelines.
History of native vegetation clearing regulations in Victoria
2002 to 2013 - Introduction of native vegetation provisions

Regulation of native vegetation in Victoria through the planning system was
first introduced in 2002 with Victorias Native Vegetation: A Framework for
Action. This framework introduced the goal to achieve a net gain in extent
and quality of native vegetation across the landscape. The framework
included a requirement to avoid, minimise and offset proposed native
vegetation losses.
This framework required that detailed on-site assessments (habitat hectare

assessments) be prepared for all applications, regardless of the extent of
native vegetation proposed for removal. The framework was criticised for
being overly complex and costly for minor applications involving removal of a
small patch of native vegetation or a small number of native trees.
2013 to present - Revised native vegetation provisions

In 2013 the regulations were updated and new planning provisions were
introduced that streamed applications into three assessment pathways: high,
moderate and low risk. The 2013 regulations also introduced use of modelled
vegetation quality and significance mapping to inform decisions. The 2002
goal to achieve a net gain in the extent and quality of native vegetation was
replaced with the aim to achieve no net loss in biodiversity across Victoria
with an emphasis on protection of threatened species. This revised framework
is currently in place.
Page 122

The low risk pathway applies to areas deemed by the modelled significance
mapping to contain non-threatened native vegetation if the planning permit
application proposes clearance of up to 10,000m 2 of remnant vegetation or 15
scattered trees. This pathway involves a simple online assessment process
(instead of a detailed on-ground habitat hectare assessment) that makes it
easy to gain approval for the clearance provided the losses are offset
elsewhere in the same municipality or catchment. Applications under the
moderate or high risk pathway are subject to a more detailed process
including and on-ground habitat hectare assessment.
A positive feature of the current provisions includes the simple on-line

assessment process applicable to smaller clearances. However, the broad
application of this process means that the current regulations facilitate
incremental loss of native vegetation (death by a thousand cuts), particularly
in areas modelled to contain non-threatened species. The current system
has also increased complexity for decision makers as impacts on biodiversity
are difficult to assess and quantify in contrast to the quality and extent of
native vegetation. The modelled vegetation significance mapping has also
received significant criticism for its poor level of accuracy.
2017 Proposed changes

The changes currently proposed include retention of three assessment
pathways which have been renamed basic, intermediate and detailed.
The basic pathway is proposed to apply to areas modelled to contain non-

threatened vegetation if no more than 5,000m2 of native vegetation is
proposed for removal and the vegetation for removal contains no large trees.
A large tree is defined according to benchmarks prepared by DELWP for

each ecological community. In Macedon Ranges this ranges from a tree with
a diameter of 50cm in some grassy woodlands to 90cm in damp forests.
Under the proposed provisions, applications under the basic assessment

pathway are not required to avoid or minimise removal of vegetation. An on-
site habitat hectare assessment would only be required under the detailed
assessment pathway which applies to the removal of more than 5,000m 2 of
native vegetation.
A summary of the proposed assessment pathways is provided at Attachment

2.
Page 123

The proposed regulations improve upon the existing provisions as they ensure
a greater number of planning permit applications for removal of vegetation will
be subject to a detailed, on-ground habitat hectare assessment (i.e. for
applications to clear over 5,000m2 instead of 10,000m2). Even so, the
provisions are just as complex to understand and implement and still facilitate
clearances of large areas of vegetation without on-site verification of the type
or quality of the vegetation present. This is likely to result in the same
incremental loss of native vegetation across Macedon Ranges.
The information released for public feedback comprises the proposed

changes to the planning scheme and assessment guidelines only. A
monitoring and reporting plan, a compliance and enforcement strategy and
various supporting documents such practice notes and updated modelled
mapping have not been released for public feedback at this stage.
Native vegetation applications in Macedon Ranges

On average Council receives approximately 50 planning permit applications
annually for removal of native vegetation triggered by Clause 52.17 of the
planning scheme. In addition Council receives approximately 50 applications
annually for proposals to remove vegetation triggered by local environmental
or vegetation protection overlays.
Councils Environmental Planner works with applicants to avoid and minimise

removal of native vegetation where possible. As a result Council is able to
minimise the amount of vegetation proposed to be removed so that most
planning permit applications involve removal of less than 1,000m 2 or less than
5 trees.
The modelled vegetation significance mapping classifies most of the Macedon

Ranges as low risk or non-threatened. As a result, most applications for
removal of native vegetation in the Macedon Ranges are assessed via the
streamlined, low risk pathway.
It is also important to note that many landowners and developers are also
required to, or choose to plant native vegetation across our rural landscape
when undertaking development or for land management reasons or personal
enjoyment.
Summary of proposed submission
Officers have prepared a draft submission to the current review (Attachment

1) which aims to ensure Victorias native vegetation regulations are easy to
understand and use, especially for mum and dad applicants, while protecting
threatened species and reducing incremental loss across the landscape. A
summary of the officers feedback is provided below.
Replace the proposed three assessment pathways with two assessment
pathways: basic and detailed.
Page 124

Apply the basic assessment pathway to removal of up to 1,000m2 of native

vegetation or 5 scattered trees with a diameter of 40cm.
Use the online assessment tool and modelled vegetation quality mapping
for applications in the basic assessment pathway.
Apply the detailed assessment pathway to all other applications, including
the requirement of an on-ground habitat hectare assessment.
Re-instate the requirement for all applications to demonstrate that they

have avoided and minimised native vegetation removal, regardless of the
assessment pathway.
Ensure on-site assessments including sightings of threatened species can
inform decision makers, regardless of the assessment pathway or the
modelled vegetation significance mapping.
Re-instate the goal to achieve a net gain in extent and quality of native
vegetation.
Ensure the monitoring and reporting plan proposed incorporates tools and
processes that are simple and practical to implement and minimise
resource requirements for local government.
Conclusion
The current round of public consultation seeks feedback on the outcomes of

the State Governments Review of Native Vegetation Clearing Regulations
which commenced in May 2015. The proposed regulations are an
improvement on the existing provisions as they ensure more applications for
native vegetation removal will be subject to a detailed on-ground assessment.
Even so, the provisions could be improved by simplifying and reducing the
assessment streams, ensuring on-site assessments are able to inform
decision making and re-instating the requirement for applications to avoid and
minimise clearance before identifying suitable offsets.
Page 125
11. CX.1 REPORT ON THE CONDUCT OF THE COUNCIL GENERAL

ELECTIONS OCTOBER 2016
Officer: Stephen Mahon, Manager Council and Customer Services
File Ref: F2675
Council Plan Relationship: Relates to outcome area Democratic

Governance by promoting
representative democracy that
ensures Council conducts its affairs
openly with integrity, is accountable
and reflective of best practice
governance and management.
Attachment: Election Report

Macedon Ranges Shire Council
General Elections 2016
Synopsis:
This report is presented to Council to formally receive the Victorian Electoral

Commission (VEC) report on the General Elections conducted for the Shire in
October 2016.
That Council receives the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) report

on the General Council Elections conducted on 22 October 2016, and
note the further information provided in this report.
Page 126

ELECTIONS OCTOBER 2016 (Continued)
Report on the Administration of the General Elections conducted for the

Macedon Ranges Shire Council, Saturday 22 October 2012.
Attachment 1 is the full report on the elections prepared by the Victorian

Electoral Commission (VEC). The report represents a comprehensive analysis
of all aspects of the election.
Rather than summarise the report I would like to address the following specific
issues:
1. Voter participation
2. Compulsory voting enforcement
3. Caretaker Period and Campaign Donations.
4. Attendance vs Postal Elections and Election costs
1. Voter Participation
Detailed below is a sample of comparative data on the voter participation

rates from the surrounding Shires of Hepburn, Mitchell and Mt Alexander and
the average voter participation rates for both Postal and Attendance Elections.
2000 2003 2005 2008 2012 2016

Attendance Attendance Postal Postal Postal Postal
Macedon Ranges 66.6% 70.2% 76.79% 79.06% 74.04% 79.05%
Postal Postal Postal Postal Postal Postal
Mitchell 76.85% 75.92% 75.88% 77.48% 72.75% 75.78%
Mt Alexander 79% 78.86% 81.18% 80.36% 79.00% 77.00%
Hepburn 74.66% 74.50% 76.20% 78.49% 76.18% 74.96
Overall participation rates in Postal Elections 75.51% 72.56% 75.67*
Overall participation rates in Attendance Elections 70.03% 63.92% 61.60
Overall participation rates in Regional Municipalities 78.26% 76.56% n/a
Overall participation rates in Metropolitan Municipalities 73.29% 68.90% n/a
- * excluding the City of Melbourne
It is also useful to understand the breakdown of voter participation amongst

the three (3) primary categories of voters, i.e. the VEC list / the Non-Resident
Owners list and Over 70 voters. Voting is not compulsory for the latter two
categories.
Page 127

2003 2005 2008 2012 2016

(Attendance) (Postal) (Postal) (Postal) (Postal)
Council List (i.e. non residents) 29.7% 47.28% 54.9% 50.16% 58.87%
Electoral Commissioners List 77.7% 82.21 82.9% 78.00% 80.76%
Aged 70+ List 70.5% 78% 79.5% 81.00 % 81.24
Overall 70.2% 76.79% 79.06% 74.04% 79.05
Note These figures include all ballot paper envelopes returned whether or
not they proceeded to further scrutiny.
Comments
The Macedon Ranges Shire Council overall participation rate of 79.05% is

favorably comparable to that of similar surrounding shires that have
traditionally held postal elections, and higher by approx. 4% than the
average postal election participation rate across the State.
The increased participation rate of non-residents and Over 70 voters is the

primary reason that overall postal voting delivers consistently higher levels
of participation then attendance elections.
2. Compulsory Voting Enforcement
Voting in all Council elections is compulsory for people listed on the voters roll
except non residents and people over the age of seventy.
The VEC was made an enforcement agency under the Local Government Act
1989 and Infringements Act 2006 for local government compulsory voting
matters early last year. This brings with it the requirement for the VECs non-
voter follow up and subsequent prosecutions activity to be conducted
independently from Councils, even though Councils partly fund the activity
(through marginal cost recovery) and receive revenue from the activities from
infringements, penalties, and fines paid.
The enforcement of compulsory voting process is underway with 4,351

apparent failure-to-vote notices sent to persons who were required to vote at
the 2016 general elections but appear not to have voted. The deadline for
responding to the notice is Wednesday 1 March 2017.
The apparent failure-to-vote notice does not carry a penalty. Persons issued
with an apparent failure-to-vote notice should respond to the notice providing
the reasons why they failed to vote at the elections. If a person fails to
respond, or does not provide a satisfactory response, they may be issued with
an infringement notice. The infringement notice carries a penalty of $78.00.
Page 128

3. Caretaker Period and Campaign Donations
Caretaker Issues In a change from the 2012 elections when the Councillor
Code of Conduct included a Statement of Caretaker Procedures that
governed the decisions of Council, the use by Councillors of Council
resources and the publication of information by the Council during the election
period in 2016 Council was required to adopt an Election Period Policy
which was done at the 23 March 2016 Council Meeting. The processes and
procedures outlined in the policy were observed during the election period.
Campaign Donations These provisions in the Act Section 62 were

communicated to all candidates and the Chief Executive Officer has met his
obligations under the Act. All Campaign Donation Returns have been received
and are available by public inspection for the next 4 years.
4. Attendance vs Postal Elections and Election Costs
The last four General Elections for the Macedon Ranges Shire Council have
been conducted by the postal method. Council has endorsed this method prior
to each election based on the compelling factors of cost, i.e. attendance
elections can be between 30-44% more expensive than postal elections and
the consistently better participation rate achieved via the postal method.
The total contract price for the provision of election services for the October
2016 General Elections was $207,089.86. In 2012 the cost was $170,304.62
with the primary factor impacting this increase being increased postage costs.
These figures exclude a range of costs including the provision of election
office accommodation and the enforcement of compulsory voting.
Page 129
11. CX.2 HANGING ROCK STRATEGIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE

REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM MEETINGS ON 15 DECEMBER
2016 AND 23 JANUARY 2017
Officer: Stephen Mahon, Manager Council and Customer Services
File Ref: F3545
Council Plan Relationship: Responsible governance

Transparent accountable leadership
and democratic decision making
Synopsis:
The Hanging Rock Strategic Advisory Committee (HRSAC) is an Advisory

Committee of the Macedon Ranges Shire Council. It was established by
resolution of Council on 27 July 2016 to provide advice to Council in its
capacity as the Committee of Management of the Hanging Rock Reserve, a
State Government asset under the Crown Lands (Reserves) Act 1978.
The charter and membership of the HRSAC was confirmed by resolution of

Council on 23 November 2016. The minutes of all HRSAC meetings
incorporating any recommendations to Council from the HRSAC will be
formally presented to the next available Ordinary Council Meeting. Any such
recommendations shall be presented to Council with a Council Management
comment.
1. That the unendorsed minutes of the Hanging Rock Strategic Advisory

Committee meeting of 15 December 2016 be noted; and
2. That the unendorsed minutes of the Hanging Rock Strategic Advisory

Committee meeting of 23 January 2017 be noted and Council accept
the recommendation of the Hanging Rock Strategic Advisory
Committee.
Page 130

2016 AND 23 JANUARY 2017 (Continued)
Hanging Rock Strategic

Advisory Committee Meeting - Minutes
Thursday 15 December 2016 at 4.30pm
Council Chamber, Gisborne Council Office
Apologies: Cheryl Krause
Present: Nathan Alexander (Chair), Peter Bishop, Jon Dight, Val Pollard, Helen Relph,
Penelope Roberts, John Williamson, Rodney Carter, Marcus Stewart (arrived 5.00pm)
Officers: Rod Clough, Manager Recreation & Sport, Macedon Ranges Shire Council;
Stephen Mahon, Manager Council & Customer Services, Macedon Ranges Shire
Council; Geoffrey Caine, Manager Sustainability Programs, Department of
Environment, Land, Water and Planning
1. Welcome
The Chair Nathan Alexander welcomed everyone, congratulated them on their
appointments and expressed his enthusiasm for the exciting challenges that lay ahead.
2. Personal Introductions
Each member introduced themselves in the context of their professional background
and or their connection to Hanging Rock.
3. Background to the establishment of the HRSAC

The Manager Recreation & Sport referred to the State Government Review of
Ownership and Management Arrangements of Hanging Rock Reserve and East
Paddock report completed in November 2015 and noted that this review had three
primary outcomes 1. It confirmed Council as the Committee of Management for the
Hanging Rock Reserve; 2. It recommended that a Strategic Advisory Committee for
Hanging Rock be established; and 3. It recommended that a Masterplan for the Hanging
Rock Reserve and East Paddock be developed.
He spoke briefly about the differences between the previous Hanging Rock
Development Advisory Committee which comprised a mixture of user groups and other
stakeholders and had a somewhat operational focus whilst the HRSAC was a skill
based strategic advisory committee.
4. Governance Arrangements
HRSAC Charter
Page 131

The Manager Council & Customer Services ( MCCS ) advised the Committee of the key
features of the Charter for the HRSAC noting specifically
- The initial membership being until the 30 June 2017 or until the Masterplan has
been developed and endorsed by Committee of Management (i.e. Council)
- That the HRSAC shall meet at least 3 times per year ( times to be determined
later in the meeting ) with the charter providing direction on times of year to
coincide with Council budget processes.
- Quarterly reports as referred to in the Charter will be in writing and be provided by
the end of the month following the end of the quarter. The annual financial
outcome for the Reserve will be provided to the Committee by the 30 September
each year and presented to the Committee at the next meeting of the committee
after this date.
- The quorum for the HRSAC is 5 and any resolutions must be carried by this
absolute majority
Term of Appointment
The Manager Council & Customer Services (MCCS) advised the Committee that subject
to this initial appointment until 30 June 2017 and the review of the Charter, skill mix and
experience post the Master plan adoption half the 8 members of the HRSAC would be
appointed for 4 years and half for 2 years.
Confidential Information
The Manager Council & Customer Services ( MCCS ) advised the Committee that they
are requested to treat confidential information as such, including information not
publically available, and any personal information that they may be provided.
Conflict of Interest
The Manager Council & Customer Services ( MCCS ) advised that Section 32-34 of the
Charter dealt specifically with conflict of interests and he noted the role of the Chair as
outlined in the Charter . He proposed that prior to the next meeting of the Committee all
members would be requested to complete a modified Register of Interests Declaration
form that would be retained by Chair.
Agendas
The Manager Council & Customer Services ( MCCS ) advised the Committee that in the
interests of efficient meetings and use of members time the meeting agendas and any
supporting / background documentation would be circulated one week prior to the
meeting unless otherwise advised. Additionally if the Committee has requested
information from Council Officers this would be provided in writing and if necessary the
appropriate officer would attend the HRSAC
Minutes & Reporting to the Macedon Ranges Shire Council

The Manager Council & Customer Services ( MCCS ) advised the Committee that the
minutes of the HRSAC would be formally presented to the next available Ordinary
Council Meeting of the Macedon Ranges Shire Council ie the Committee of
Management for the Hanging Rock Crown Land Reserve. He noted the following
specific matters in this regard
-
Page 132

- General discussion and comment will be recorded in the minutes with the
objective of reflecting the broad views raised;
- If on any matter the Committee proposes to make a formal recommendation to
Council such a motion and if successful resolution must be moved and
seconded. Defeated motions would be formally recorded.
- If there is a dissenting opinion or view it is the responsibility of the relevant
member to immediately after the adoption of the formal recommendation to
Council to advise the Chair that they wish their dissenting opinion or view
(which they need to formally express) be recorded in the minutes.
- In conjunction with the presentation of the HRSAC minutes to Council, Council
Management will provide a written comment in response to any formal
recommendation by the Committee to Council.
- The minutes of the HRSAC will be published on Councils website as part of the
formal presentation of these minutes to Council.
Code of Conduct
The Manager Council & Customer Services (MCCS) advised the Committee that
Councils Staff Code of Conduct was relevant to the members of the Committee to the
extent that it was applicable. He referred specifically to the sections dealing with the
values and principles, improper use of information and media and public comments.
Reimbursement of costs (travel)

The Manager Council & Customer Services (MCCS) advised the Committee that in line
with Councils existing policy position on reimbursement of costs for travel, members of
the Committee could submit travel reimbursement for reasonable travel expenses
incurred to attend meetings. He advised that a form for this purpose would be circulated
to members.
It was noted that the contacts for members of the Committee on all matters associated
with Hanging Rock and the Committee would be in the first instance
Nathan Alexander (Chair) (Functioning of the Committee)
Karen Stevens (Director Community Wellbeing) (Hanging Rock and Master
Plan)
Stephen Mahon (Manager Council & Customer Services ) ( Committee
Secretariat & Governance )
5. Overview of Hanging Rock Management Arrangements

The Manager Recreation & Sport explained the operational management arrangements
including the staffing and reporting structures. He advised the Committee of the history of
the East Paddock including its purchase and noted Councils responsibilities related to the
Hanging Rock Reserve are given in the Crown Land Reserves Act. It was also noted that
the Crown land portion of the Hanging Rock Reserve is Heritage listed and this also
conferred responsibilities on Council.
6. The Hanging Rock Master Plan process and the role of the HRSAC
The Manager Council & Customer Services ( MCCS ) advised the Committee that the
Hanging Rock Draft Master Plan would not be presented to the December Council
Meeting and he sought the Committees views on having a meeting in the week of the 16
January 2017, with the draft Master Plan being circulated to Members a week earlier. It
was envisaged that at this meeting the Committee could be briefed by the Master Plan
Page 133

Consultants and have the opportunity to provide initial feedback with the objective being
to get the Committees in principle support for the fundamental direction of the draft prior
to it being presented to the February Council Meeting where Council would resolved to
place the draft Master Plan on public exhibition.
It was noted that the Committee could also be briefed at this meeting on the proposed
consultative program in March / April and that the Committee would participate in the
consideration of submissions and the consultants responses to submissions in addition
to having the opportunity to provide further input on the Master Plan throughout the public
consultation period.
There was some concern regarding the timeframes and a suggestion that it would be
ideal if the Committee could have the draft Master Plan for a month prior to formulating its
initial feedback to allow time for onsite inspections and broader discussions.
It was noted that, whilst it would be ideal if a longer period of time was available (to
facilitate members undertaking tours and inspections, attendance at a concert (ie the next
concert will be scheduled on 11 Feb 2017) and a race meeting (the opportunity to attend
New Years Day and Australia Day meetings will be afforded to all members) it was
acknowledged that due to the existing timeframes it was desirable that the Committee
meet during the week of the 16 January 2017. The general consensus of the Committee
was that this occur.
7. Future Meetings
It was agreed that the Committee meet on Monday 16 January 2017 from 6.30 pm 8.30
pm in the Hut at the Hanging Rock Reserve with the Hanging Rock Masterplan being
circulated to members at least one week prior and if possible the members be also
provided with the consultants brief for the Master plan and the documents provided to the
consultants.
It was noted that a significant number of documents had been provided to the consultants
and that a listing of these documents be provided in the first instance.
8. Next Meeting
See above
9. Homework for members

The Chair
9.1 - requested members to prepare a list of issues at the Hanging Rock Reserve that
they wish to be discussed in future by the HRSAC, and to note up to three that they
regard as the most important. This list will form the basis of a discussion at the meeting
after the 16 January 2017 meeting, and
9.2 - requested members to provide a brief biography of their background / professional
and other interests relevant to Hanging Rock that the Shire would use to inform the
community about the work of the Advisory Committee. A template for this purpose would
be circulated to members.
10. Questions
Page 134

A request was made that further detailed financial information on the operations of
Hanging Rock Reserve be provided to the Advisory Committee.
11. Any other matters
Nil
The meeting closed at 6.30 pm
Management response to HRSAC Minutes of 15 December 2016
Noted
Page 135

Hanging Rock Strategic

Advisory Committee Meeting - Minutes
Monday 23 January 2017 at 6.30pm
Hanging Rock Reserve Hut
Present: Nathan Alexander (Chair), Jon Dight, Val Pollard, Helen Relph, Penelope
Roberts, John Williamson, Rodney Carter, Sean-Paul Stephens
Officers: Fi Cotter Project Manager, Karen Stevens Director Community Wellbeing

Rod Clough Manager Recreation & Sport, Stephen Mahon Manager Council &
Customer Services, Geoffrey Caine Manager Sustainability Programs DELWP
Consultants: Erwin Taal (Aspect Studios), Margie McKay (Village Well)
Apologies: Peter Bishop, Marcus Stewart
1. Welcome
The Chairperson welcomed all Members and the Consultants
2. Introduction to Masterplan Development Process (Fi Cotter and Geoffrey Caine)

Fi Cotter and Geoffrey Caine explain their role as project managers for the development
of the Masterplan and the process including the initial consultation that has been
undertaken to date.
3. Overview of Masterplan
The Consultants Erwin Taal and Margie McKay presented the draft Masterplan and
briefly addressed the key elements of the plan including the three zone approach, the
entrance, access to the Hanging Rock, the cultural / community centre, indigenous
issues, information provision including digital option, signage, the consolidation of the
sporting uses and facilities, the events zone and the enhanced trial network.
4. Open Discussion and Questions

The Consultants responded to a range of initial questions by the Committee members
including;
- The consultants view around the time horizon of the proposed Masterplan, that is,
the time period that is addressed in the plan. Erwin indicated this to be 15 to 20
years.
Page 136

- An explanation of the considerations undertaken for alternative location options for

the various proposed built structures and proposed relocated sporting facilities.
- Clarification of the purpose and proposed uses of the cultural centre / community
centre
- Questions around the relationship between the cultural centre / community centre
and the sporting facilities and racing facilities
- A desire to understand the governance model and principles proposed to underpin
the ongoing management of the site.
- Concerns that the proposed new built structures potentially represented an overall
environmental loss for the site in the absence of the rehabilitation of sites / areas
were existed facilities are removed and apparent limited revegetation of areas in the
environmental zone
- Questions regarding the considerations given to relocating or removal of existing
sporting facilities from the site
- A concern that large structures in the East Paddock i.e. the Cultural / Community
Centre would conflict with the Cultural Heritage Overlay and impact views to
Hanging Rock from Mt Macedon and views from Hanging Rock
- A suggestion that sites of tangible traditional owner use be identified and
investigated in advance of locking in locations and options for proposed facilities
- Emergency Management and fire risk considerations
- A general desire to see further site analysis and detailed design brief work including
impacts of the proposals on views to and from Hanging Rock, the site entrance
options, the vehicular car parking nos and the pros and cons of all proposed
developments.
The Consultants left the meeting
The Committee had a general discussion regarding the draft Masterplan and their options
insofar as making a recommendation to Council.
Recommendation of Hanging Rock Strategic Advisory Committee
That the Hanging Rock Strategic Advisory Committee recommend to Council

that:
1. The draft Hanging Rock Masterplan as presented is not yet suitable for
public exhibition
2. Further work on the Masterplan be undertaken responding to:
a. the feedback and comments noted in these minutes
b. further HRSAC member feedback co-ordinated by the Chairman
c. advice from Heritage Victoria
d. advice and guidance regarding the status of the Indigenous Owners
Connections project.
3. A revised draft master plan be presented to a meeting of the HRSAC after
the February meeting of Council.
4. The HRSAC provide a recommendation to the March meeting of Council of
the suitability of a revised draft masterplan for public exhibition.
Page 137

5. Future Meetings
It was agreed that the Committee meet on Monday 27 February 2017 from 6.30 pm 8.30
pm in the Hut at the Hanging Rock Reserve with the draft Hanging Rock Masterplan being
circulated to members at least one week prior.
6. Any other matters

Nil
The meeting closed at 8.30 pm
Management Response to the Recommendation in the HRSAC Minutes of the 23

January 2016
Accepted
Page 138
11. CX.3 BUILDING BETTER REGIONS FUND
Officer: Peter Johnston, Chief Executive Officer
File Ref: F2929-02
Council Plan Relationship: A high performing organisation

We lead and advocate for the best
interests of the community
Synopsis:
The $297.7 million Building Better Regions Fund supports the Australian
Governments commitment to create jobs, drive economic growth and build
stronger regional communities into the future.
The following two streams of funding are available under the Building Better
Regions Fund program:
Infrastructure Projects Stream: Open to investment-ready projects that
will create jobs, drive economic growth and build regional communities for
the long term. Applicants are encouraged to put forward projects that will
strengthen communities through new infrastructure, or upgrades or
extensions to existing infrastructure. All applications are to be received by
28 February 2017.
Community Investments Stream: This stream will invest in projects
outside of traditional infrastructure - events and initiatives which aim to build
regional communities in other ways. As all applications are to be received
by 31 March 2017 a report will be presented to the 22 March 2017 Ordinary
Council Meeting for consideration.
That Council:
1) Endorse the Kyneton Livestock Exchange and Truck Park project for
submission to the Building Better Regions Fund (Infrastructure
Projects Stream); and
2) If requested, provide a letter of support to the Riddells Creek Tennis

Club for their independent application to the Building Better Regions
Fund (Infrastructure Projects Stream).
Page 139
11. CX.3 BUILDING BETTER REGIONS FUND (Continued)
Council has recently been advised of funding opportunities under the Building
Better Regions Fund. The program provides funding for infrastructure
projects and community investment that will create jobs, drive economic
growth and build stronger regional communities into the future.
It is anticipated that this fund will see regional communities partner with
governments and stakeholders to take full advantage of a range of economic
and regional development opportunities to help build strong, sustainable
communities. The funding will be directed only to projects outside of major
capital cities, with funding open to applications from local governing bodies
and not-for-profit organisations.
The following two streams of funding are available under the Building Better
Regions Fund program:
Infrastructure Projects Stream
Community Investments Stream
The Infrastructure Projects Stream supports projects which involve the

construction of new infrastructure, or the upgrade or extension of existing
infrastructure that provides economic and social benefits to regional and
remote areas.
The minimum grant amount is $20,000.
The maximum grant amount is $10 million.
Projects must be completed by 31 December 2019.
For most projects, grant funding will be up to 50 per cent or up to 75
per cent of eligible project costs. The location will determine the
percentage of grant funding received.
In exceptional and very rare circumstances an exemption to the
requirement for co-funding may be granted.
The Community Investments Stream will fund community building activities

including, but not limited to, new or expanded local events, strategic regional
plans and leadership and capability building activities. These projects will
deliver economic and social benefits to regional and remote communities.
The minimum grant amount is $5,000 and the maximum grant amount is
$10 million, however given the nature of eligible projects it is expected that
most grants will be under $100,000.
The project must be completed within 12 months of entering into a grant
agreement.
The co-funding amount will vary depending on the project size and project
location.
For projects under $20,000, there is no co-funding requirement.
For projects over $20,000, co-funding requirements apply, however in
exceptional and very rare circumstances an exemption to the requirement
for co-funding may be granted.
Co-funding is strongly encouraged for all projects as projects without co-
funding may not score as highly against the merit criteria.
Page 140
Grant funding for both streams will be awarded through an open competitive
process. Eligible applicants must apply during a funding round and
applications are assessed against merit criteria and other eligible applications
in the funding round.
Following officer research it is recommended that an application be submitted

for the Kyneton Livestock Exchange and Truck Park under the Building Better
Regions Fund (Infrastructure Projects Stream). It is proposed that the total
project cost will be $1.757 million split over a two year period (with the funding
ratio for Maced o n Ran g es Sh ir e Co u n cil as 1:1). Specifically the project
will deliver the following:
Livestock Exchange (South of Saleyards Road only)

Increase yield by construction of new roof and soft floors on the cattle site.
Reduce water consumption and volume of water currently discharged to
water treatment facility via water harvesting systems.
Improve animal welfare and pedestrian safety by construction of new
fencing, walkways and walkway rails, and upgrades to cattle loading
ramps.
Operational improvements through the diversification of sale options and
increase regular sales to ensure a greater return on investment.
Reduce energy consumption by installation of a solar panel system and
optimise the space for energy capture provided from the proposed new
roof.
Increase economic development and support of the region by developing
a marketing and promotional plan.
Truck Park (West of Saleyards Road)

Reduce potential spread of disease and align with industry standards by
increasing number of truck wash bays to meet increased demands and
improve traffic movements on the site.
Construct environmentally sustainable water and waste management
infrastructure to accommodate the additional growth of the truck wash
bays, e.g. water storage tanks, pumps, pits and pipes.
Allow users of the facilities access to hygienic and safe amenities by
construction of a new onsite amenity block.
Improve traffic safety by formalising entry/exit points with signage and
parking.
Construct sediment pond for environmentally sensitive treatment of waste
water.
Enhance pedestrian safety by including crossing, traffic calming and
intersection treatments.
Page 141
This project is supported by the adopted Kyneton Saleyards Plan

(incorporating master plan), business case and asset management plan, all of
which have been developed through extensive research, community and
industry engagement. This project also aligns with actions within the
Macedon Ranges Agribusiness Plan 2013/2018.
Riddells Creek Tennis Club have also advocated to Council for an application
to be made to the same funding stream for stage two of the Riddells Creek
Courts Development project. This option was considered by officers and
Councillors, but due to already existing funding sources, was not deemed to
be as high a priority as the Kyneton Saleyards and Truck Park project.
It is acknowledged that the Riddells Creek Tennis Club and other local clubs
and stakeholders have agreed to a significant financial commitment to this
project and may wish to secure additional funding sources. They may
therefore choose to lodge their own application to the Building Better Regions
Fund Infrastructure Stream, which Council could provide a letter of support
for.
While the Building Better Regions Fund does not preclude Council from
submitting multiple applications under either funding stream, advice provided
at a recent information session was for organisations to submit non-competing
applications as it is more than likely only one application (if any) would
succeed. The Kyneton Livestock Exchange and Truck Park project is more
likely to be considered of regional significance, and more likely to meet all
aspects of the funding criteria.
Page 142
11. CX.4 SMALL COMMUNITY GRANT SCHEME CONSIDERATION

OF GRANT APPLICATIONS
Officer: Trudy Campbell, Governance Administration Officer
File Ref: F737
Council Plan Relationship: A high performing organisation We

proactively engage with, and
demonstrate accountability to, the
community; and build and sustain
financial strength
Synopsis:
Council at its March 2013 Ordinary Council Meeting endorsed the guidelines
which govern the Small Community Grant Scheme.
Not-for-profit community groups can apply for small financial donations via
this scheme. Applications are evaluated and presented to Council as they are
received.
The grants are offered to assist projects/initiatives that are unlikely to be

funded through existing funding schemes. Applications can be made at any
time of year1 and generally are processed within 34 weeks.
That Council endorse the following applications for funding:

a. Woodend Lions Club - Woodend Lions Art Show: $500
b. Friends of Bald Hill Reserve - Discovering the fungal curiosities of
Bald Hill Reserve workshop: $800
1except in a General Election year, specifically from 1 July to the date of the election and during the Community
Funding Scheme open for application period annually
Page 143

OF GRANT APPLICATIONS (Continued)
Officer Comment:
The following guidelines govern the use and administering of these funds:
1. Application for funding is via an online application form.

2. The maximum grant is $1,500.
3. All applications will be presented to Council for determination.2
4. A group can receive funding only once in a financial year.
5. Funding:
a. must be for a one off project or activity (not the basis for ongoing
funding)
b. will not be offered to individuals
c. can be offered to government and non-government schools; however
the purpose of the request must be outside the accepted
responsibilities of the school and the State Government, i.e. all
curriculum-related activities, student welfare activities and other
functions that are generally performed by schools
d. community/township festivals and events are eligible
e. associated with works to a Council facility or building must be
approved by the relevant building manager
f. shall not be used for political purposes
g. must be identified as being consistent with Council Plan
h. is for projects that will commence and finish in the same financial year
i. Applications will not be accepted and works/undertakings shall not
occur, in the period between 1 July and the date of a General Election
of that same year.
6. Once funding is approved, all parties are required to sign a partnership
agreement.
7. Any funds not spent on the specified project/activity will be returned to
Council.
2
Only eligible applications will be presented.
Page 144

OF GRANT APPLICATIONS (Continued)
The following applications are presented for consideration:
Applicant: Woodend Lions Club

Date received: 21 January 2017
Project: Woodend Lions Art Show
Amount requested: $500
Amount recommended: $500
Previous funding received for
Yes
group/project:
Compliant with guidelines: Yes
Officer comment: Eligible
Officer recommendation: To be funded
Applicant: Friends of Bald Hill Reserve

Date received: 6 February 2017
Project: Fungi workshop
Amount requested: $1,340
Amount recommended: $800
Previous funding received for
Yes
group/project:
Compliant with guidelines: Yes
Officer comment: Eligible
Officer recommendation: To be funded
Page 145
12. CS.1 CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED AS AT 22 FEBRUARY 2017
Officer: Corinne Farley, Contracts Coordinator
File Ref: 60/03/01

financial strength
Synopsis:
Councils delegated authority to its officers to award a contract is controlled by

the financial value of the contract. The various financial limits of the authority
are specified in Appendix 1 of the Procurement Policy.
The following report indicates whether or not delegated authority to award the
contract is expected to exist. It also presents Council with the opportunity to
(a) specifically grant delegated authority to the Chief Executive Officer and (b)
specifically review delegated authority in any instance where Council deems it
appropriate.
That Council notes that the following contracts will be awarded by

Council officers under delegated authority:
A17.849 Insurance
C17.853 Drainage Works, High Street, Lancefield
Page 146
12. CS.1 CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED AS AT 22 FEBRUARY

(Continued)
12.1 Background Information
Councils delegated authority to its officers to award a contract is controlled by

the financial value of the contract. The various financial limits of the authority
are specified in Appendix 1 of the Procurement Policy.
12.2 Opportunity to review delegated authority
This report provides Council with a brief summary of proposed contracts,

which are being advertised and also indicates whether or not delegated
authority to award the contract is expected to exist. This report also provides
Council with the opportunity to (a) specifically grant delegated authority to the
Chief Executive Officer and/or (b) specifically review the delegated authority
to award a contract(s).
A17.849 Insurance
A collaborative procurement process with other members of the Loddon

Mallee Regional Procurement Excellence Network, conducted by
Procurement Australia Insure Right as the tender agency, for insurance
brokering services. The broker will undertake a remarketing campaign for the
renewal of our insurance policies.
C17.853 Drainage Works, High Street, Lancefield
This contract is for underground drainage works and road pavement works in
High Street, Lancefield.
Page 147
12. CS.2 2018 GENERAL VALUATION
Officer: Hayley Drummond, Co-ordinator Property and Valuations
File Ref: F366-03
Council Plan Relationship: A high performing organisation .

We p r o act ively en g ag e w it h ,
an d d em o n st r at e
acco u n t ab ilit y t o , t h e
co m m u n it y ; an d b u ild an d
su st ain f in an cial st r en g t h .
Attachment: Copy of Statutory

Declaration
Synopsis:
In accordance with the Valuation of Land Act 1960 (the Act) Council is
required to conduct a valuation of all properties within the Shire every two
years. The Valuer-General has determined that the next general valuation is
to be returned by 30 April 2018, with the valuation date to be 1 January 2018.
This report notes the commencement of the 2018 revaluation and

recommends that Hayley Drummond, Councils Co-ordinator Property and
Valuations, be appointed to make the return. A statutory declaration of
impartiality is also attached.
This report also provides a brief overview and background on the process for
valuing properties for rating purposes within the Shire. A further report
regarding the return of the 2018 Revaluation will be presented to Council in
early 2018.
That Council:
1) in accordance with Section 11 of the Valuation of Land Act 1960 (the

Act) resolves to conduct a General Valuation of all rateable and
leviable properties within the Shire, to be returned on or before 30
April 2018;
2) gives notice of this resolution to the Valuer-General, the State
Revenue Office and to neighbouring Councils;
3) in accordance with Section 13DA(1) of the Act appoints Councils
Co-ordinator Property and Valuations, Hayley Drummond who is a
Certified Practicing Valuer and Associate of the Australian Property
Institute, to return the General Valuation.
4) notes the making of the statutory declaration by Hayley Drummond
for the purposes of Section 13 DH(2) of the Act.
Page 148
12. CS.2 2018 GENERAL VALUATION (Continued)
Background:
The process to revalue all the properties in the Shire is legislated under the
Valuation of Land Act and guidelines produced by the Valuer General Victoria.
The Valuer-Generals office require the 2018 valuations to be submitted to
them in a five stage process. The first stage is required for submission at the
end of February 2017 with the final stage due the end of April 2018.
Consequently we now need to commence the 2018 revaluation process that

will provide the valuations required for the July 2018 rates notices. These
new valuations will be used for rating purposes in the 2018/19 and 2019/20
rating years.
Council has the option of contracting out the valuation function or using in-
house valuers. Since 2002 Council has employed in-house valuers to
undertake revaluations and supplementary valuations. In addition to this
work, the in-house valuers also provide internal asset valuations, valuations
for open space purposes, rental determinations, and advice on buying and
selling Council properties. Having valuers available on staff enables access to
expert advice in a timely manner supporting the high level of customer service
that Council provides and is considered a preferred option to outsourcing all of
the work to contractors.
The valuations will be based on 1 January 2018 levels of value; that is the
specific date we will use to assess the market value for all properties in the
Shire. This date is also set by the Valuer-Generals office and is applied to all
properties across the state.
Before any General Valuation and return is made, the person appointed to
make the return must make a declaration that the valuation and return will be
impartial and true to the best of that persons judgement.
A copy of the statutory declaration made by Hayley Drummond is attached.

Hayley is a qualified valuer and holds the qualifications and experience
specified in the Act. Councils in-house valuation team of two valuers - Hayley
and Leon Roche (Councils Senior Valuer) are both qualified and experienced
to undertake the rural and residential property valuations for the 2018
revaluation, having successfully completed the 2016 revaluation.
Additionally, commercial-industrial valuers, VRC Property have been

appointed under contract to provide the valuations for the retail and industrial
properties within the Shire. VRC Property are specialist valuers who have
extensive experience in commercial and industrial work and have undertaken
similar contracts for several adjoining municipalities. They will therefore be
able to compare rental and sales data of properties outside the Shire in
townships such as Castlemaine. The contractors work will be supervised and
approved by Hayley Drummond as contract manager.
Page 149
The below indicative timetable is outlined in the Valuer Generals Best

Practice Specification Guidelines:
Stage Key Task Completion Date
1 General Preparation and statistical analysis of 28/2/2017

2016 Revaluation
NB: On this submission date Council needs to
have appointed its valuer
2 Prepare preliminary valuations of all residential 31/10/2017
and rural properties
3 Determine final valuations for all non-residential, 27/2/2018
non-rural and specialist properties
4 Determine final valuations for all residential and 31/3/2018
rural properties
5 Valuation Return and final Valuers report 30/4/2018
submitted
The Valuation Process:
A valuation is an assessment of the market value of a property at a specific

date. The valuations that appear on the current rates notices are based on
January 2016 levels of value and are in effect from the 1 July 2016 to the 30
June 2018. The properties are revalued every two years to provide up to date
valuations that are reflective of the current market.
There are approximately 22,000 rateable properties (328 industrial, 937

commercial and 20,735 residential/rural properties) that require valuations as
part of the revaluation process. In additional to valuing all rateable properties,
it is now also a requirement to return values for all non-rateable properties
that are leviable for the purposes of the Fire Services Property Levy
(approximately 400 properties).
Each property has three valuations assessed:
- Site Value (value of land),

- Capital Improved Value (Value of Land and Buildings) and
- Net Annual Value which is fixed at 5% of the Capital Improved
Value for residential properties and an estimate of the net annual
rental for commercial/industrial properties.
Page 150
The amount of rates payable by each ratepayer is assessed by multiplying the

Capital Improved Value by the rate in the dollar that is calculated each year as
part of the budget process.
In addition to the redistribution of Council rates, the General Valuation data is

also purchased by the State Revenue Office to assess land tax. Revenue
from the State Revenue Office for the 2018 revaluation will be received in the
2018/19 financial year.
Valuing a Property:
Councils property database contains information on each individual property

including the building age, size and land area. It also includes sales history
and any planning or building permits.
Property values are determined by analysing property sales and rental

evidence, which is then applied to the data on each property. Information is
compiled on each property over time, through inspections, permit data,
newspaper advertisements and real estate websites. Valuers build a profile of
value levels for each different area/property type by analysis of recent sales
and leasings. This information is then applied to each property, taking into
account the different attributes and adjustment factors.
Supplementary Valuations:
In certain circumstances, valuations must be performed between general

valuations.
These are known as supplementary valuations.

They are required when properties are:
- Physically changed for example, when buildings are constructed,

altered or demolished; or
- Subdivided and sold (such as in new residential estates),
consolidated, rezoned or affected by other land changes.
Supplementary valuations bring the value of the affected property into line
with the general valuation of other properties within the Shire. Currently the
effective date is 1 January 2016, and therefore if a new house is completed
now, we assess its market value as though it was constructed in January
2016.
Page 151
Objections:
A ratepayer can object to a valuation, provided it is within two months of the

date of the rates notice. Before making an objection, the ratepayer is
encouraged to contact the valuation department to discuss the valuation with
the Valuer and obtain the required objection form.
Page 152
12. CS.3 PROCUREMENT POLICY 2017
Officer: John Hausler, Director Corporate Services
File Ref: F977
Council Plan Relationship: To deliver fair and open decision-

making across the business of
Council
Attachment: Draft Procurement

Policy 2017
Synopsis:
The genesis of the Procurement Policy is the Local Government Act, which
states in Section 186A that Council (a) must have a Procurement Policy, (b)
must comply with its Procurement Policy and (c) must review its Procurement
Policy at least once in each financial year.
Council adopted its most recent version of the Policy in February 2016, during
the 2015/16 financial year.
During the 2016/17 annual review of the Policy, it was determined that the
Policy needed to be updated. The updated Draft Procurement Policy 2017 is
now attached.
That Council adopts the Procurement Policy 2017.
Page 153
12. CS.3 PROCUREMENT POLICY 2017 (Continued)
Introduction
The genesis of the Procurement Policy is the Local Government Act which
states that Council (a) must have a Procurement Policy, (b) must comply with
its Procurement Policy and (c) must review its Procurement Policy at least
once in each financial year.
The Act also states that a Procurement Policy means the principles,
processes and procedures that will apply to all purchases of goods, services
and works by the Council.
Council adopted its most recent version of the Policy in February 2016, during
the 2015/16 financial year.
Purpose
The purpose of the Procurement Policy is to confirm the principles, internal

controls and delegations that apply to the purchasing of goods and services,
or undertaking works (such as construction and maintenance) thereby
ensuring that Council continues to
Enhance the accountability and transparency of its procurement
practices.
Achieve good value for money and receive the benefits normally
expected by seeking prices in a competitive market.
Delegate appropriate levels of responsibility and control to Officers.
Principles
In the context of procurement, the Policy defines the principles of

Value For Money
Fair Competition
Accountability
Probity
Environmentally Responsible Procurement
Socially Responsible Procurement
Managing Risk
Confidential Information
Conflict Of Interest
Page 154
Evaluation Criteria (Selection Criteria)
The following mandatory criteria are used to evaluate submitted tenders:

Price
Relevant Experience
Methodology
Compliance to the Specification
Environmental Benefit
Workplace Health and Safety
Risk and Insurance
Conflict of Interest
As each project is different, it is left to the discretion of the evaluation team to

apply relevant weightings to each criteria prior to the tender being released.
No mandatory requirements exist regarding the weighting of each criteria,
other than all mandatory criteria must be used. Additional prescribed
discretionary criteria can be added to this list that may be relevant to specific
contracts.
Support of Local Business
The Local Government Act states that the primary objective of a council is to
endeavour to achieve the best outcomes for the local community having
regard to the long term and cumulative effects of decisions. In seeking to
achieve its primary objective, a council must promote the social, economic
and environmental viability and sustainability of the municipal district.
Furthermore our Council Plan states that Councils Goal is a local economy,
which is diverse, strong and prosperous.
The principle of supporting local business means that, in terms of

procurement, Council is prepared to consider paying more for goods, services
and works from a local business rather than a non-local business provided
that
the price is no more than 5% higher than the lowest price; and
the price difference does not exceed $5,000; and
the evaluation reveals that the local businesss goods, services or
works are of equal or better quality than the lowest priced quote/tender
from a non-local business.
These considerations are not a factor in the initial tender scoring process but
are able to be applied on discretion of the tender evaluation team following
the completion of the tender scoring.
Page 155
Governance
Council maintains Financial Delegations to ensure there is accountability and

traceability in all procurement decisions. The Financial Delegations also mean
that procurement may be conducted in an efficient and timely manner and
thus avoids suppliers having to wait unreasonable periods of time for a
decision and payment.
Delegated authority is determined by the monetary value and Councils

Financial Delegations are shown in Appendix 1 of the Procurement Policy.
The Financial Delegations authorise specified Council Staff to accept a quote

or tender, award a contract, approve a purchase order and authorise a
payment for a budgeted item without prior referral to Council.
If the value of the contract exceeds the Chief Executive Officers delegated
level, then, unless Council specifically delegates authority by resolution, an
evaluation report including a recommendation shall be submitted to a Council
meeting for a decision.
A report on all proposed contracts, is presented to Council on a monthly basis.

This report provides Council with a very brief summary of proposed contracts,
which are being advertised and also indicates whether or not delegated
authority to award the contract is expected to exist. This report provides
Council with the opportunity to (a) specifically grant delegated authority to the
Chief Executive Officer where above their delegated authority and/or (b)
specifically review the delegated authority to award a contract(s).
Furthermore, a confidential report that summarises the status of tenders from

specification stage to contract awarded stage is regularly issued to all
Councillors. The report is confidential because it provides estimates of the
expected value of the contracts (prior to tenders being invited). The report
also indicates whether or not delegated authority to award the contract is
expected to exist.
Procurement Policy 2017 Updates
The 2017 Procurement Policy is broadly consistent with the 2016 adopted
policy, with an attached version outlining the changes made between
versions.
Notably the following two sections have been updated:
2.5 Environmentally Responsible Procurement
Further context has been provided to section 2.5 to guide the tender
evaluation process, for when consideration is given to a tenderers
environmental benefit.
Page 156
6.2 Exceptions to raising a Purchase Order
A number of additional categories have been added to the exceptions

to raising a purchase order, which control the application of budgeted
expenditure. These exceptions exist to provide for expenditure which is
related to:
Variable charges which are budgeted for under larger contracts
for services e.g. phone usage charges;
Items which are purchased via other controlled processes e.g.
corporate credit card expenditure;
Expenditure on items for which a mandated or contracted
supplier exists e.g. VIC roads registration and road tolls; and
Minor budgeted expenditure, including items which are
considered urgent in nature e.g. medical attention.
The additional exceptions that have been added to the Procurement

Policy 2017 are in line with the above noted categories for exception.
It should be noted that even where a purchase order has not been
raised the related invoice payments are approved by an officer with the
appropriate financial delegation.
Conclusion
The Procurement Policy 2017 remains consistent with the requirements of the
Local Government Act. It provides officers with sound principles and a defined
control structure for the procurement process.
It is recommended that Council adopts the Procurement Policy 2017.
Page 157
12. CS.4 QUARTERLY REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED 31

DECEMBER 2016
Officer: Leon den Dryver, Manager Finance

financial strength
Attachment: Quarterly Report

for period ended 31 December
2016
Synopsis:
The Quarterly Report for the period ended 31 December 2016 is presented for
Councils consideration and information. This report includes the following:
Section 1 - Quarterly financial statements including summary of the

mid year budget review
Section 2 - Progress on council plan actions
Section 3 - Capital works program status
Section 4 - Customer service report
Section 5 - Councillor support expenditure
The Quarterly Report shows that for the period ended 31 December 2016,
Councils financial performance was close to budget and its projects are being
delivered. Some capital works projects are slightly behind schedule due to the
wet weather conditions experienced during the last six months, it is expected
that they will back on target by the end of the financial year. Council Plan
actions are tracking well to targets.
That Council:
1. Note the Quarterly Report for the period ended 31 December 2016; and
2. Endorse the budget changes identified as part of the mid-year budget
review.
Page 158
13. COMMUNITY WELLBEING DIRECTORATE REPORTS
Nil
Page 159
14. AO.1 GISBORNE MOVEMENT NETWORK STUDY
Officer: Matthew Irving, Manager Engineering and Projects
File Ref: F70
Council Plan Relationship: An inspiring place Our

infrastructure supports the needs of
future generations.
Attachments: Gisborne
Movement Network Study; and
Summary of the community
consultation
Synopsis:
This report provides Council with a summary of the public consultation

undertaken as part of the 2016 Gisborne Movement Network Study (GMNS).
At the Council Meeting dated 22 June 2016 Council resolved that the 2016
GMNS be released for the purpose of public consultation for a minimum 30
day period. Throughout this period a total of 26 submissions were received in
relation to the study. The GMNS was subsequently reviewed following this
consultation period.
Officers recommendation:
That Council notes the details of the consultation undertaken in relation

to the GMNS and approves the revised document for use by Council as
a reference document for future infrastructure planning investigations
relating to traffic and transport within the Gisborne Township.
Page 160
14. AO.1 GISBORNE MOVEMENT NETWORK STUDY (Continued)
Background
In 2009 Council completed the development of the GMNS. The study was
instrumental in developing and implementing a number of road, footpath and
parking initiatives. It also acknowledged the importance of non-motorised
transport as a significant element of transport within the Gisborne/New
Gisborne area.
The GMNS required an update to reflect progress since 2009.
The 2016 GMNS was based on the projected development yields from
identified new growth areas within the 2009 Gisborne and New Gisborne
Outline Development plan (ODP) and the proposed areas of change classified
in the Rural Living Strategy 2015.
The primary purpose of the GMNS highlights the future infrastructure

requirements to cater for the growth in the Gisborne District. However the
document also incorporates:
Analysis of related plans and strategies;
Forecast population growth rates;
Traffic count data for major Arterial and Local Roads; and
Car parking capacity figures for spaces within the Central Business
District (CBD) of Gisborne.
The document comprises an in-depth analysis of the Gisborne/New Gisborne

Outline Development Plan (ODP), the current Walking and Cycling Strategy
2014, the Shire-Wide Footpath Strategy and Councils Engineering
Requirements for Infrastructure Construction 2009.
The population of the Gisborne and New Gisborne Township is expected to

grow to 12,070 in 2031 (as indicated in the ODP). This will classify Gisborne
as a Regional Centre. The total population of the Gisborne district is predicted
to reach 21,300 in 20363.
Development of the study included traffic counts on 29 different points on both

local and arterial (VicRoads) roads. It also included identification of crash
statistics that will be examined in depth in the Road Safety Strategy that is
currently under revision.
Based on growth areas, lot yield forecasts, current and future growth trends a
traffic modelling was developed to estimate future traffic volumes on main
roads.
3
.id Consulting P/L
Page 161
Traffic on some of Gisbornes major roads is expected to double by 2036. Key

roads are Station Road (VicRoads), Aitken Street (VicRoads and MRSC),
Hamilton Road (MRSC), Ferrier Road (MRSC) and Ross Watt Road (MRSC).
Consultation Summary
At its Council Meeting dated 22 June 2016 Council resolved that the 2016
GMNS be released for the purpose of public consultation for a minimum 30
day period. As a result the document was available for review by the public at
Councils Gisborne Administration Centre or electronically via the website.
This public consultation period was advertised through notices in the local
newspapers and details presented on Councils webpage.
A total of 28 submissions were received during the consultation period of the

GMNS. Submissions were received from residents, persons representing
community groups and agencies such as VicRoads, and Department of
Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (DEJTR).
A summary of the main themes which came through from the submissions are
provided below:
Support for a Bypass of the Gisborne Township connecting the Calder
Freeway and the three arterial roads of Gisborne -Kilmore Road,
Gisborne - Melton Road and Bacchus Marsh - Gisborne Road;
Objection and concern in relation to the projected alignment of the
possible Gisborne Township Bypass;
The study should identify solutions to reducing congestion on Aitken
Street, Melbourne Road and Kilmore Road;
Support for improved bike and pedestrian infrastructure throughout the
Gisborne township;
Concerns with parking capacity in the central business district of
Gisborne; and
Individual road safety issues which should be investigated further for
potential mitigation measures.
All submissions were acknowledged through return correspondence and

those who raised immediate concerns with the proposed recommendations
were sent more detailed responses. Further follow up was also carried out
with VicRoads in relation to their comments to ensure they were satisfied with
the amendments made to the final document. In line with the submission
received by DEJTR the document was also amended to include reference to
the new Loddon Mallee Regional Transport Plan.
Page 162
The following is a summary of changes made to the document in response to

the submissions:
The indicative alignment of a bypass was removed from the document

as this location would be subject to further investigations;
The document has been altered to reference the walking and cycling
strategy;
The document has been altered to reference the Loddon Mallee
Regional Transport Pan.
The document has been altered to omit cost estimates for strategic
priorities on VicRoads managed roads as further investigation will be
required to determine appropriate costings; and
The bypass will require further investigation to determine appropriate
alignment, timing and costing before it is considered for future funding.
Recommendations
Based on the data collection and analysis combined with the submissions
received throughout the consultation period a set of recommendations have
been developed for use by Council in future infrastructure planning
investigations relating to traffic and transport within the Gisborne District.
Recommendations include:
Road infrastructure: upgrade works to alleviate traffic congestion on
arterial and local roads, traffic management to improve traffic
conditions and intersection treatments;
Public Transport: new and extended services to new development
areas of the Gisbus; more frequent train services in and outbound; and
additional parking at the train station;
Parking: identification and assessment of potential parking areas in the
proximity of Gisbornes CBD;
Cycling provisions as highlighted in Councils Walking and Cycling
Strategy 2014; and
Footpaths and pedestrian infrastructure as indicated in the ODP and
Councils Shire-Wide Footpath Strategy.
The study also included possible treatments on major roads for issues related
to congestion, road safety, heavy truck traffic/congestion and connectivity,
with estimated timeframes and costs.
The GMNS acknowledges opportunities for improvement that are covered in

the Shire-Wide Footpath Strategy and estimated additional 300 parking
spaces will be required in the future.
Page 163
Summary
The 2016 Gisborne Movement Network Study provided an opportunity to

analyse in depth key documents and strategies for the purpose of highlighting
the future infrastructure requirements to cater for the growth in the Gisborne
District.
It included detailed traffic counts on 29 different points on both local and

arterial (VicRoads) roads. This data, along with identification of growth areas,
lot yield forecasts and current and future growth trends, helped developing a
traffic model to estimate future traffic volumes on main roads.
By 2036 traffic on some of Gisbornes major roads is expected to double. Key

roads forecast to double in traffic volumes are Station Road (VicRoads),
Aitken Street (VicRoads and MRSC), Hamilton Road (MRSC), Ferrier Road
(MRSC) and Ross Watt Road (MRSC).
The study provides recommendations related to road infrastructure required to

alleviate traffic congestion on arterial and local roads, public transport
requirements and future public parking needs. These recommendations set a
platform for Council to carry out more informed future infrastructure planning
investigations relating to traffic and transport within the Gisborne District.
Page 164
15. NOTICES OF MOTION
Notice of Motion No. 17/2016-17 Councillor Anderson
That Council commence a consultation process with the community, in

line with the consultation matrix, with the intention of developing a
framework for a 'Nature Strip Policy', i.e. the use of applicable public
land adjacent to streets and roadways by those living nearby, for
possibly expanded social, cultural, horticultural and environmental
uses.
Background:
Nature strips present a unique opportunity for the community for a myriad of
uses. There can be many benefits including food production, environmental
improvements, township character and aesthetics and community wellbeing.
Important issues to consider in the use of nature strips for other purposes
include technical considerations such as road, cycling and pedestrian safety,
as well as public liability and maintaining access to utility services.
Notice of Motion No. 18/2016-17 Councillor Bleeck
That Council:
1) Acknowledge that the Equine Strategy 2012-2016 has now expired
and will no longer be referred to for current strategic direction;
2) Acknowledge the importance of the equine industry to the economic
interests of the Macedon Ranges and continue to support those
interests through appropriate future economic strategies and tactical
initiatives;
3) Acknowledge the importance of accessible, safe and high quality
equestrian facilities for recreational equestrian participants in the
Shire and consider appropriate improvements in those areas as part
of the Council's new Leisure Strategy;
4) Acknowledge the previous work of Macedon Ranges Equine Industry
Network (REIN) and support the continued existence of this group to
provide input into the strategies that support the economic and
recreational aspects of the industry;
5) Note that continued support for any ongoing or partly-completed
tactical initiatives from the Equine Strategy 2012-2016 will be
considered as part of Council's usual budgeting processes; and
6) Request the removal of the Macedon Ranges Equine Centre proposal
from the Loddon Region 2016 Investment Prospectus.
16. URGENT AND OTHER BUSINESS
In accordance with Council's Local Law No. 9 Meeting Procedure, business

which has not been listed on the Agenda may only be raised as urgent or
other business by resolution agreed by Council.
Page 165
17. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS
Nil
Page 166
18. DIVISION 1A CONDUCT AND INTERESTS
76B. Primary principle of Councillor conduct

It is a primary principle of Councillor conduct that, in performing the role of a Councillor, a Councillor
must
(a) act with integrity; and
(b) impartially exercise his or her responsibilities in the interests of the local community; and
(c) not improperly seek to confer an advantage or disadvantage on any person.
76BA. General Councillor conduct principles

In addition to acting in accordance with the primary principle of Councillor conduct specified in
section 76B, in performing the role of a Councillor, a Councillor must
(a) avoid conflicts between his or her public duties as a Councillor and his or her personal
interests and obligations;
(b) act honestly and avoid statements (whether oral or in writing) or actions that will or are likely
to mislead or deceive a person;
(c) treat all persons with respect and have due regard to the opinions, beliefs, rights and
responsibilities of other Councillors, Council staff and other persons;
(d) exercise reasonable care and diligence and submit himself or herself to the lawful scrutiny that
is appropriate to his or her office;
(e) endeavour to ensure that public resources are used prudently and solely in the public interest;
(f) act lawfully and in accordance with the trust placed in him or her as an elected representative;
(g) support and promote these principles by leadership and example and act in a way that secures
and preserves public confidence in the office of Councillor.
76C. Councillor Code of Conduct

(1) A Council must develop and approve a Councillor Code of Conduct for the Council within 12
months after the commencement of section 15 of the Local Government Amendment
(Councillor Conduct and Other Matters) Act 2008.
(2) A Council must review the Councillor Code of Conduct within the period of 12 months after a
general election.
(3) A Councillor Code of Conduct
(a) must include the Councillor conduct principles;
(b) may set out processes for the purpose of resolving an internal dispute between
Councillors;
(d) must include provisions in respect of any matter prescribed for the purpose of this
section;
(e) may include any other matters relating to the conduct of Councillors which the
Council considers appropriate.
(5) A Councillor Code of Conduct must not be inconsistent with any Act or regulation.
(5A) A Councillor Code of Conduct is inoperative to the extent that it is inconsistent with any Act
or regulation.
(6) A copy of the current Councillor Code of Conduct must be
(a) given to each Councillor;
(b) available for inspection by the public at the Council office and any district offices.
(7) On and from the commencement of section 15 of the Local Government Amendment
(Councillor Conduct and Other Matters) Act 2008, a Councillor Code of Conduct is taken
to include the Councillor conduct principles.
76D. Misuse of position

(1) A person who is, or has been, a Councillor or member of a special committee must not misuse
his or her position
(a) to gain or attempt to gain, directly or indirectly, an advantage for themselves or for
any other person; or
(b) to cause, or attempt to cause, detriment to the Council or another person.
Penalty: 600 penalty units or imprisonment for 5 years or both.
(2) For the purposes of this section, circumstances involving the misuse of a position by a person
who is, or has been, a Councillor or member of a special committee include
(a) making improper use of information acquired as a result of the position he or she
held or holds; or
(b) disclosing information that is confidential information within the meaning of section
77(2); or
(c) directing or improperly influencing, or seeking to direct or improperly influence, a
member of Council staff in contravention of section 76E; or
(d) exercising or performing, or purporting to exercise or perform, a power, duty or
function that he or she is not authorised to exercise or perform; or
(e) using public funds or resources in a manner that is improper or unauthorised; or
(f) failing to disclose a conflict of interest as required under this Division.
(3) This section
(a) has effect in addition to, and not in derogation from, any Act or law relating to the
criminal or civil liability of Councillors or members of special committees; and
(b) does not prevent the institution of any criminal or civil proceedings in respect of that
liability.
76E. Improper direction and improper influence

(1) A Councillor must not improperly direct or improperly influence, or seek to improperly direct
or improperly influence, a member of Council staff in the exercise of any power or in the
performance of any duty or function by the member.
(2) A Councillor must not direct, or seek to direct, a member of Council staff
(a) in the exercise of a delegated power, or the performance of a delegated duty or
function of the Council; or
(b) in the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty or function exercised or
performed by the member as an authorised officer under this Act or any other Act; or
(c) in the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty or function the member
exercises or performs in an office or position the member holds under another Act; or
(d) in relation to advice provided to the Council or a special committee, including advice
in a report to the Council or special committee.
(3) This section does not apply to a decision of the Council or a special committee that is made
within the powers, duties or functions conferred under this or any other Act.
77. Confidential information

(1) A person who is, or has been, a Councillor or a member of a special committee, must not
release information that the person knows, or should reasonably know, is confidential
information.
(2) For the purposes of this section, information is confidential information if
(a) the information was provided to the Council or a special committee in relation to a
matter considered by the Council or special committee at a meeting closed to
members of the public and the Council or special committee has not passed a
resolution that the information is not confidential; or
(b) the information has been designated as confidential information by a resolution of the
Council or a special committee which specifies the relevant ground or grounds
applying under section 89(2) and the Council or special committee has not passed a
resolution that the information is not confidential; or
(c) subject to sub-section (3), the information has been designated in writing as
confidential information by the Chief Executive Officer specifying the relevant
ground or grounds applying under section 89(2) and the Council has not passed a
resolution that the information is not confidential.
(3) Confidential information referred to in sub-section (2)(c) ceases to be confidential at the
expiry of the period of 50 days after the designation is made unless sub-section (2)(a) or (2)(b)
applies to the information.
77A. Direct and indirect interests

(1) A relevant person has a conflict of interest in respect of a matter if the relevant person has a
direct interest or indirect interest in the matter.
(2) A relevant person has a direct interest in a matter if the relevant person has an interest of a
kind described in section 77B.
(3) A relevant person has an indirect interest in a matter if the relevant person has
(a) a close association as specified in section 78; or
(b) an indirect financial interest as specified in section 78A; or
(c) a conflicting duty as specified in section 78B; or
(d) received an applicable gift as specified in section 78C; or
(e) become an interested party as specified in section 78D; or
(f) a residential amenity that may be altered as specified in section 78E.
(4) A relevant person does not have a conflict of interest in a matter if the direct interest or
indirect interest of the relevant person is so remote or insignificant that the direct interest or
indirect interest could not reasonably be regarded as capable of influencing any actions or
decisions of the relevant person in relation to the matter.
(5) A relevant person does not have a conflict of interest in a matter if the direct interest or
indirect interest the relevant person holds
(a) is held as a resident, ratepayer or voter and does not exceed the interests generally
held by other residents, ratepayers or voters; or
(b) is held in common with a large class of persons and does not exceed the
interests generally held by the class of persons.
(6) A relevant person does not have a conflict of interest in a matter if the relevant person
(a) does not know the circumstances that give rise to the conflict of interest; and
(b) would not reasonably be expected to know the circumstances that give rise to the
conflict of interest.
77B. Direct interest

(1) A person has a direct interest in a matter if there is a reasonable likelihood that the benefits,
obligations, opportunities or circumstances of the person would be directly altered if the
matter is decided in a particular way.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), a person has a direct interest in a matter if
(a) there is a reasonable likelihood that the person will receive a direct benefit or loss
that can be measured in financial terms if the matter is decided in a particular way;
(b) the person has, or the person together with a member or members of the person's
family have, a controlling interest in a company or other body that has a direct
interest in the matter.
(3) A person who has a membership in a club or organisation that has a direct interest in a
matter
(a) does not, by reason of that membership, have a direct interest in the matter under
subsection (1); and
(b) does not have an indirect interest in the matter, by reason of that membership, unless
the person has an indirect interest in the matter under section 78A, 78B or 78C.
(4) In subsection (2), controlling interest has the same meaning as it has in section 72(2) of the
Payroll Tax Act 2007.
78. Indirect interest by close association

(1) In this section
daughter means a biological daughter, step-daughter, adopted daughter, or female child for
whom the person has custodial responsibilities;
direct relative means the spouse, domestic partner, son, daughter, mother, father, brother or
sister of the person;
domestic partner of a person means

(a) a person who is in a registered relationship with the person; or
(b) an adult person to whom the person is not married but with whom the
person is in a relationship as a couple where one or each of them provides
personal or financial commitment and support of a domestic nature for the
material benefit of the other, irrespective of their genders and whether or not
they are living under the same roof, but does not include a person who
provides domestic support and personal care to the person
(i) for fee or reward; or
(ii) on behalf of another person or an organisation (including a
government or government agency, a body corporate or a
charitable or benevolent organisation);
family member means
(a) a spouse or domestic partner of the person; or
(b) a son, daughter, mother, father, brother or sister that regularly resides with
the person;
relative means
(a) a direct relative of the person;
(b) a direct relative of a person who is the direct relative of the person;
son means a biological son, step son, adopted son or male child for which the person has
custodial responsibilities.
(2) A person has an indirect interest by close association in a matter if
(a) a family member of the person has a direct interest or an indirect interest in a matter;
or
(b) a relative of the person has a direct interest in a matter; or
(c) a member of the person's household has a direct interest in a matter.
(3) For the purposes of the definition of domestic partner in subsection (1)
(a) registered relationship has the same meaning as in the Relationships Act 2008; and
(b) in determining whether persons who are not in a registered relationship are domestic
partners of each other, all the circumstances of their relationship are to be taken into
account, including any one or more of the matters referred to in section 35(2) of the
Relationships Act 2008 as may be relevant in a particular case; and
(c) a person is not a domestic partner of another person only because they are co-tenants.
78A. Indirect interest that is an indirect financial interest

(1) A person has an indirect financial interest in a matter if the person is likely to receive a benefit
or incur a loss, measurable in monetary terms, as a consequence of a benefit received or loss
incurred by another person who has a direct or indirect interest in the matter.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), a person has an indirect financial interest that is a conflict of
interest if
(a) the person has a beneficial interest in shares of a company or other body that has a
direct interest in the matter, except in the circumstances specified in subsection (3);
(b) the person is owed money from another person and that other person has a direct
interest in the matter.
(3) If a person, and family members of the person, hold shares in a company or body that has a
direct or indirect interest in a matter with a combined total value that does not exceed $10 000
and the total value of issued shares of the company or body exceeds $10 million, the person's
indirect financial interest is not a conflict of interest.
(4) Subsection (2)(b) does not apply if the other person is an authorised deposit-taking institution.
(5) For the purposes of determining the value of shares under this section, the share value is to be
taken from
(a) the close of business on the most recent of 30 June or 31 December; or
(b) if the person has lodged an ordinary return since the most recent of 30 June or 31
December, the close of business on the date the return was submitted.
78B. Indirect interest because of conflicting duties

(1) A person has an indirect interest in a matter because of a conflicting duty if the person
(a) is a manager or a member of a governing body of a company or body that has a direct
interest in a matter;
(b) is a partner, consultant, contractor, agent or employee of a person, company or body
that has a direct interest in a matter;
(c) is a trustee for a person who has a direct interest in a matter.
(2) A person has an indirect interest in a matter because of a conflicting duty if the person held a
position or role specified in subsection (1) and, in that position or role, dealt with the matter.
(3) A person does not have an indirect interest because of a conflicting duty if
(a) the person is, or has been, only an employee in the service of the Crown or of a body
established by or under any Act for a public purpose and the person has no current or
expected responsibilities as that employee in relation to a matter;
(b) the person only holds a position in a not-for-profit organisation for which the person
receives no remuneration and the person was appointed to the relevant special
committee of the Council to be a representative of the non-for-profit organisation;
(ba) the person only holds a position, with the Council's approval as a representative of
the Council, in an organisation for which the person receives no remuneration;
(c) the person is only a Councillor who holds a position in the Municipal Association of
Victoria or in another body that has the purpose of representing the interests of
Councils;
(ca) the person is only a member of the Planning Application Committee established
under Part 4AA of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 or a member or co-
opted member of a subcommittee of that Committee;
(d) the person only holds a position that has been prescribed for the purposes of this
section.
78C. Indirect interest because of receipt of an applicable gift

(1) In this section, applicable gift means one or more gifts with a total value of, or more than, the
gift disclosure threshold, received from a person or persons specified in subsection (2) in the 5
years preceding the decision or the exercise of the power, duty or function but does not
include
(a) reasonable hospitality received by the person at an event or function the person
attended in an official capacity as the Mayor, a Councillor, a member of Council staff
or a member of a special committee; or
(b) a gift, other than an election campaign donation, that was received by the person
more than 12 months before the person became a Councillor, a member of Council
staff or a member of a special committee.
(2) A person has an indirect interest in a matter if the person has received an applicable gift,
directly or indirectly, from
(a) a person who has a direct interest in the matter; or
(b) a director, contractor, consultant, agent or employee of a person, company or body
that the person knows has a direct interest in a matter; or
(c) a person who gives the applicable gift to the person on behalf of a person, company
or body that has a direct interest in the matter.
(3) For the purposes of determining when a person became a Councillor or member of a special
committee under subsection (1)(b), if the person is re-elected or reappointed as a Councillor or
a member of a special committee, on completion of his or her term of office, the previous term
of office served by that person as a Councillor or member of a special committee must be
counted as continuous service with any service completed by the person after the person's re-
election or reappointment.
78D. Indirect interest as a consequence of becoming an interested party

A person has an indirect interest in a matter if the person has become an interested party in the matter
by initiating civil proceedings in relation to the matter or becoming a party to civil proceedings in
relation to the matter.
78.E Indirect interest because of impact on residential amenity

A person has an indirect interest in a matter if there is a reasonable likelihood that the residential
amenity of the person will be altered if the matter is decided in a particular way.
79. Disclosure of conflict of interest

(1) If a Councillor or member of a special committee has a conflict of interest in a matter which is
to be considered or discussed at a meeting of the Council or the special committee, the
Councillor or member must, if he or she is attending the meeting, disclose the conflict of
interest in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) A Councillor or member of a special committee who has a conflict of interest and is attending
the meeting of the Council or special committee must make a full disclosure of that interest
(a) by either
(i) advising the Council or special committee at the meeting of the details
required under paragraphs (b) and (c) immediately before the matter is
considered at the meeting; or
(ii) advising the Chief Executive Officer in writing of the details required under
paragraphs (b) and (c) before the meeting; and
(b) classifying the type of interest that has given rise to the conflict as either
(i) a direct interest; or
(ii) an indirect interest and specifying the particular kind of indirect interest
under section 78, 78A, 78B, 78C, 78D or 78E; and
(c) describing the nature of the interest; and
(d) if the Councillor or member advised the Chief Executive Officer of the details under
paragraph (a)(ii), the Councillor or member must make a disclosure of the class of
interest only to the meeting immediately before the matter is considered at the
meeting.
(3) For the purposes of section 79(2)(a)(i), if a Councillor or member of a special committee has a
conflict of interest in two or more matters which are to be considered or discussed
consecutively at a meeting of the Council or the special committee, the Councillor or member
may make a full disclosure of each of those interests immediately before the first matter is
considered at the meeting.
(5) The Chief Executive Officer must

(a) keep written disclosures given to him or her under this section in a secure place for 3
years after the date the Councillor or member of a special committee who made the
disclosure ceases to be Councillor or member of a committee; and
(b) destroy the written disclosure when the 3 year period referred to in paragraph (a) has
expired.
(6) While the matter is being considered or any vote is taken in relation to the matter, the
Councillor or member of a special committee must
(a) leave the room and notify the Mayor or the Chairperson of the special committee
that he or she is doing so; and
(b) remain outside the room and any gallery or other area in view or hearing of the room.
(7) The Mayor or the Chairperson of the special committee must cause the Councillor or member
of a special committee to be notified that he or she may return to the room after
(a) consideration of the matter; and
(b) all votes on the matter.
(8) If a Councillor or member of a special committee discloses a conflict of interest, the Chief
Executive Officer or the Chairperson must record in the minutes of the meeting
(a) the declaration of the conflict of interest; and
(b) the classification of the interest that has given rise to the conflict, and if the
Councillor or member has disclosed the nature of the interest to the meeting, the
nature of the interest.
(9) Unless section 80 applies, a Councillor or member of a special committee who fails to comply
with this section is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding 120 penalty units.
79B. Conflicting personal interest

(1) This section does not apply to a Councillor or member of a special committee who has a
conflict of interest in the matter.
(2) If a Councillor or a member of a special committee considers that he or she has a personal
interest in relation to a matter that is in conflict with his or her public duty in relation to the
matter, the Councillor or member may, immediately before the matter is considered at the
relevant meeting, apply to the Council or special committee to be exempted from voting on
the matter.
(3) If a Councillor or member of a special committee makes an application under subsection (2),
he or she must give reasons in support of the application.
(4) A Council or special committee may consent to an application made under subsection (2) and
must not unreasonably withhold consent.
(5) If a Council or special committee consents to an application under subsection (4), sections
79(6), 79(7), 79(8) and 79(9) apply as if the personal interest that is the subject of an
application under subsection (2) were a conflict of interest specified under this Act.
79C. Certain situations where Councillor taken to not have a conflict of interest
(1) A Councillor is taken to not have a conflict of interest for the purposes of this Division if the
matter only relates to
(a) the nomination or appointment by the Council of the Councillor to a position for
which the Councillor will not be remunerated;
(b) the election of the Mayor under section 71 or the appointment of an acting Mayor
under section 73(3);
(c) a decision in relation to the payment of allowances to the Mayor or Councillors under
section 74 or 74C(2);
(d) the adoption of a policy under section 75B in relation to the reimbursement of
expenses;
(e) the adoption of a Councillor Code of Conduct under section 76C;
(f) an application to a Councillor Conduct Panel or VCAT under Division 1B;
(g) an application for an exemption under section 80;
(h) the appointment of members and Chairpersons of special committees;
(i) a resolution that has the effect of making the Councillors eligible or ineligible for the
superannuation guarantee under taxation legislation;
(j) the conduct of a Councillor with respect to
(i) an internal dispute that involves the Councillor;
(ii) an allegation of misconduct or serious misconduct (as defined in section
81A) by the Councillor;
(k) a submission provided to an electoral representation review under section 219F;
(l) a submission provided for the purposes of a subdivision review conducted under
section 219N.
(2) If a budget or revised budget to be approved by a Council includes funding for a matter in
respect of which a Councillor has a conflict of interest the Councillor is taken to not have a
conflict of interest for the purposes of approving the budget or revised budget if
(a) the Council previously approved the matter and the proposed funding for the matter
for inclusion in the budget or revised budget; and
(b) the Councillor disclosed the nature of the conflict of interest under section 79
when the decision in respect of the matter and the proposed funding for the matter
was previously considered and made.
(3) If a Council Plan to be approved by a Council includes a matter in respect of which a Councillor
has a conflict of interest, the Councillor is taken to not have a conflict of interest for the
purposes of approving the Council Plan if
(a) the Council previously approved the matter for inclusion in the Council Plan; and
(b) the Councillor disclosed the nature of the conflict of interest under section 79 when
the decision in respect of the matter was previously considered and made.
(4) If a Councillor with a conflict of interest referred to in subsection (2) or (3) notifies the Mayor or
Chairperson prior to the consideration of the budget, revised budget or Council Plan of the
conflict of interest, the Mayor or Chairperson must allow a prior motion to be put that the matter
or funding be considered for inclusion in the budget, revised budget or Council Plan.
79D. Person may make submission despite conflict of interest

(1) Subject to subsection (2), a relevant person who has a conflict of interest in a matter and who
has made a written submission under section 223 in respect of the matter, may present his or
her submission under section 223(1)(b) to the Council or committee of the Council.
(2) The relevant person who has a conflict of interest in a matter must not be at the meeting of the
Council or committee of the Council any longer than is required for the person to be heard in
support of the person's written submission.

Ordinary Council Meeting 2017-02-22 Agenda

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ordinary Council Meeting 2017-02-22 Agenda

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Council Meeting Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

Recording of Council Meetings:

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE NO.

4. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest 1

8. Record of Assemblies of Councillors 2

9. Deputations and Presentations to Council 8

Persons (applicant and objectors) who have made a

10. Director Planning and Environment

PE.2 Application for Planning Permit 33

PE.3 Application to Planning Permit 48

PE.5 Application for Planning Permit 85

PE.6 Private sponsored planning scheme 101

PE.7 Saunders Road, New Gisborne rezoning 106

PE.8 Sunbury Precinct Structure Plans, Hume 114

PE.9 Submission to the review of native 121

11. Chief Executive Officers Reports

CX.1 Report on the conduct of the Council 126

CX.2 Hanging Rock Strategic Advisory 130

CX.3 Building Better Regions Fund 139

CX.4 Small Community Grant Scheme 143

12. Director Corporate Services

CS.1 Contracts to be awarded as at 22 February 146

CS.2 2018 General Valuation 148

CS.4 Quarterly Report for the period ended 31 158

13. Director Community Wellbeing

14. Director Assets and Operations

AO.1 Gisborne Movement Network Study 160

15. Notices of Motion

No. 17/2016-17 Councillor Anderson 165

No. 18/2016-17 Councillor Bleeck 165

16. Urgent or Other Business 165

17. Confidential Reports 166

18. Division 1A: Conduct and Interests Reproduced as

To start the official proceedings I would like to acknowledge that Macedon

Almighty God, we humbly beseech thee to vouchsafe thy blessing upon

4. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

Councillors attention is drawn to Division 1A Sections 76-81 of the Local

Councillors are reminded that:

1. Disclosures of Conflicts of Interest must be declared immediately before

Councillor reports on any meetings they have attended as a Councillor

That the Mayors report be received.

Pursuant to Council's Local Law No. 9, Meeting Procedure, a Councillor may

Ordinary Council Meeting: Wednesday 21 December 2016

8. RECORD OF ASSEMBLIES OF COUNCILLORS FEBRUARY 2017

A meeting will be an assembly of Councillors if it considers matters that are

1. A planned or scheduled meeting that includes at least half the

Note: Advisory Committee means any committee established by the Council,

This requirement for reporting provides increased transparency and the

1. Date / Time Type of Assembly

2. Date / Time Type of Assembly

Did they leave the assembly? No

Conflicts of interest Did they leave the assembly? N/A

3. Date / Time Type of Assembly

4. Date / Time Type of Assembly

- Mt Macedon Road / Woodend Retirement

Did they leave the assembly?

5. Date / Time Type of Assembly

Conflicts of Interest Did they leave the assembly? N/A

6. Date / Time Type of Assembly

Conflicts of Interest Cr Anderson declared a direct conflict of interest in the

There was no discussion on this matter.

Cr Radnedge declared a conflict of interest in the item

Cr Gayfer declared a direct conflict of interest in the