Ordinary Council Meeting 2017-02-22 Minutes

Council Meeting Minutes
Ordinary Council Meeting

Wednesday 22 February 2017 at 7.00pm
Gisborne Administration Centre
40 Robertson Street, Gisborne
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM SUBJECT PAGE NO.
1. Prayer 1
2. Present 1
3. Apologies 1
4. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest 1
5. Mayors Report 1
6. Petitions 3
7. Adoption of Minutes 4
8. Record of Assemblies of Councillors 4
9. Deputations and Presentations to Council 10
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.
Questions from the Gallery 10
10. Director Planning and Environment

PE.
PE.1 Application for Planning Permit 19
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
PE.2 Application for Planning Permit 30

PLN/2016/270 Two (2) lot resubdivision and
vegetation removal at 138 Mollison Street,
Malmsbury
PE.3 Application to Planning Permit 35

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 42
DP/2016/4 Development Plan at 81
Willowbank Road, Gisborne
PE.5 Application for Planning Permit

PLN/2016/229 for the use and development 43
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 48

amendment request at 200-220 and 230
Hamilton Road, New Gisborne
PE.7 Saunders Road, New Gisborne rezoning 49

request
PE.8 Sunbury Precinct Structure Plans, Hume 50

Planning Scheme Amendments, C207,
C208 Council submission
PE.9 Submission to the review of native 51

vegetation clearing regulations
11. Chief Executive Officers Reports
CX.1 Report on the conduct of the Council 52

General Elections
CX.2 Hanging Rock Strategic Advisory 53

Committee Report to Council from
meetings on 15 December 2016 and 23
January 2017
CX.3 Building Better Regions Fund 53
CX.4 Small Community Grant Scheme 54

Consideration of grant applications
12. Director Corporate Services
CS.1 Contracts to be awarded as at 22 February 55

2017
CS.2 2018 General Valuation 55

CS.3 Procurement Policy 2017 56
CS.4 Quarterly Report for the period ended 31 57

December 2016
13. Director Community Wellbeing
Nil 57
14. Director Assets and Operations
AO.1 Gisborne Movement Network Study 57
15. Notices of Motion
No. 17/2016-17 Councillor Anderson 16
No. 18/2016-17 Councillor Bleeck 17
16. Urgent or Other Business 58
17. Confidential Reports 58

Ordinary Council Meeting Wednesday, 22 February 2017 MINUTES
1. PRAYER:
7.00pm The Mayor read the prayer
2. PRESENT:
Cr Jennifer Anderson (Mayor) West Ward

Cr Henry Bleeck East Ward
Cr Natasha Gayfer East Ward
Cr Bill West East Ward
Cr Mandi Mees South Ward
Cr Helen Radnedge South Ward
Cr Andrew Twaits South Ward
Cr Roger Jukes West Ward
Cr Janet Pearce West Ward
In Attendance:
Mr Peter Johnston Chief Executive Officer
Mr Dale Thornton Director Assets and Operations
Mr John Hausler Director Corporate Services
Ms Karen Stevens Director Community Wellbeing
Ms Sophie Segafredo Director Planning and Environment
Ms Kylie Lethbridge Manager Economic Development & Tourism
Mr Rick Traficante Manager Planning & Development
Mr Stephen Mahon Manager Council and Customer Services
3. APOLOGIES:
Nil
4. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST:
Cr Gayfer declared an indirect conflict of interest in the Item CX.2 Hanging

Rock Strategic Advisory Committee Report to Council from Meetings on 15
December 2016 and 23 January 2017 due to her ownership of property in
proximity to the Hanging Rock Reserve.
Cr Anderson declared a direct conflict of interest in the Item PE.3 on the

Ordinary Council Meeting on the 22 February 2017, i.e. Application to Planning
Permit 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 due to her ownership of property in close proximity
to the subject land.
Cr Radnedge advised Council that whilst she did not have a conflict of interest
in relation to either of these matters she wished to note that her mother was a
submitter to the PE.1 matter and that she herself had been a submitter to the
AO.1 matter.
5. MAYORS REPORT:
I would like to take this opportunity to highlight a few of the most recent
happenings around the shire. A lot has happened since our last council meeting
in December.
Page 1
Christmas Day Lunch

Council assisted Cobaw Community Health in hosting the ninth annual free
Christmas Day lunch at the Kyneton Town Hall on 25 December. Thank you to
all who volunteered their time or donated goods to assist on the day.
Sale yards activity

The First Ewe Sale for 2016 and calf sale at Kyneton Sale Yards kicked off in
January, with great prices. Councillors took the opportunity to see the sale
yards in full swing.
Community events
Cr. Pearce and I attended the Zealand Annual School Bursary Awards on
January 21st seeing another worthy 6 recipients assisted in their transition from
primary to secondary school on Sunday 21st January.
On 15th January Wilkinsons Wheels was launched at Macedon, a volunteer
programme giving old bikes new life to raise funds for the Macedon CFA. Cr.
Mees and I rode our bikes there and Cr. Radnedge joined us for the photo
shoot with federal member Lisa Chesters and State member Mary Anne
Thomas. Keep a look out for more on this exciting project.
Australia Day Celebrations

Communities across the shire gathered together to mark Australia Day with a
range of special events in many towns. Councillors attended these various ward
activities along with the citizenship ceremony for 35 new citizens, followed by
the Australia Day Award Ceremony held at the Kyneton Town Hall.
Congratulations to those who coordinated events, our new citizens, and our
award recipients.
Council Plan consultation

I presented to Kyneton U3A my first 100 days in the new council and
encouraged members to contribute to the council plan process on Friday 3rd
February, followed by Cr Pearce and I wandering the Woodend Market on
Saturday 4th February encouraging the same.
Thank you to all you have made submissions and filled in the online survey, and
I remind you to keep a look out for listening posts and further input sessions,
and to attend the shire wide session being held at the Kyneton Town Hall next
Tuesday 28th February.
Rotary 100 years

Cr. Pearce and I attended the 100 years of Rotary celebration at the Kyneton
Bowling Club, where Rotarians from around the region, as well as other
community organisations were well represented. A great speech from
Stephanie Woolard, a recipient of the Rotary Peace award and how she
founded the Seven Women a project, empowering marginalised women in
Nepal.
Councillor Delegations
The first Macedon Ranges Agribusiness Forum for the year was held on 7th of
February, with Cr. Jukes, and Cr Twaits as our delegates, where progress
about providence for Macedon Ranges produce and the search for new
members is well underway.
Both Tourism Macedon Ranges and Daylesford Macedon Ranges Tourism
Board have had meetings with Cr. Radnedge, Cr. Twaits and Cr. West
attending. Cr.Pearce represented us at the Central Ranges Local Learning and
Education Network General Meeting, and chaired the first meeting of the year
Page 2
for the Health and Well Being Advisory Committee, along with Cr, Radnedge,
Cr Gayfer and myself in attendance. Cr Gayfer has been busy with multiple
meeting of the Periurban group of Rural Councils along with Central Victorian
Greenhouse Alliance meetings. Cr. Radnedge and Pearce attended the Local
Safety Committee Capacity building Workshop, along with an MAV session on
the role of local government in emergency management.
I have also attended the first Loddon Campaspe councils meeting in Bendigo,
along with the Municipal association of Victoria (MAV) strategic planning day.
Cr Pearce, Cr. Radnedge and I attended 2 MAV run planning and budget
sessions in Castlemaine and Bendigo, where we got to know some of our
neighbouring councillors.
I would like to thank all those who have put their hand up to attend such a busy
schedule, and for all the work everyone is putting in behind the scenes. I have
probably missed some of the meetings you have attended on behalf of Council.
Arts and Culture Program Launch

I was pleased to officially launch the 2016 Arts and Culture Season at the
Kyneton Town Hall on 10th of February, also attended by Cr. Pearce, Radnedge
and West. On the same night Macedon Ranges Art Trail supported 5 artists in
the launch of their exhibition, and Cr. Pearce and I were able to attend both
launches.
Hanging Rock
Our iconic Hanging Rock once again played host to Bruce Springsteen and the
E Street Band on 11th of February.
The following day motoring enthusiasts converged at Hanging Rock for the
Macedon Ranges and District Motor Club annual picnic. It was the 30th
anniversary of this great event which saw cars of various makes, vintage and
style line up to showcase the strength of the classic motoring movement in
Victoria.
Event management business network

On Monday 12th of February this event gave people, and Cr. Pearce, the
opportunity to learn all the ins and outs of how to successfully organise and run
an event in the Macedon Ranges.
Macedon Ranges Protection

On Tuesday 14th of February The Minister for Planning the Honourable Minister
Wynne MP, along with State Member for Macedon Mary Anne Thomas MP,
released the panel report and recommendations about legislating protection for
the Macedon Ranges. This is a very exciting opportunity to work with
Department of Land Environment Water and Planning (DELWP) and the
community and will keep us very busy, so look out for future opportunities to
engage with this process.
It was moved by Cr Jukes seconded by Cr Radnedge that the Mayors

Report be received.
CARRIED
6. PETITIONS
Nil
Page 3
7. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
Ordinary Council Meeting: Wednesday 21 December 2016
Officer Recommendation:
That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting of the Macedon Ranges
Shire Council held on Wednesday 21 December 2016 as circulated be
confirmed.
It was moved by Cr Bleeck seconded by Cr Gayfer that the Officer

Recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
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.
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.
Page 4
Report
Outlined below are the details of assemblies of Councillors held since the last
meeting.
1. Date / Time Type of Assembly

21 December 2016 1.10pm Councillor Briefing
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, Stephen Mahon
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
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
Gisborne Industrial Estate Master Planning
Location of Council Meetings
Conflicts of Interest declared Cr Gayfer declared a direct conflict of interest in the item on
by Councillors and record of the Hanging Rock Update due to her ownership of property
them leaving the meeting in close proximity to the Hanging Rock Reserve
when the matter about which
they declared the conflict of
interest was discussed.
Did they leave the assembly? Yes
Conflicts of Interest declared Nil

by officers
Did they leave the assembly? N/A

23 January 2017 9.00am Gisborne Neighbourhood Character Study
Page 5
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 declared Cr Radnedge declared that she owns property in the
by Councillors and record of Gisborne township
them leaving the meeting
Did they leave the assembly? No

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

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
by Councillors and record of

by officers
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
Page 6
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
- Mt Macedon Road / Woodend Retirement Village
- Aldi Development Aitken Street, Gisborne
- 38 Syndicate Road, Mt Macedon
- 22 Calthorpe Street, Gisborne
- Replacement Dwellings in Macedon
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 declared Cr Gayfer declared a direct conflict of interest in the item on
by Councillors and record of the Hanging Rock Update due to her ownership of property
them leaving the meeting in close proximity to the Hanging Rock Reserve
they declared the conflict of Cr Radnedge declared a direct conflict of interest in the
interest was discussed. 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 declared Did they leave the assembly? N/A
by officers

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, Karen Stevens
Items Discussed Climate Change Strategy
Council Plan / Health & Wellbeing Development
Status of Committee members
Page 7

by Councillors and record of
Conflicts of Interest declared Did they leave the assembly? N/A

by officers

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 8
Conflicts of Interest declared Cr Anderson declared a direct conflict of interest in the Item
by Councillors and record of PE.3 on the Ordinary Council Meeting on the 22 February
them leaving the meeting 2017, i.e. Application to Planning Permit PLN/2016/242
when the matter about which Development of two (2) dwellings, two (2) lot subdivision,
they declared the conflict of removal of vegetation and alteration of access to a road
interest was discussed. zone Category 1 at 129 High 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 declared The Manager Council & Customer Services declared a
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
The Manager Council & Customer Services advised Council of a number of

amendments to the following Assemblies
- Assembly 21 December 2016 Stephen Mahon was in attendance and
additional items discussed were the Gisborne Industrial Estate Master Planning
and the location of Council Meetings
- Assembly 8 February 2017 Additional item discussed regarding replacement
dwelling in Macedon
- Assembly 8 February 2017 (Health & Wellbeing Advisory Committee) Karen
Stevens was in attendance.
The Assembly Reports above been amended accordingly
That Council endorse the record of assemblies of Councillors as outlined

in this report.
It was moved by Cr Jukes seconded by Cr West that the Officer

CARRIED
Suspension of Standing Orders
7.11 pm It was moved by Cr Jukes seconded by Cr Bleeck that standing

orders be suspended.
CARRIED
Page 9
9. DEPUTATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS TO COUNCIL
Item Submitters
PE.1 Three
PE.2 Two
Declaration of Conflict of Interest
7.36 pm Cr Anderson declared a direct conflict of interest in the Item PE.3

Application for Planning permit PLN/2016/242 due to her ownership of property
immediately next to the subject site and left the Council Chamber prior to the
submitters addressing Council.
PE.3 Two
7.43 Cr Anderson returned to the Chamber
PE.4 One
PE.5 Two
Questions from the Gallery
Name Russell Mowatt

Question As the public consultation for Gisborne Movement Network Study
has now been completed will Council now formulate future
infrastructure priorities for the Gisborne district roads and advise
the general public?
Response The Chief Executive Officer advised that the intention of the
Gisborne Movement Network Study is to be a reference
document for future infrastructure planning investigations. It is
those investigations that will guide consultation.
Name Russell Mowatt

Question Will Council now write to the State Government and VicRoads
seeking future road funding for their responsible roads as defined
in the recent Gisborne Movement Network Study and a
Feasibility Study to be undertaken for the proposal of a Gisborne
bypass to remove heavy vehicle movements from the CBD?
Response The Chief Executive Officer advised that VicRoads have worked
closely with Council on the Gisborne Movement Network Study.
The study will inform future infrastructure planning/investigations.
It is these investigations in conjunction with community
consultation that will drive road funding applications.
Name Robert Cockram

Question Why was there no consultation with the community as promised?
There is a great need for the future of such a multi-use facility, so
much benefit to all in the community, equine being one but with
such amenities the growth is enormous for other businesses in
the area.
Response The Chief Executive Officer advised that he was unable to
respond prior to Notice of Motion 18/2016-17 being considered.
Page 10
Name Paul Morath

Question Regarding agenda item 15 Notice of Motion submitted by
Councillor Bleeck. This is a personal point of view, it is an
indication to me of early warning signs that we have newly
elected Councillors that have chosen to take the easy way out
regarding the proposal of the Equine Centre. Is this an example
of what is to come in the future when other opportunities
proposed are shelved because perhaps they are outside the
square. I am looking for progressive and innovative Council is
this what we have? Or are we looking at a regressive Council
that takes no notice of five years of solid, comprehensive study
and public support.
Name Roger Lavelle

Question Why would the Council consider removing the Macedon Ranges
Equine Centre proposal from the Loddon Region 2016
Investment Prospectus before the outcome of Equestrian
Victorias Department of Sport and Recreation survey is known?
Name Roger Lavelle

Question Failing to continue to progress the proposed Equine Centre is
contrary to community expectations and to the wishes of the
broader equestrian community. It also means that ratepayers
monies already spent will be wasted. Could Council please
explain why they have taken this position?
Name Travis Grieve

Question The Gisborne Veterinary Clinic has been a part of the Macedon
Ranges for 40 years and the clinic employs 20 staff, and has had
over 120 professionals move through its business during its 40
years of service to the Macedon Ranges community. The clinic
has assisted in teaching over 400 university students from all
states, has also supported 600 year 10 work experience and
VCAL students in deciding their career paths, and also
supported 80 local vet nurses in on the job apprenticeships and
training programs, not to mention the 6,000 clients we service.
The equine industry has been a major contributor and helped the
clinic in doing this. The equine industry unequivocally is a major
contributor to our local community so should not be ignored. 1) If
Council is here to support local business/industry and promote
jobs growth and tourism why does it not support this equine
centre or at least its economic feasibility study? 2) Considering
the layers of local jobs and employment driven by the local
equine industry I would like the Macedon Ranges Council to give
me an example of and an equivalent industry in the Macedon
Ranges that provides such a diverse level of jobs and local
employment? Of course excluding essential services supported
by government, i.e. schools, health etc.
Page 11
Response The Chief Executive Officer responded that 1) he us unable to

answer until the item is discussed. The current Council position
is to support the industry and the centre. 2) Tourism industry is
also significant.
Name Lisa Kennedy

Question 1) Why were REIN members not consulted? 2) The community
survey had 800 responses with 95% in favour supporting the
equine facility. How can you ignore this by making this motion?
Name Joseph Vella

Question 1) On behalf of the Board of Directors of Wingrove Park
Thoroughbred Stud we ask why Council has not taken into
consideration the massive monetary, employment of local staff
and future planning of our investments that relate to the equine
industry within the shire. 2) Why does Council want to pursue a
path of business failures by at least not allowing the Business
Plan to be completed? The majority of ratepayers have spoken
in favour. Please listen to them.
Name Gordon Nash

Question Why is it that Macedon Shire does not want an equestrian centre
for a lot of horse enthusiasts and horse sports like dressage,
hacking, jumping, trail riding, Australian stock horse, quarter
horse, polo, polo cross, camp drafting, cutting, novelty events
and many more horse clubs including pony club riders. As like
the equine centre in Tamworth NSW where events have up to
900 horses for 10 days at a time bringing $9 million to Tamworth.
Name Jenny Stillman

Question Regarding infrastructure projects previously agreed to in
principle, can Council please explain the process for review of
such projects that were rigorously investigated and supported by
independent consultants? This is of particular interest to
Romsey Region Business and Tourism Association given its
commitment to projects that could stimulate economic
development and tourism in our region (Councillor Bleecks
Notice of Motion).
Name Amy Benham

Question 1) Why does such a small organisation with such few members
like the Macedon Ranges Residents Association have such a
strong influence over MRSC? 2) Related to the first question,
out of 1,800 Macedon Range residents surveyed over 80% were
in favour for the proposed equestrian centre. Why is it not going
ahead?
Page 12
Response The Chief Executive Officer responded 1) that he noted the

views and in relation to all Council matters you may seek to
speak to individual Councillors. 2) That he was unable to
Name Dominique Grabau

Question It is my contention, based on long term observation, that the Daly
Nature Reserve is no longer utilised by the local community for
casual sporting activities, picnics and gatherings, daily group
exercises, or the local primary schools cross country, ever since
the grass was allowed to grow in an apparent out of control
manner. Has Council undertaken a study of the use of the
reserve before and after the implementation of the management
plan to monitor the effectiveness and progress of the
management plan? Does the Council ever discuss its public
land-use plans with representatives of the community outside the
Friends of Daly Nature Reserve?
Response The Chief Executive Officer responded that Councils intentions
on the UL Daly Nature Reserve have been widely consulted with
everyone in the community welcome to contribute. The
Environmental Management Plan outlines the various zones at
UL Daly Nature Reserve for a range of uses. There has been no
before and after survey but we are unaware of any lack of
access or downturn in use.
Name Kathleen Tomkinson

Question Is Council aware that for the past three years the Friends of Daly
Nature Reserve has been using Council staff as instruments of
harassment and bullying against the families living adjacent to
the Daly Nature Reserve? Does Council wish to comment on
this claim which has incidentally been privately corroborated by
Council staff? What entitlements and protections for collective
harassment does Council provide for families living and working
in the Macedon Ranges Shire (including undertaking volunteer
work) who wish to simply lead peaceful, harmonious, law-abiding
lives?
Response The Chief Executive Officer responded that Council staff have a
responsibility to respond to lawful requests. Council conducts
itself respectfully when making enquiries and will never condone
behaviour as alleged here.
Name Olivia Grabau

Question I note with interest the minutes of the most recent meeting of the
Macedon Ranges Shire Council, especially the reference to an
allegation that the perimeter fence between 59 Howey Street and
the Daly Nature Reserve orchard garden is not located on the
boundary. It is my view that the fence is perfectly located to
ensure maintenance and retention of a long established 30mx4m
heritage garden bed, and I recall the fence being established in
accordance with the recommendations of the Environmental
Management Plan way back in 2014. Why have the owners of
59 Howey Street recently been singled out for special treatment
a cursory look at freely available maps, which Council has
ready access to, shows that hundreds of properties in this shire
have off-boundary fencing?
Page 13
Response The Chief Executive Officer responded that it was raised by a

member of the public that the fence may not be on title. This can
and does happen and Council has a responsibility to respond
where this involves Council land when Council becomes aware.
Name David Grabau

Question I would like to draw to Councils attention a recent incident during
which a member of the Friends of Daly Nature Reserve was
witnessed undertaking an inspection of the perimeter fence
alongside Daly Nature Reserve orchard garden and 59 Howey
Street at 7.50 in the morning. The said person had taken steps
to conceal his identity including a large black hat, raised shirt
collar, gloves etc. Nevertheless, the occupants of the adjacent
house did recognise the person to indeed be a member of the
Friends of Daly Nature Reserve. Understandably, the occupants
of the adjacent house were frightened and intimidated, especially
when the person took off upon realising they had been seen
the said person was obviously also looking through the windows
of the adjacent house. Does Council have a position on invasive
behaviour of this nature? Does Council believe the owners of 59
Howey Street should have taken the matter to the police
perhaps even sought a restraining order? It is interesting to note
that Council has followed up on the spurious information
obtained by the Friends of Daly Nature Reserve member
regardless of the possible ethical and legal questions
surrounding how it was collected.
Response The Chief Executive Officer responded that Council has no direct
control over the type of behaviour that is alleged. We would
advise that you report any concerning activity to the police.
Name Shaun Bright

Question As a Gisborne born local resident I have been quite taken aback
by the widespread community concern about the long grass and
bush undergrowth in Daly Reserve, a bushfire-prone area that
has a long established residential pattern and includes major
road infrastructure in and out of the Gisborne township. I am
also concerned that the unkept and unmaintained vegetation in
the reserve will result in higher home and contents insurance
premiums for people living within the vicinity of Daly Nature
Reserve due to the elevated bushfire risk. Does Council wish to
comment? Has the CFA been asked for its input on the status of
vegetation in Daly Nature Reserve? Is Council going to review
the Daly Reserve Environmental Management Plan in light of the
heightened bushfire risk which was never considered by the
plan?
Response The Chief Executive Officer responded that the Environmental
Management Plan sets out management regimes for this
important reserve. Many factors are considered including fire
risk.
Name Diana Docherty

Question What is the process for making a formal complaint about the
activities of a friends group when they have breached their
stated remit and purpose, especially when the friends groups
activities are endorsed and facilitated by Council? Who is the
Page 14
regulatory authority for such groups? Is the Macedon Ranges

Shire Council responsible for monitoring the activities of the
Friends of Daly Nature Reserve and whether or not those
activities are within the parameters of the groups charter? Is
Council aware of the significant amount of fake news this group
generates (such as vegetable planting activities by local school
children and the scouts in the Daly Nature Reserve orchard
garden)?
Response The Chief Executive Officer responded that friends of groups
operate independently. There is not regulator. Complaints
should be taken up with the groups themselves in the first
instance. There are other avenues such as the Department of
Justice mediation etc.
Name Ryan Langtry

Question I am interested to find out whether Council is proactive or
reactive in its dealings with local friendship groups for example
the Macedon Ranges Residents Association, the Friends of
Jacksons Creek, the Friends of Daly Nature Reserve, and the
Gisborne Heritage Society. Does Council keep a register of
contact, meetings or request from these groups? Is there a
record of the membership and demographic of these groups so
that we can be aware of how representational they are of the
general population? S this information available to the public If
so, how can I access it? Finally, can Council please explain how
and why some friends groups are allowed limitless opportunity to
communicate with and participate in Council activities and
decisions?
Response The Chief Executive Officer responded that each group has a
different level of interaction according to their needs Most are
proactive. Council has an electronic records management
system to keep records. We are not privy to friends of groups
private membership records. Council welcome consultation and
interaction with all of the community and recognise that most
friends of groups are well placed to participate in these
processes.
Name Wendy Black

Question How can planning approve this high density development when
stating they want to be more respectful to the existing
neighbourhood character? One only exit to Calthorpe Street and
28 entry/exist on Fisher Street opposite 2 existing driveways.
Response The Chief Executive Officer responded that Council officers are
satisfied that the proposal meets the requirements of the
planning scheme, including neighbourhood character.
Name Fiona Corke

Question How does this high density (3 storey apartment block)
development fit in to the rural aesthetic and how is it suitable to
the overlay and how does that impact the ODP development for
Gisborne? How will the potential residents be able to move out
of this proposed complex and development in case of fire or
such?
Response The Chief Executive Officer responded that Council officers are
satisfied that the proposal meets the planning scheme
Page 15
requirements including all relevant overlays and emergency

management requirements.
Name Amanda Gauci

Question Why didnt the neighbourhood have the opportunity to be
represented by its elected voice when determining what
developments form its neighbourhood character? What are
Councils responsibilities as owner of Bungil Creek Gisborne
South drain at negating the run off into the creek impacting the
surrounding neighbourhood?
Response The Chief Executive Officer responded that the proposal in
Calthorpe Street was advertised to local residents allowing for
submissions to express neighbours views about character. The
proposal includes suitable stormwater management
infrastructure.
Name Mark Bartley

Question Regarding Item PE7 The proposed rezoning has a long history
addressed by previous panel and officer reports not referred to in
this report. Given the issues raised and the importance of this
rezoning for New Gisborne will the Council please adjourn the
matter to allow further discussions.
Response The Chief Executive Officer responded that we believe the
rezoning is premature especially considering the recently
released ministerial report from the Macedon Ranges Protection
Advisory Committee. Officers will continue to work with the
landowners in the area as we implement those
recommendations.
Resumption of Standing Orders
8.17 pm It was moved by Cr Jukes seconded by Cr Mees that standing

orders be resumed.
CARRIED
The Mayor advised that Notices of Motion 17/2016-17 and 18/2016-17 would be
brought forward and considered at this time in the meeting.
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.
It was moved by Cr Anderson seconded by Cr Radnedge
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.
CARRIED
Page 16
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.
It was moved by Cr Bleeck seconded by Cr Twaits
That Council:
initiatives;
from the Loddon Mallee Region 2016 Investment Prospectus.
Amendment
It was moved by Cr Mees seconded by Cr Radnedge
That Council:
Page 17
initiatives;
from the Loddon Mallee Region 2016 Investment Prospectus
7) Withdraw the $25,000 set aside in Summary of New Initiatives

Appendix B1 page 60 labelled Equine Centre Feasibility.
8) Seek to remove the Equine Strategy 2012-2016 as a reference

document from local, state and federal government policy
development, including from the Macedon Ranges Planning Scheme
and any policy statements that support the implementation of that
strategy.
9) Withdraw its support for points 2, 3 and 5 of the resolution passed by

council at the ordinary council meeting of 27th May 2015 viz:
That Council:
2. Endorses the final Macedon Ranges Equine Centre Feasibility

Study May 2015
3. Supports the concept of an equine centre in the Macedon
Ranges Shire of the size and scale detailed in the feasibility
study
5. Requests the State Government to provide financial and other
support and undertake the development of a full business case
for the Equine Centre in the Macedon Ranges incorporating a
subsidised community access model and provide a report to
Council
10) Withdraw its support for the resolution passed on item Pe.5 on 23rd
March 2016, viz:
That Council:
1. Confirms its continued support for the project

2. Continues to advocate for the project to the State and
Federal Governments
Page 18
3. Agrees to pursue a partnership with the State Government

and Industry to produce the full business case; and
4. Refers the allocation of Council funds to the 2016/17 budget
process and seeks funding from Regional Development
Victoria and Industry to contribute toward the full business
case to support the proposed local employment and
economic benefits to Macedon Ranges.
Procedural Motion
It was moved by Cr Jukes seconded by Cr West that the matter lay on the
table.
The procedural motion was put and lost

LOST
The amendment was put and carried
The amendment became the motion before the Council and was put and
carried.
Cr Jukes requested a division
For Crs Twaits, Mees, Gayfer, Anderson, Pearce, West,

Radnedge, Bleeck (8)
Against Cr Jukes (1)
CARRIED
10. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REPORTS:
Report No: Report Title:
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
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.
Page 19
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.
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).
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
Page 20
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.
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,
Page 21
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.
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
Page 22
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 Responsible
Authority.
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.
Page 23
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:
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.
Page 24
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:
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.
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
Page 25
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.
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.
Page 26
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.
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.
Page 27
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.
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
Page 28
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).
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.
It was moved by Cr Radnedge seconded by Cr Gayfer
That the Council resolve to issue a Notice of Refusal to grant a planning permit
for Development of the land for twenty nine (29) dwellings [including ten (10)
townhouses, one (1) single storey dwelling and eighteen (18) apartments and the
removal of one (1) street tree for the land at 22 Calthorpe Street, Gisborne, on the
following grounds:
1. The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of Clause 55.02-1 as the
proposed apartment style development that includes a three storey element
is inconsistent with the existing residential neighbourhood character and
built form.
2. The scale, form and height of the proposed apartment building is
inconsistent with the existing residential character of the surrounding area.
3. The proposal is inconsistent with the Decision guidelines of the Design and
Development Overlay Schedule 17 with regards to the proposal not:
Protecting and enhancing the established semi-rural and village
character and scale of Gisborne;
Ensuring that new development has proper regard for established
streetscape and development patterns in terms of building design,
height, form, scale, siting and fencing styles;
Ensuring that new development respects its natural and built
environment and does not dominate the landscape; and
Page 29
Achieving a high quality design outcome and implementing

sustainable development principles.
The requirements under Section 2 of DDO17 for Buildings and Works that must
be adhered to are not all met.
4. The proposed development will detract from the amenity of the surrounding
area in terms of increased traffic into adjacent residential streets and on-
street parking.
5. The proposed development on land with a significant slope of 15% is
inappropriate adjacent to a waterway.
6. The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of Clause 55.02-4 of the
Planning Scheme as it has the potential to result in flooding to the lower
units as result of the extensive hard surfaces and slope of the land.
7. The proposed development provides insufficient opportunities for adequate
landscaping and planting of vegetation.
8. The height is in excess of the 10m maximum building height in Clause
55.03-2 even taking into consideration the significant slope of the land.
The motion was put and carried
For Crs Twaits, Mees, Gayfer, Anderson, Pearce, West and Radnedge
(7)
Against Cr Jukes and Bleeck (2)
CARRIED
PE.2 Application for Planning Permit PLN/2016/270 Two (2) lot

resubdivision and vegetation removal at 138 Mollison Street,
Malmsbury
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
Page 30
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.
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 31
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
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.
Page 32
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 satisfaction
of the Responsible Authority.
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.
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.
Page 33
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

Ranges Shire Councils Policy Engineering Requirements for
Infrastructure Construction (June 2010).
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.
It was moved by Cr Jukes seconded by Cr Bleeck that the Officer

The motion was put and lost
For Crs Twaits, Jukes, West and Bleeck (4)

Against Crs Mees, Gayfer, Anderson, Pearce and Radnedge (5)
LOST
It was moved by Cr Anderson seconded by Cr Mees
Page 34
That Council issue a Notice of Refusal on the following grounds:
The proposed resubdivision of the land is not consistent with the

purposes of the General Residential Zone in terms of respecting
neighbourhood character by introduction a battle-axe form.
The proposal fails to comply with clauses 15.01-5, 21.08-3 and 21.13-9
of the planning scheme with regard to respecting the cultural and
historic identity of Malmsbury and the character of the
neighbourhood.
The proposal has the potential to adversely affect the significance of
the Malmsbury township heritage precinct by introducing a
subdivision pattern inconsistent with the prevailing grid format of
existing allotments.
The application does not support the towns identity nor protect the
towns heritage and landscape values and assets as per Clause 21.13-
9.
The proposed subdivision may result in development which will
adversely affect the significance, character or appearance of the
heritage place (clause 43.01-4).
The proposal fails to address identified strategy of Clause 21.13 2.7 as
it relates to the Malmsbury Township, to ensure that development on
the periphery of the town within the township boundary is of a semi-
rural residential form with larger lots, significant landscapes and
generous setbacks.
CARRIED
9 18 pm Cr Anderson declared a direct conflict of interest in the following Item

PE.3 Application for Planning permit PLN/2016/242 due to her ownership of
property immediately next to the subject site and left the Council Chamber prior
to the Councils determination of the matter.
Appointment of Acting Mayor
It was moved by Cr Mees seconded by Cr Bleeck that Cr West be

nominated to be the Acting Mayor.
CARRIED
Cr West assumed the chair
PE.3 Application to Planning Permit 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
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.
Page 35
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.
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:
Page 36
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).
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 the Responsible Authority.
2. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered

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
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.
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:
Page 37
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.
8. All external lighting must be designed, baffled and located so as to

prevent adverse effect on adjoining land, to the satisfaction of the
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.
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
Page 38
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
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
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.
Page 39
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.
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.
Page 40
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

Ranges Shire Councils Policy Engineering Requirements for
Infrastructure Construction (June 2010).
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 41
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.

The motion was put and carried on the casting vote of the Acting Mayor
CARRIED
PE.4 Application for Development Plan DP/2016/4 Development

Plan at 81 Willowbank Road, Gisborne
Page 42
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.
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.

CARRIED
PE.5 Application for Planning Permit 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
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.
Page 43
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.
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.
Page 44
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).
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 the
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 the
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 the
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
9. All external lighting must be designed, baffled and located so as to
prevent adverse effect on adjoining land, to the satisfaction of the
10. The nature and colour of building materials employed in the
construction of the buildings and works hereby permitted shall be
Page 45
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.
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.
Page 46
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).
It was moved by Cr Twaits seconded by Cr Bleeck
That the Council resolve to issue a Notice of Refusal to grant a planning

permit for the Use and Development of extensive animal husbandry and
agistment, (twelve (12) horses), the development of an Olympic size
indoor horse training area and the conversion of an existing indoor horse
training arena, for the land at 38 Syndicate Road, Mount Macedon, on the
following grounds:
1. The proposal does not demonstrate that the subject site is suitable to
sustain twelve (12) horses, whilst ensuring that there is no
environmental detriment to the land.
2. The construction and use of the proposed Olympic size indoor horse
training arena is unrelated to extensive animal husbandry.
3. The proposal is inconsistent with the decision guidelines of the Rural
Conservation Zone with regards to the proposal not demonstrating
that:
The capability of the land can accommodate the proposed use
or development.
The environmental capacity of the site can sustain the rural
enterprise.
4. That the proposal is inconsistent with the decision guidelines as
follows:
The purpose of the zone, overlay or other provision.
The orderly planning of the area.
Factors likely to cause or contribute to land degradation,
salinity or reduce water quality.
The motion was put and carried
For Crs Twaits, Gayfer, Anderson, Pearce, Radnedge and Bleeck (6)
Against Crs Mees, Jukes and West (3)
CARRIED
Page 47
PE.6 Private sponsored planning scheme amendment request at

200-220 and 230 Hamilton Road, New Gisborne
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.
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.
It was moved by Cr Jukes seconded by Cr Pearce that the Officer

CARRIED
Page 48
PE.7 Saunders Road, New Gisborne rezoning request
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.
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
Page 49
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:
1. 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.
2. The amendment request is contrary to the objective of the Planning
and Environment Act 1987 which aims to provide for orderly
development of land.
It was moved by Cr Jukes seconded by Cr Twaits that the Officer

CARRIED
PE.8 Sunbury Precinct Structure Plans, Hume Planning Scheme

Amendments, C207, C208 Council submission
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.
It was moved by Cr Mees seconded by Cr Jukes
Page 50
That Council modify to include the additional comments below and

endorse the attached submission to the proposed Sunbury Precinct
Structure Plans, Hume Planning Scheme Amendments, C207 & C208.
There is a need to review the capacity to increase passenger services via

the Metro and V/Line network. Discussions with relevant transport
organisations are needed to better understand how the metro/regional
public transport system can respond to the growth in population without
impacting adversely on the existing arterial road networks.
Council seeks commitment in the PSP documentation that additional

capacity will be provided on the existing metropolitan and V/Line network
(i.e. train passenger capacity and frequency of service) to meet the
demands of this growing commuter population.
Discussions with VicRoads must consider road safety infrastructure
investments to improve the safety of all types of road users using the
Melbourne to Lancefield Rd (rural and planned urban stretches of this
road). This road is already well-recognised as a dangerous stretch of high
speed, rural road. Vic Roads are currently planning road safety upgrade
treatments along this rural road. Increasing population to this area,
would require review and coordination of metropolitan and regional road
safety treatments.
As traffic volumes increase on the Calder Hwy, Council needs further

information regarding what treatments for existing infrastructure are
planned to be in place to manage the increase in vehicle traffic demand,
and increased demand at the Calder Highway and Diggers/Bulla Rd
interchange.
Currently traffic volumes from Keilor Park Drive and Kings Rd are
increasing at levels which are already causing significant congestion in
this area e.g. during peak times, travel speeds currently decrease
substantially to 20-40km, and sometimes traffic stops at a standstill.
Ramp metering has been recently installed at Keilor Park Drive as part of
the City Tullamarine Widening project.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
PE.9 Submission to the review of native vegetation clearing

regulations
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.
Page 51
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.

CARRIED
11. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS REPORTS:
CX.1 Report on the conduct of the Council General Elections
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.
It was moved by Cr Bleeck seconded by Cr Jukes that the Officer

CARRIED
9.57 pm Cr Gayfer declared an indirect conflict of interest in the following item

due to her ownership of property in proximity to the Hanging Rock Reserve and
left the Council Chamber prior to Council determining the matter.
Page 52
CX.2 Hanging Rock Strategic Advisory Committee Report to

Council from meetings on 15 December 2016 and 23 January
2017
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 minutes of the Hanging Rock Strategic Advisory Committee

meeting of 15 December 2016 be noted; and
2. That the 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.

CARRIED
9.58 pm Cr Gayfer returned to the meeting
CX.3 Building Better Regions Fund
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.
Page 53
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).
It was moved by Cr Bleeck seconded by Cr Mees that the Officer

CARRIED
CX.4 Small Community Grant Scheme Consideration of grant

applications
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

CARRIED
Page 54
12. CORPORATE SERVICES REPORTS:
CS.1 Contracts to be awarded as at 22 February 2017
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

CARRIED
CS.2 2018 General Valuation
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
Page 55
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.

CARRIED
CS.3 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.
It was moved by Cr Pearce seconded by Cr Mees
That Council:
1. Acknowledge the opportunity to ensure that the public procurement of

goods and services is guided by community values and principles.
2. Defer consideration of the procurement policy to a future Council

meeting, held no later than 30th June 2017, as required by the Local
Government Act, in order to provide the opportunity to align the
procurement policy to the strategic direction identified during the
development of the Council plan.
CARRIED
Page 56
CS.4 Quarterly Report for the 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.

CARRIED
13. COMMUNITY WELLBEING REPORTS:
Nil
14. ASSETS AND OPERATIONS REPORTS:
AO.1 Gisborne Movement Network Study
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.
Page 57
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.
It was moved by Cr Radnedge seconded by Cr Mees
That Council:
1. Notes the details of the consultation undertaken in relation to the

Gisborne Movement Network Study and endorses 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;
2. Withdraws its in principle support given at the Council Meeting dated

18 December 2013, for the Station Road, Gisborne duplication concept
design, and requests that further consultation be undertaken by
VicRoads with the community, for the development of alternative
options to this proposal; and
3. Commences discussions with VicRoads Regional Officers, The

Minister for Roads and Road Safety, The Hon Luke Donnellan and
Local Member for Macedon, Mary-Anne Thomas MP to develop options
for an alternate truck route to reduce the heavy vehicle traffic that
currently uses Robertson Street and Station Road Gisborne and
impacts on the amenity and adds to traffic congestion in and around
the town centre of Gisborne.
CARRIED
15. NOTICES OF MOTION
Notice of Motion No. 17/2016-17 Councillor Anderson
Dealt with earlier in the Meeting. See 16 page of these minutes
Notice of Motion No. 18/2016-17 Councillor Bleeck
Dealt with earlier in the Meeting. See 17 page of these minutes
16. URGENT AND OTHER BUSINESS

Nil
17. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS

Nil
Closure of Meeting
The meeting closed at 10.05pm
Councillor Jennifer Anderson

MAYOR
Page 58

Ordinary Council Meeting 2017-02-22 Minutes

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 Minutes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Council Meeting Minutes

Ordinary Council Meeting

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE NO.

4. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest 1

8. Record of Assemblies of Councillors 4

9. Deputations and Presentations to Council 10

Persons (applicant and objectors) who have made a

Questions from the Gallery 10

10. Director Planning and Environment

PE.2 Application for Planning Permit 30

PE.3 Application to Planning Permit 35

PE.5 Application for Planning Permit

PE.6 Private sponsored planning scheme 48

PE.7 Saunders Road, New Gisborne rezoning 49

PE.8 Sunbury Precinct Structure Plans, Hume 50

PE.9 Submission to the review of native 51

11. Chief Executive Officers Reports

CX.1 Report on the conduct of the Council 52

CX.2 Hanging Rock Strategic Advisory 53

CX.3 Building Better Regions Fund 53

CX.4 Small Community Grant Scheme 54

12. Director Corporate Services

CS.1 Contracts to be awarded as at 22 February 55

CS.2 2018 General Valuation 55

CS.4 Quarterly Report for the period ended 31 57

13. Director Community Wellbeing

14. Director Assets and Operations

AO.1 Gisborne Movement Network Study 57

15. Notices of Motion

No. 17/2016-17 Councillor Anderson 16

No. 18/2016-17 Councillor Bleeck 17

16. Urgent or Other Business 58

17. Confidential Reports 58

7.00pm The Mayor read the prayer

Cr Jennifer Anderson (Mayor) West Ward

4. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST:

Cr Gayfer declared an indirect conflict of interest in the Item CX.2 Hanging

Cr Anderson declared a direct conflict of interest in the Item PE.3 on the

Christmas Day Lunch

Sale yards activity

Australia Day Celebrations

Council Plan consultation

Rotary 100 years

Arts and Culture Program Launch

Event management business network

Macedon Ranges Protection

It was moved by Cr Jukes seconded by Cr Radnedge that the Mayors

Ordinary Council Meeting: Wednesday 21 December 2016

It was moved by Cr Bleeck seconded by Cr Gayfer that the Officer

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

Conflicts of Interest declared Nil

2. Date / Time Type of Assembly

Present Councillors Mees, Radnedge, Twaits

Did they leave the assembly? No

3. Date / Time Type of Assembly

Conflicts of Interest declared Nil

4. Date / Time Type of Assembly

Items Discussed Presentation regarding Macedon Ranges Regional Sports

Did they leave the assembly?