ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES - 25 AUGUST 2015 · OPENING PRAYER, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ... Council will conduct a flag raising ceremony involving indigenous groups on 23 ... ORDINARY COUNCIL

ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES - 25 AUGUST 2015

Page 1

Mission Statement:

To support and develop a sustainable, thriving and resilient Community

through leadership and partnership.

TO BE HELD: Tuesday, 25 August 2015 at 6.30pm

LOCATION: Council Chambers

Beechworth

ATTENDEES: NAME TITLE

Cr Bernard Gaffney Mayor

Cr Barb Murdoch Deputy Mayor

Cr Peter Croucher Councillor

Cr James Trenery Councillor

Cr Jenny O’Connor Councillor

Cr Don Chambers Councillor

Cr Roberta Horne Councillor

Gerry Smith Chief Executive Officer

Mark Florence Director Development & Planning

Greg Pinkerton Director Corporate & Community Services

Ian Ellett Director Infrastructure Services

Leah Jones-Davies Secretariat

APOLOGIES:

Vision Statement:

INDIGO – A great place to live, work and visit.


Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. WELCOME .................................................................................................................4

2. OPENING PRAYER, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE TRADITIONAL OWNERS OF THE LAND & NATIONAL ANTHEM ..............................................................................4

3. APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE .........................................................................4

4. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST ..................................................................4

5. OPEN FORUM ...........................................................................................................4

6. CONDOLENCES ..........................................................................................................7

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING(S) .....................................7

8. BUSINESS ARISING FROM PREVIOUS MINUTES ..........................................................7

9. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS ..................................................................................7

10. CORPORATE & COMMUNITY SERVICES ......................................................................8

10.1 Council Advisory Committee Minutes ..................................................................... 8

10.2 Assembly of Councillors Record ............................................................................ 12

11. DEVELOPMENT & PLANNING ................................................................................... 14

11.1 Planning Permit Application PP15-0067 (Woodman & Young) ............................ 14

11.2 Planning Permit Application PP15-0092 (G & M Howard) .................................... 29

11.3 Section 173 Agreement - PP13-0061 - Subdivision - Gentle Road Tangambalanga ..................................................................................................... 42

11.4 Indigo Shire 2015-2016 Community Grants Program ........................................... 44

11.5 Keep Victoria Beautiful Tidy Town - Sustainable Communities Awards Ceremony 2015 ..................................................................................................... 49

11.6 Election of a New Member to Indigo Shire Heritage Advisory Committee .......... 51

12. INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES .................................................................................... 54

12.1 Revised Capital Works Program 2015/16 ............................................................. 54

12.2 Contract 12/2257 - Cleaning of Council Buildings ................................................. 58

12.3 Sale of Land "Ardsville" Yackandandah and O'Keefes Road, Wahgunyah ............ 60

12.4 Proposed Boundary Realignment - Lady Franklin Road, Barnawartha North ...... 63

12.5 Timber Towns Victoria Membership ..................................................................... 68

13. EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................... 70


Page 3

13.1 Advocacy Plan 2015-2016 ..................................................................................... 70

14. NOTICES OF MOTION .............................................................................................. 72

15. COMMITTEE AND DELEGATES REPORTS (ARE ALL FOR INFORMATION ONLY) ........... 73

15.1 Cr Gaffney - Mayor ................................................................................................ 73

15.2 Cr Murdoch - Deputy Mayor ................................................................................. 74

15.3 Cr Croucher - Councillor ........................................................................................ 75

15.4 Cr Chambers - Councillor ....................................................................................... 76

16. GENERAL BUSINESS ................................................................................................. 77

17. CONFIDENTIAL ........................................................................................................ 78


Page 4

1. WELCOME

The Mayor opened the meeting at 6.32pm and welcomed all those in attendance. 2. OPENING PRAYER, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE TRADITIONAL OWNERS OF THE

LAND & NATIONAL ANTHEM

Cr Murdoch read the opening prayer and acknowledged the traditional owners of the land.

3. APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Nil. 4. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Cr Chambers declared a Direct Conflict of Interest on Item 11.4 as he is a member of the Rutherglen Agricultural Society Cr Chambers declared a Direct Conflict of Interest on Item 11.5 as he is on the Board of Keep Australia Beautiful Victoria.

5. OPEN FORUM

Jonathan Riley 1. Mayor thank you for the opportunity to email you with my questions which you

said I could do at the last council meeting. I sent you the questions on 31 July 2015. I would like to hear your answers to these questions tonight at Open Forum.

Response: Mayor - acknowledged receipt of the emailed questions and advised that he had forwarded the email to the CEO for processing 2. At the recent Community Forum held in Barnawartha, I would guess that of the

30 or so people who attended, 90% of them were there to vent their frustrations at the number of heavy vehicles that are travelling through the town. I believe Council are encouraging truck owners to travel through Barnawartha by allowing them permits. Can we as ratepayers get some positive action from the Council to stop trucks travelling through Barnawartha township?

Response: CEO – The Chiltern Placemaking project provides an opportunity to address the truck issues that include Barnawartha. These questions have been repetitively raised, and responded to, over an extensive period of time.


Page 5

3. Regarding the industrial land that Council have at Barnawartha north: In order to eliminate the need of owners/drivers parking trucks in residential areas, why cannot this industrial land be developed for use of small businesses such as truck depots?

Response: Mark Florence – There is no industrial zoned land in Barnawartha at all. The land you refer to is not Council land, it is owned by Wodonga Council and is a mix of rural and industrial zoning. The CEO and myself have met with the Barnawartha Development Association and will reconvene at the end of the year to work up a project for 2016/17. Harvey Anderssen At the meeting of Council at Tangambalanga on the 24 March 2015, I asked whether Spring Creek water could be diverted through the sluice gates to Lake Sambell (through the heritage swimming pool), indicating my concern that we could face a repeat of past prolonged droughts (expected by climate scientists)? I thank Ian Ellett for his advice. I understand that water can no longer flow by gravity through the sluice gates, and that to do so would require restoration of head works on Spring Creek that once enabled this flow to the lake. I have three questions regarding these head works. 1. Can the Council explain what happened to the original head works that enabled

Spring Creek water to flow into the Swimming pool and thence into the lake?

2. Did Council authorize or otherwise endorse the removal of the head works? 3. What was the reason for the removal and when did it take place? Response: Ian Ellett – The structure that enabled flow into Spring Creek is still intact. Nothing has changed under Council works to change the flow. The creek bed level has lowered over time as a result of high flows over recent years which means the creek bed is now well below the sluice gate structure. In response to my questions of 24 March 2015 you advised that “Goulburn Murray Water determine suitable flows at Spring Creek and a water right is still to be purchased.” I now ask:

1. Has the Council any estimates of the quantity of water that might have to be purchased to ensure a flow through the dam or the cost of that water right?

Response: Ian Ellett - Council has a current water right of 2ML per year which is insignificant compared to the annual flows into the lake. Even for Council to be able to access its 2ML water right, sufficient flows must be available in Spring Creek. In times of drought when water would be most sought after, it is unlikely that sufficient flow would exist in Spring Creek.

2. Does council have estimates of the loss of water through the old dam wall? Presumably there is no longer a loss through the new dam wall?


Page 6

Response: Ian Ellett - There would be estimates of water loss through the dam but would need to take this on notice.

3. Has the Council estimated the rate at which water might be now lost from the dam from

a. summer evaporation.

b. seepage into unconsolidated sedimentary aquifers below or around Spring Creek.

Response: Taken on notice

4. Would the losses to unconsolidated aquafers be construed by Goulburn Murray Water as Council usage, requiring purchase of replacement water?

Response: Ian Ellett – Council only pays for water that we need to purchase, not water lost. Lastly I would appreciate an update on the status of negotiations with Goulburn-Murray Water. Response: Ian Ellett - There are no current negotiations with GMW. Possibly at the time of the March Council meeting, officers were still in discussions with GMW and NECMA. However, since determined that there is no immediate need to negotiate anything with GMW as the lake is re-filling from rainfall runoff, which is far more significant than the small amount of flow potentially able to be realised from Spring Creek. Geoff Palmer 1. I refer to the minutes of the February meeting of Council and in particular to

Item 15.3 – Opposition to Coal Seam Gas Exploration. The minutes record Councils resolution:

That Council makes presentation to the Minister for Resources and Energy that Indigo Shire Council is totally opposed to the exploration and extraction of Coal Seam Gas in any location within the boundaries of Indigo Shire.

a. What was the form of the presentation by the Shire to the Minister?

Response: Mayor - Council wrote to the Minister

b. What response has the Shire received from the Minister? Response: Mayor – Council received a lengthy response from the Minister inviting Council to make representation to the enquiry which Council has done. The enquiry accepted the submissions but Council has not been invited to speak.

c. Will Council make public and available to ratepayers, both the presentation to the Minister and the Ministers response?


Page 7

Response: The submission is on the parliamentary website and is available to the public. 2. I refer to the minutes of the March meeting of Council and in particular to Item

14.1 – Red Meat Senate Enquiry. The minutes record Councils resolution:

That Council prepares a submission to the Senate Enquiry on the Red Meat Sector regarding the importance of our farming sector and the support of Council to promote agriculture and business opportunities within this sector.

a. Will Council make public and available to ratepayers its submission to the Senate Enquiry?

Response: Mayor – the hearing is scheduled for 2 September in Albury and is open to the public.

b. Did any part of the submission, consideration or report involve the employment of other than Councils own staff and was any expense incurred by employing consulting, casual, part time or similar indirect resources? If so, what was the amount of that expense?

Response: Mayor – No and no.

6. CONDOLENCES

Nil. 7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING(S)

RESOLUTION

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 28 July 2015 be confirmed.

Moved: Cr O’Connor Seconded: Cr Croucher

Carried

8. BUSINESS ARISING FROM PREVIOUS MINUTES

Item 10.2 – Flag Flying Policy

Council will conduct a flag raising ceremony involving indigenous groups on 23 September.

9. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS

Nil reports.


Page 8

10. CORPORATE & COMMUNITY SERVICES

10.1 COUNCIL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES

File No: 2015/464 Annabel Harding - Governance Officer Corporate & Community Services

For Decision

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receive the attached Advisory Committee minutes and endorse the Officer comments.

RESOLUTION

That Council receive the attached Advisory Committee minutes and endorse the Officer comments.

Moved: Cr Croucher Seconded: Cr Trenery

Carried

COMMITTEE DATE OF MEETING

Indigo Environment Advisory Committee 10 June 2015

Indigo Community Access Advisory Committee 20 June 2015

Finance Committee No meeting held.

Beechworth Trees Consultative Committee 29 June 2015

Burke Museum & Historic Precinct Advisory Committee 6 July 2015

Indigo Heritage Advisory Committee 7 July 2015

Beechworth Trees Consultative Committee 27 July 2015 – minutes not yet available.

Audit Committee 27 July 2015

Indigo Heritage Advisory Committee 4 August 2015

Indigo Economic Development & Tourism Advisory Committee 7 August 2015 – minutes not yet available.

Indigo Shire Community Grants & Awards Advisory Committee (Only meet twice annually)

No meeting held.

Note: The timing of the agenda distribution will sometimes make it difficult to provide a complete month. Please note that any items not included will be recorded in the following month. The resolutions from these Advisory Committee meetings and Officer comments are outlined below:


Page 9

COMMITTEE RESOLUTION MOVED SECONDED OFFICER

COMMENT

Indigo Environment Advisory Committee

Letter to Goulburn Murray Water (GMW) to be endorsed by council and sent to GMW.

Graeme Missen

Robin McLeish

Letter to be sent on behalf of Council.

Indigo Environment Advisory Committee

Council to be congratulated on the organics recycling program.

Rik Thwaites Peter Leppert

Comments acknowledged. Assessment of this service will be conducted after the first 3 months of operation.

Beechworth Trees Consultative Committee

David McIntyre proposed that the Committee reaffirms the commitment to the establishment of an Indigo Shire Council significant trees register.

David McIntyre

Jan Milhinch

Commitment to the establishment of a Significant Trees Register acknowledged. This is an activity listed in the Council Plan for 2015/16 and is currently being progressed.

Burke Museum & Historical Precinct Advisory Committee

That the Committee use John Baines report as a response to the Heritage Review.

John Baines Mark Stephens

Noted.


That BM&HPAC commends ISC in commissioning the Independent Heritage Review and congratulates panel members for providing a balanced and useful report. The BM&HPAC is ready to work with others to implement recommendations in the review.

John Baines

Anne Wilson

Noted.


The BM&HPAC urges the Council to establish a high priority for the implementation of the commissioning of a heritage plan for the historic precinct area.

John Baines Anne Wilson

Noted.


Page 10


That the Burke Museum loan the Saddle Tree and Camel Bag to the Australian Museum for a period of six months.

Richard Patterson

John Baines

This request will be managed by the Burke Museum Manager.

Indigo Heritage Advisory Committee

That the Committee commence work on a project to obtain State Significant Heritage listing for the Port Sign and the Wine Bottle in Rutherglen.

Mandy Jones

Bill Steele Noted and will be considered as part of Heritage Review project work.

Audit Committee The Committee recommended that investments are spread such that not more than 25% is exposed to any one entity.

This is being implemented as investments become due.


4.1 (A) Recommendation 1: That Indigo Shire Council’s resources be directed into reviewing, revising, renewing all building and planning related documents and publications (such as the Better Build series and related materials) to include statutory Heritage information

Vivienne Burnett

Bill Steele This item will be included in the Heritage Review Action Plan being developed which will identify timing and resources.


4.1 (B) Recommendation 2: Development of a suite of easy to read, current and relevant information sheets (including website links) to inform and engage the community, home owners, architects and other professionals, prospective builders, developers and real estate agents of Heritage requirements, including restoration and refurbishment, within Indigo Shire.

Vivienne Burnett

Bill Steele

This item will be included in the Heritage Review Action Plan being developed which will identify timing and resources.


Page 11


4.2 Recommendation 2: That Item 24 is given priority. In conjunction with the assistance being provided towards beautification of Main Street, Rutherglen by Council that the Heritage Advisor works with Destination Rutherglen, all property owners and Council Officers to explore the potential for a coordinated approach to painting, signage and refurbishment of verandas and shopfronts.

Mandy Jones

Bill Steele



4.3 Recommendation 3: That Council develop a policy that provides clear directions for

the enforcement of all Heritage requirements within

the Heritage Overlays throughout the Shire.

Gary Jarvis

Vivienne Burnett



Heritage Advisory Committee Member Nomination: Simon Killeen, Rutherglen Committee recommended provisional acceptance of Simon’s application subject to Council approval.

Vivienne Burnett

Gary Jarvis

Staff will prepare report for Council.

Attachments 1. Minutes - Indigo Environment Advisory Committee - 10 June 2015

2. Minutes - Beechworth Trees Consultative Committee - 29 June 2015 3. Minutes - Burke Museum & Historical Precinct Advisory Committee - 6 July 2015

4. Minutes - Indigo Heritage Advisory Committee - 7 July 2015 5. Minutes - Indigo Community Access Committee - 20 July 2015

6. Chairperson's Report - Audit Committee - 27 July 2015 7. Minutes - Indigo Heritage Advisory Committee - 4 August 2015


Page 12

10.2 ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS RECORD

File No: 2015/463 Annabel Harding - Governance Officer Corporate & Community Services

For Decision

RECOMMENDATION

That Council accept the attached Assembly of Councillors records.

RESOLUTION

That Council accept the attached Assembly of Councillors records.

Moved: Cr Murdoch Seconded: Cr Horne

Carried

INTRODUCTION

As required under Section 80A of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act) the attached Assembly of Councillors records are presented to Council for acceptance (summarised in the table below);

Meeting Date

Indigo Environment Advisory Committee 10 June 2015 – n/a – no Councillor attended meeting so no Assembly of Councillors

Record is required.

Indigo Community Access Advisory Committee 20 June 2015

Finance Meeting No meeting held.

Beechworth Trees Consultative Committee 29 June 2015

Burke Museum & Historical Precinct 6 July 2015

Indigo Heritage Advisory Committee 7 July 2015

Briefing Meeting 7 July 2015


Community Forum – Beechworth 14 July 2015

Beechworth Trees Consultative Committee 27 July 2015 – minutes not yet available

Council Meeting 28 July 2015


Indigo Heritage Advisory Committee 4 August 2015

Chiltern Placemaking Sub Committee 4 August 2015

Indigo Economic Development & Tourism Advisory Committee

7 August 2015

Note: The timing of the agenda distribution will sometimes make it difficult to provide a complete month. Please note that any items not included will carry forward to the following month. LEGAL/COUNCIL PLAN/POLICY IMPACT

Section 76AA of the Act defines an Assembly of Councillors as a meeting of an advisory committee of the Council, if at least one Councillor is present, or a planned or scheduled meeting of at least half of


Page 13

the Councillors and one member of Council staff which considers matters that are intended or likely to be:

a) The subject of a decision of the Council; or

b) Subject to the exercise of a function, duty or power of the Council that has been delegated to a person or committee but does not include a meeting of the Council, a special committee of the Council or an Audit Committee.

Section 80A(2) of the Act requires that a written record of an Assembly of Councillors to be reported as soon as practicable to an Ordinary Council meeting and incorporated in the minutes

Attachments 1. Assembly of Councillors Record - Beechworth Trees Consultative Committee - 29 June 2015

2. Assembly of Councillors Record - Burke Museum & Historical Precinct Advisory Committee - 6 July 2015 3. Assembly of Councillors Record - Heritage Advisory Committee - 7 July 2015

4. Assembly of Councillors Record - Briefing Meeting - 7 July 2015 5. Assembly of Councillors Record - Community Forum - Beechworth - 14 July 2015

6. Assembly of Councillor Record - Briefing Meeting - 14 July 2015 7. Assembly of Councillors Record - Indigo Community Access Committee - 20 July 2015

8. Assembly of Councillors Record - Beechworth Trees Consultative Committee - 27 July 2015 9. Assembly of Councillors Record - Council Meeting - 28 July 2015

10. Assembly of Councillors Record - Briefing Meeting - 28 July 2015 11. Assembly of Councillors Record - Heritage Advisory Committee - 4 August 2015

12. Assembly of Councillors - Chiltern Placemaking SubCommittee - August 2015 13. Assembly of Councillors Record - Indigo Economic Development & Tourism Advisory Committee - 7 August

2015


Page 14

11. DEVELOPMENT & PLANNING

11.1 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION PP15-0067 (WOODMAN & YOUNG)

File No: 2015/479 Ian Scholes - Manager Planning & Statutory Services

Development & Planning

For Decision

RECOMMENDATION

That Planning Permit application PP15-0067 to use and develop Crown Allotment 3 Section H Parish of Beechworth for the purpose of a dwelling is approved subject to the following conditions and Council issue a Notice of Decision.

1. CONSOLIDATION

This Permit shall have no force or effect until Lot 1 PS526150 and Lot 1 TP852958 are consolidated into a single lot by a Plan of Consolidation and lodged with the Registrar of Titles to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

2. SECTION 173 AGREEMENT

Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance in respect of the Plan of Consolidation required by condition 1 the landowner must enter in an agreement with Council under Section 173 of the Act which:

(i) ensures that the land (being the lot created by the consolidation of Lot 1 PS526150 and Lot 1 TP852958 as well as the separate Crown Allotment 3 Section H Parish of Beechworth) is not able to be further subdivided so as to increase the number of lots, and;

(ii) provides notification to future landowners regarding the farming zoning of Crown Allotment 3 Section H Parish of Beechworth and expectations relating to normal rural practices that would be carried out in the vicinity of this land that may cause loss of residential amenity to the dwelling;

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 Act. The owner must pay the reasonable costs of the preparation, and execution and registration of the Section 173 agreement. A copy of the Title must be submitted to the Responsible Authority to demonstrate that the Section 173 agreement has been registered.

3. PLANS TO BE SUBMITTED

This Permit shall have no force or effect until, two (2) copies of detailed plans properly drawn to scale and showing:

(i) the location of all building/s and works (including water tanks) proposed to be erected or constructed on the land;

(ii) the dimensions and elevations of all building/s proposed to be erected or constructed on the land. Development must be designed to maintain a low, unobtrusive profile in the landscape to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;


Page 15

(iii) the nature of all external materials and finishes of all such building/s (including the roofing and above ground water tanks), and;

(iv) the location of road access points and driveways are submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval and endorsement. When approved such plans shall form part of the permit.

4. APPROVED USE/DEVELOPMENT

The layout of the site, dimensions and elevations of the proposed building/s and works as shown on the plans endorsed pursuant to Condition 3 must not be modified or altered.

5. VEGETATED SCREEN

Within 6 months of the construction of the dwelling hereby approved, an effective screen of locally indigenous trees and shrubs must be planted and established along the south west and south east perimeter of the development area to provide an effective screen, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

6. EXTERNAL FABRIC

The roof and cladding colour or colours of the buildings hereby approved, and the finished colours of any aboveground water storage tanks must be non-reflective (i.e. not “zincalume”). Neutral “earthy” colours are to be used (e.g. “greens”, “greys” or “browns”) so as to address the rural character of the area and blend all new buildings in with the landscape and preserve the visual amenity of the area to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Colours not supported include black, white and colours from the metallic colourbond range.

7. EFFLUENT DISPOSAL

Consent of Council for the installation and operation of an on-site waste disposal system must be obtained. Such system shall comprise either:

(i) an on-site sewerage treatment package plant. (Such system shall have an EPA Certificate of Approval issued under Section 53M(7) of the Environment Protection Authority Act); or

(ii) an approved septic tank system.

The system must comply with the provisions of the Guidelines for Environmental Management: Code of practice – Onsite wastewater management, Publication 891.3, Environment Protection Authority (Feb 2013) or as otherwise updated and be located so as to ensure all effluent and waste water is disposed of and absorbed within the boundaries of the land, to the satisfaction of Council’s Environmental Health Officer. No absorption drain or effluent line shall be located within 100m to any waterway, including ephemeral streams and spring activity.

8. DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY

(i) Water storage tank(s) must be provided in close proximity to the dwelling holding a minimum of 90,000 litres of water, of which a minimum reserve of 20,000 litres must be held at all times for fire fighting purposes.

(ii) All tanks must be environmentally unobtrusive or must be screened to the


Page 16

satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

9. CFA WATER SUPPLY

The static water supply for fire fighting purposes must meet the following requirements:

(i) The water supply must be located within 60 metres of the dwelling.

(ii) Fire brigade vehicles must be able to get to within four metres of the CFA outlet on the tank (as described in Condition 9(vi) below).

(iii) The water supply must be readily identifiable from the building or appropriate signage must point to the water supply (see attached).

(iv) All below-ground water pipelines must be installed to the following depths:

subject to vehicle traffic – 300 mm

under houses or concrete slabs – 75 mm

all other locations – 225 mm

(v) All fixed above-ground water pipelines and fittings, including water supply, must be constructed of non-corrosive and non-combustible materials or protected from the effects of radiant heat and flame.

(vi) All above-ground static water supplies must be provided with at least one 64 mm 3 thread / 25 mm x 50 mm nominal bore British Standard Pipe (BSP), round male coupling (see attached). All pipe work and valving between the water supply and the outlet must be no less than 50 mm nominal bore.

(vii) If less than 20 metres from the building, each outlet must face away from the building to allow access during emergencies.

10. CFA ACCESS

A turning area for fire fighting vehicles close to the dwelling must be provided by either:

(i) a turning circle with a minimum radius of ten metres; or

(ii) by the driveway encircling the dwelling; or

(iii) a “T” head or “Y” head with a minimum formed surface of each leg being eight metres in length measured from the centre point of the head, and four metres trafficable width (see attached).

11. INSPECTION BEFORE OCCUPATION

Prior to the occupation of the building hereby approved, the owner of the land must arrange for the water storage and access to be inspected by the CFA to confirm compliance with conditions 8(i), 9 and 10 above.

12. LOCATION

The development hereby approved must be located within the development area indicated on the plans submitted with the application to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

13. SEDIMENT CONTROL & SOIL AND WATER MANAGEMENT

To minimise soil erosion during construction, the landowner and builder must ensure that


Page 17

any clearing or construction associated with development is conducted in accordance with sediment control principles as outlined in "Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control” (Environment Protection Authority 1991).

14. VEHICLE CROSSINGS

Prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted the applicant must construct the vehicle crossing to the subject land in accordance with relevant standards. Consent for works in the road reserve must be obtained from the Responsible Authority and levels fixed.

15. EXPIRY DATE

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

(i) Plans in accordance with Condition 1 are not submitted within two years of the date of this permit.

(ii) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.

(iii) The development is not completed within two years of the date of commencement.

RESOLUTION

That Planning Permit application PP15-0067 to use and develop Crown Allotment 3 Section H Parish of Beechworth for the purpose of a dwelling is approved subject to the following conditions and Council issue a Notice of Decision.

1. CONSOLIDATION

This Permit shall have no force or effect until Lot 1 PS526150 and Lot 1 TP852958 are consolidated into a single lot by a Plan of Consolidation and lodged with the Registrar of Titles to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance in respect of the Plan of Consolidation required by condition 1 the landowner must enter in an agreement with Council under Section 173 of the Act which:

(i) ensures that the land (being the lot created by the consolidation of Lot 1 PS526150 and Lot 1 TP852958 as well as the separate Crown Allotment 3 Section H Parish of Beechworth) is not able to be further subdivided so as to increase the number of lots, and;

(ii) provides notification to future landowners regarding the farming zoning of Crown Allotment 3 Section H Parish of Beechworth and expectations relating to normal rural practices that would be carried out in the vicinity of this land that may cause loss of residential amenity to the dwelling;

(iii) in the absence of a Trust for Nature Covenant or the like, the landowner must ensure the conservation values of the consolidated lot are not lost by detrimental changes to management practices, the use of the land or clearing of vegetation to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


Page 18




(i) the location of all building/s and works (including water tanks) proposed to be erected or constructed on the land;

(ii) the dimensions and elevations of all building/s proposed to be erected or constructed on the land. Development must be designed to maintain a low, unobtrusive profile in the landscape to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

(iii) the nature of all external materials and finishes of all such building/s (including the roofing and above ground water tanks), and;

(iv) the location of road access points and driveways are submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval and endorsement. When approved such plans shall form part of the permit.



5. VEGETATED SCREEN

Within 6 months of the construction of the dwelling hereby approved, an effective screen of locally indigenous trees and shrubs must be planted and established along the south west and south east perimeter of the development area to provide an effective screen, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

6. EXTERNAL FABRIC




(i) an on-site sewerage treatment package plant. (Such system shall have an EPA Certificate of Approval issued under Section 53M(7) of the Environment Protection Authority Act); or


Page 19





(ii) All tanks must be environmentally unobtrusive or must be screened to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

9. CFA WATER SUPPLY












10. CFA ACCESS




(iii) a “T” head or “Y” head with a minimum formed surface of each leg being eight


Page 20

metres in length measured from the centre point of the head, and four metres trafficable width (see attached).



12. LOCATION

The development hereby approved must be located within the development area indicated on the plans submitted with the application to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


To minimise soil erosion during construction, the landowner and builder must ensure that any clearing or construction associated with development is conducted in accordance with sediment control principles as outlined in "Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control” (Environment Protection Authority 1991).



15. EXPIRY DATE





Moved: Cr Chambers Seconded: Cr O’Connor

Carried


Page 21

SUMMARY Application No:

15-0067

Applicant: K Woodman & I Young

Subject Land:

Lot 1 PS526150, Lot 1 TP852958 and Crown Allotment 3 Section H Parish of Beechworth, Alma Road, Beechworth

Proposal: Use and develop Crown Allotment 3 Section H Parish of Beechworth for the purposes of a dwelling

Subject site land area:

The subject land is an irregular shaped property made up of three parcels accessed from Alma Road. The property is ~104ha comprised of Lot 1 PS526150 at 71.2ha, Lot 1 TP852958 at 27.3ha and Crown Allotment 3 Section H Parish of Beechworth at 5.6ha.

Current use of subject site:

Crown Allotment 3 Section H Parish of Beechworth is vacant, predominantly clear, grazing land. Lot 1 PS526150 is developed with a dwelling and is heavily forested. Lot 1 TP852958 is undeveloped and heavily forested.

Surrounding land use:

Surrounding properties range in size from over 200ha to the north to 13ha lots to the south along Alma Road with a crown land parcel to the south west.

The following description is adopted from the application (included at Attachment A): The properties along Alma Road are all small boutique farming holdings and rural residential blocks. Farming consists of cattle, vineyards and future vineyards and, pine nuts. On Greenwattle Road the properties are larger boutique operations of olives and olive oil, tree tube stock propagation, sheep and cattle.

Zoning: The subject land and surrounding land, with the exception of the adjacent Crown Land parcel, is within the Farming Zone (FZ). The Crown Land parcel is part of the Beechworth Park and is within the Public Conservation and Resource Zone and affected by a Heritage Overlay.

The subject land, with the exception of the southern corner of Crown Allotment 3, is covered by the Bushfire Management Overlay.

As the proposal seeks approval for a dwelling on part of the subject land that is less than 40 hectares, a Planning Permit is required to use and develop the land for the purposes of a dwelling.


Page 22


Page 23


Page 24


Page 25

PLANNING POLICY

Relevant policy is included at Attachment B.

REFERRAL AUTHORITIES

No referrals were necessary. Advice was sought from Council’s Infrastructure Services in relation to the condition of and access from Alma Road. Following inspection, the advice is that Council’s maintenance crews currently maintain the road to an Access 1 standard and that this is sufficient for the addition of the proposed dwelling. It is acknowledged that while this is a relatively narrow and winding road, it is typical of many rural roads within the shire, and it is a low speed environment with reasonable visibility. There is no justification for an upgrade to this road based on an additional single dwelling at this location.

PUBLIC NOTICE AND OBJECTIONS

Notice of the application was given to adjoining and nearby owners and occupiers in accordance with Section 52 (1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Two objections were received in response. These are included at Attachment C.

Issues raised include:

That the lot will only be used as a rural lifestyle lot with no relationship to agriculture;

Impacts on adjacent agricultural uses;

That the land should be retained for agriculture;

Condition of Alma Road including standard and capacity to cater for the proposed development;

Visual intrusion, location of water tank, screening and impacts on views.

DISCUSSION

Note: Relevant Planning policy is included at Attachment B. The Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) notes that there is great variability in land capability and production potential but that the continued use of land zoned for rural production is paramount to the economic future of the Shire. It also notes as an issue the high number of existing small allotments within the rural area and continued pressure for housing development. Specific strategies in relation to settlement, housing, economy, agriculture and rural areas consistently seek to limit rural living to strategically justified and zoned areas. In providing the strategic basis for the application of the Farming Zone in the planning scheme and decision making by the responsible authority, the strategies articulated in the MSS explicitly state what Council will do in specified circumstances and Council’s expectation of what should happen. Specifically the strategies relevant to the current proposal are to limit new housing development in rural areas, including:

Directing housing growth into existing settlements;

Discouraging development of isolated small lots in the rural zones from use for single dwellings, rural living or other incompatible uses.


Page 26

Settlement and Infrastructure policy is set out in Clause 22.01 with rural dwelling siting and design guidelines set out in Clause 22.01-2. It applies to the development of dwellings in the Farming Zone (as distinct from use of land for dwellings) and is primarily focused on design, siting and infrastructure issues associated with dwellings. It is policy that proposals are assessed against a comprehensive criteria relating to access, water supply (domestic and fire fighting), electricity and telephone services, effluent disposal and water quality, landscape and visual amenity preservation, and siting. The majority of these matters can have engineered responses in order to meet policy requirements and the information submitted with the application demonstrates that there is a policy compliant area capable of accommodating the proposed dwelling. The Victorian Planning Provisions and the Farming Zone do not prohibit dwellings on small lots. Rather they establish a minimum lot size for which no Planning Permit is required to use land for a dwelling (the default lot size being 40ha). It is possible for a Permit to be applied for on any small allotment in the Farming Zone. Such applications then require a decision to be made as to whether the proposal represents an acceptable outcome having regard to the applicable planning provisions, the existing and surrounding agricultural land uses, and the environmental characteristics of the surrounding area and the rural character of the locality. In this instance the application applies to the entire 104ha holding and argues that overall, a preferable planning outcome would be the retention of the forested area as a single holding and a dwelling on the smaller, relatively cleared lot. The submission at Attachment A demonstrates this by providing commentary against the relevant decision guidelines of the Farming Zone and local policy. Policy at Clause 22.02-2 applies to the use, development and subdivision of land in the Farming Zone. This policy applies the objectives of the State Planning Policy Framework to local circumstances and implements the MSS objectives in relation to the use and development of rural land. In guiding discretion about land use this policy discourages the conversion of land to uses incompatible with productive agriculture. The application has demonstrated that a dwelling is not necessarily incompatible with agriculture. The performance measures and decision guidelines of this policy generally relate to development or subdivision aspects rather than land use and as mentioned above, the application demonstrates that there is a policy compliant area capable of accommodating the proposed dwelling. The application proposes the consolidation of Lot 1 PS526150 and Lot 1 TP852958 to create a single lot of 98.5ha, being the forested area of the land with the existing dwelling and a restriction on the titles preventing the further subdivision of the lots. By presenting the application to apply to the entire 104ha holding and outlining a series of steps that could potentially be taken to arrive at the same position, it is contended that maintenance of a density of less than 1 dwelling per 40ha over the holding is consistent with the provisions of the Farming Zone and sets the proposal apart from other small lots in the locality.


Page 27

Relevant site context issues in this case also include the land’s agricultural quality, and the fact that the site is one of a number of undersized lots along Alma Road, many of which have dwellings. In considering the merits of this application, Council’s vision for the future of productive, broad acre farming areas needs to be applied having regard to these context issues. The grant of a permit for a dwelling on this site, does not compromise the achievement of the zone and policy framework outcomes in areas where the objective of retaining broad acre farming on large productive lots is appropriately applied and capable of being achieved. COMMENTS ON OBJECTIONS

Views, unless specifically mandated by the Scheme, such as protection of National Trust Classified Landscapes, it is not generally a planning consideration. While the proposed building envelope will be directly in-line with the distant view to Mt Pilot from the objector’s dwelling, views to the indicated building envelope which will be lower and in the foreground of the landscape, appear to also be limited by vegetation and topography. Further measures to limit the intrusion in the landscape include siting the building envelope at the lowest practical point on the site that is outside of the Bushfire Management Overlay.

In response to the concerns raised over the proposed water tank, the applicant has advised that it is intended to gravity feed the dwelling which is more important if the dwelling is solar powered. If the dwelling is not solar powered, power cables may have a greater impact on the view of the neighbouring dwelling. The position of the water tower has been selected to be behind existing vegetation on the site.

Concerns have been raised that a rural lifestyle use of the lot may impact on adjacent (and proposed) agricultural uses. The application has sought to address ‘right to farm’ issues noting the form of agriculture in the area and utilising design measures such as setbacks and access arrangements as buffers to adjacent properties. Note that adjacent lots to the south and east are currently used for grazing, but that it is indicated that they may be developed as vineyards in the future.

The approval of a dwelling on the subject land is unlikely to impact on the use of the adjacent land for grazing. There may be some potential however for a small lot in this location converted to a lifestyle property to impact on higher intensity forms of agriculture on adjacent lots in the longer term. Part of the issue however, is that the higher intensity agricultural activities do not exist at present. Acquisition and development of the adjacent lot to the north with a vineyard by the same owners as lots to the south indicates that there is a potential for the more intensive agricultural use of the land to be realised. The question is whether the proposed dwelling is incompatible with this and whether it would preclude the agricultural use of the adjacent property.

There are numerous instances across the shire in both the Farming Zone and Rural Living Zone where dwellings unrelated to agricultural activities on the land are located within close proximity to vineyards which would tend to indicate that the uses are not mutually exclusive and there are measures such as screening and notifications on title that can be used to help alleviate potential land use conflicts. Officers have proposed a “screening condition” to respond to this concern.


Page 28

Council’s Engineers have advised that there is no justification for requiring an upgrade to Alma Road given the traffic generated by the extra house will have a minimal impact on the road.

CONCLUSION

The proposal results in the creation of a 90ha vegetated lot with the existing dwelling which is a consistent outcome achieved with the adjoining lot to the north east and which helps secure a long term and consistent management of that part of the land with conservation values and helps form a bio link between parts of the Beechworth Park and the Stanley Forest. The application demonstrates that the proposed dwelling on the remaining cleared portion of the land is not inconsistent with the agriculture in the locality and assists in achieving environmental outcomes while responding to identified risks and hazards. When expressed in the manner presented and having regard to the applicable planning provisions, the existing and surrounding agricultural land uses, the environmental characteristics of the surrounding area and the rural character of the locality, it is considered that the proposal represents an acceptable outcome over the 104ha property and it is recommended that Council approve the application subject to Conditions that have regard to the proposal and the matters raised in the objections received.

Attachments 1. Attachment A - Application

2. Attachment B - Planning Policy 3. Attachment C - Objections


Page 29

11.2 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION PP15-0092 (G & M HOWARD)



For Decision

RECOMMENDATION

That Planning Permit application PP15-0092 to use and develop Lot 1 on Title Plan 5092D being Crown Allotments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Section 6 and Crown Allotments 1 & 2 Section 7 Township and Parish of Norong, Moodemere Road, Norong for the purpose of a dwelling be approved subject to the following conditions and Council issue a Notice of Decision.

1. FARM BUSINESS PLAN TO BE SUBMITTED

This Permit shall have no force or effect until a farm business plan outlining an intensive agricultural activity has been prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The farm business plan must outline details of the viability of the proposed intensive agricultural activity and the need for a dwelling on the land for that particular agricultural activity. The development aspects of the activity must be consistent with Schedule 2 to the Environmental Significance Overlay in relation to Lake Moodemere and surrounds and ensure that all ground disturbing works associated with the development and use are located outside the buffer area for the Scarred Tree that is located within the road reserve (VAHR 8125-0027). The plan must also outline the timing and staging of works necessary to establish the agricultural activity and the capital investment being put in place for the agricultural enterprise prior to the dwelling being constructed.

2. CONSOLIDATION

This Permit shall have no force or effect until Lot 1 on Title Plan 5092D being Crown Allotments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Section 6 and Crown Allotments 1 & 2 Section 7 Township and Parish of Norong, is consolidated into a single lot by a Plan of Consolidation and lodged with the Registrar of Titles to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


This Permit shall have no force or effect until the landowner enters into an agreement with Council under Section 173 of the Act which ensures:

(i) That the land is not able to be further subdivided so as to increase the number of lots, and that in the event of a dwelling house being erected on the subject land such dwelling cannot be excised from the Lot under the provisions of the Indigo Planning Scheme.

(ii) An intensive agricultural enterprise must be established on the land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority generally in accordance with the approved Farm Business Plan.

(iii) The dwelling on the land must be used to operate and manage the intensive agricultural enterprise in accordance with the approved Farm Business Plan.

(iv) In the event that the intensive agricultural enterprise in accordance with the approved Farm Business Plan ceases, the dwelling must continue to be utilised in


Page 30

association with a bona fide intensive agricultural land use that requires a dwelling on the land and a new farm business plan prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.




(i) The location of all building/s and works (including water tanks) proposed to be erected or constructed on the land. Development (other than the driveway) must be located a minimum 50m from road reserves and outside of the area affected by the Bushfire Management Overlay. Development must not encroach within the buffer area for the Scarred Tree that is located within the road reserve (VAHR 8125-0027);

(ii) The dimensions and elevations of all building/s proposed to be erected or constructed on the land. Development must be designed to maintain a low, unobtrusive profile in the landscape to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

(iii) The nature of all external materials and finishes of all such building/s (including the roofing and above ground water tanks), and;

(iv) The location of road access points and driveways, are submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval and endorsement. When approved such plans shall form part of the permit.



6. EXTERNAL FABRIC




(i) an on-site sewerage treatment package plant. (Such system shall have an EPA Certificate of Approval issued under Section 53M(7) of the Environment Protection


Page 31

Authority Act); or





(ii) All tanks must be environmentally unobtrusive or must be screened to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

9. CFA WATER SUPPLY












10. CFA ACCESS





Page 32

(iii) a “T” head or “Y” head with a minimum formed surface of each leg being eight metres in length measured from the centre point of the head, and four metres trafficable width (see attached).




To minimise soil erosion during construction, the landowner and builder must ensure that any clearing or construction associated with development is conducted in accordance with sediment control principles as outlined in "Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control” (Environment Protection Authority 1991).



14. EXPIRY DATE






Page 33

MOTION

That Planning Permit application PP15-0092 to use and develop Lot 1 on Title Plan 5092D being Crown Allotments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Section 6 and Crown Allotments 1 & 2 Section 7 Township and Parish of Norong, Moodemere Road, Norong for the purpose of a dwelling be refused on the grounds that:

(i) The proposal is inconsistent with the strategies contained in the SPPF in relation to rural land and settlement which seek to:

Prevent inappropriately dispersed urban activities in rural areas

Limit new housing development in rural areas: including:

• Directing housing growth into existing settlements.

• Discouraging development of isolated small lots in the rural zones from use for single dwellings, rural living or other incompatible uses.

• Encouraging consolidation of existing isolated small lots in rural zones.

(ii) The proposal is inconsistent with the strategies contained in the MSS in relation to rural land which seek to limit new housing development in rural areas, including:

Directing housing growth into existing settlements.


(iii) The proposal is inconsistent with the purposes of the Farming Zone and has the potential to lead to a proliferation of dwellings in the area which will have an adverse impact on servicing and the use of land for agriculture.

(iv) The proposal is inconsistent with the fair and orderly planning of the area.

Moved: Cr Chambers Seconded: Cr O’Connor For: Crs Chambers, O’Connor, Murdoch, Horne & Gaffney Against: Crs Croucher & Trenery

Carried


Page 34

SUMMARY Application No:

15-0092

Applicant: G & M Howard

Subject Land:

Lot 1 on Title Plan 5092D being Crown Allotments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Section 6 and Crown Allotments 1 & 2 Section 7 Township and Parish of Norong, Moodemere Road, Norong.

Proposal: Use and develop the land for the purposes of a dwelling

Subject site land area:

3.9ha

Current use of subject site:

Grazing land used periodically for camping.

Surrounding land use:

The area is a genuine and productive agricultural area with surrounding properties ranging in size from over 200ha to similar sized holdings as the subject land along the north side of Moodemere Road with frontage to crown land reserves along the Murray River and Lake Moodemere. These reserves areas are used for natural systems, conservation and recreation and generally form the flood plain of the River Murray.

The extension to Hiskins Road along the northwest boundary of the site provides access to the River and trails leading back into the reserve and Lake Moodemere. There is an irrigation pump located on the bank of the river at this point.

The majority of lots in the locality are vacant and used as part of larger agricultural properties.

Zoning: The subject land and surrounding freehold land is within the Farming Zone (FZ). Crown Land reserves are located within the Public Conservation and Resource Zone as is part of the subject land due to a mapping error.

The subject land is also affected by Schedule 2 to the Environmental Significance Overlay and partly affected by the Bushfire Management Overlay.

As the subject land is less than 40 hectares a Planning Permit is required to use and develop the land for the purposes of a dwelling. A Planning Permit is also required for buildings and works under the Environmental Significance Overlay.

The application indicates that the proposed dwelling can be sited outside of the area affected by the Bushfire Management Overlay.

Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006:

The subject land is mapped as being within areas of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sensitivity as described in the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007. In this instance the proposal is not a high impact activity under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and a Cultural Heritage Management Plan is not a statutory requirement.

Potential impacts on identified sites and objects of Aboriginal cultural significance is still however a policy consideration under Clause 22.03-7 of the Indigo Planning Scheme.

Below is an extract from Planning Maps Online showing areas of Cultural Heritage Sensitivity.


Page 35

The area on southern boundary encroaches approximately 40m into the site.

Information provided with the application indicates that the area indicated on the southern boundary is associated with a Scarred Tree that is located within the road reserve, VAHR 8125-0027. The application indicates that the proposed dwelling can be sited outside of the areas of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sensitivity.


Page 36

Subject Site

Proposal. Note: setback from southern boundary will require increasing to observe the buffer associated with a Scarred Tree within the road reserve, VAHR 8125-0027.


Page 37

PLANNING POLICY

Relevant policy is included at Attachment B.

REFERRAL AUTHORITIES

Plans originally submitted with the application indicated that the proposed dwelling would be located within the Bushfire Management Overlay and the application was referred to the CFA. Amended plans were subsequently submitted showing that there is an area outside of the Bushfire Management Overlay capable of accommodating the proposed development.

PUBLIC NOTICE

Notice of the application was given to adjoining and nearby owners and occupiers in accordance with Section 52 (1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

3 objections were received in response. These are included at Attachment C.

Issues raised include:

That the area is a genuine and productive agricultural area and that the application assumes that it is a small scale agriculture and rural lifestyle area and that this is a misrepresentation of the land use and agricultural activities in the area;

That the lot will only be used as a rural lifestyle lot with no relationship to agriculture resulting in land use conflict;

Impacts on adjacent agricultural uses;

That the dwelling will adversely affect the operation and expansion of adjoining agricultural uses;

That the land should be retained for agriculture;

Impacts of agricultural activities on the proposed dwelling, including operation of the nearby pump during peak periods for the community irrigation scheme (24hr/day operation);

Matters of consistency and precedent;

Impacts on amenity and privacy.

DISCUSSION

Note: Relevant Planning policy is included at Attachment B. The Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) notes that there is great variability in land capability and production potential but that the continued use of land zoned for rural production is paramount to the economic future of the Shire. It also notes as an issue the high number of existing small allotments within the rural area and continued pressure for housing development. Specific strategies in relation to settlement, housing, economy, agriculture and rural areas consistently seek to limit rural living to strategically justified and zoned areas. In providing the strategic basis for the application of the Farming Zone in the planning scheme and decision making by the responsible authority, the strategies articulated in the MSS explicitly state what Council will do in specified circumstances and Council’s expectation of what should happen. Specifically the strategies relevant to the current proposal are to limit new housing development in rural areas, including:

Directing housing growth into existing settlements.



Page 38

The thrust of policy through the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) and Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) is quite clear in that land in the Farming Zone should be preserved for agriculture. Indeed, the application materials acknowledge that the proposal appears to be at odds with the policy framework but contend that the departure has merit primarily on the basis that the land has been permanently removed from agricultural production. In this case there is nothing preventing the land from being used for agriculture and nothing compelling put forward in the application to suggest that a dwelling is required or will improve the agricultural potential of the land. Rather, the application has quite honestly put forward a proposal that the land be used and developed as a rural lifestyle lot similar to the lot on Hiskins Road opposite the subject land. The Farming Zone provisions of the Indigo Planning Scheme, do not prohibit dwellings on small lots. Rather they establish a minimum lot size for which no Planning Permit is required to use land for a dwelling (the default lot size being 40ha). It is possible for a Permit to be applied for on any small allotment in the Farming Zone. Such applications then require a decision to be made as to whether the proposal represents an acceptable outcome having regard to the applicable planning provisions, the existing and surrounding agricultural land uses, and the environmental characteristics of the surrounding area and the rural character of the locality. Policy at Clause 22.02-2 applies to the use, development and subdivision of land in the Farming Zone. This policy applies the objectives of the State Planning Policy Framework to local circumstances and implements the MSS objectives in relation to the use and development of rural land. In guiding discretion about land use this policy discourages the conversion of land to uses incompatible with productive agriculture. The assumption that the use of this site as a rural lifestyle lot is both consistent with the locality and the current state of play appears to be due mainly to cadastral layouts. The fact is however, that this is still a genuine agricultural area, as attested to by the submissions received in objection and it is considered that dwellings in the locality, particularly those on undersized lots (given the cadastral fragmentation) must be associated with and subservient to agriculture to avoid the introduction of land use conflict and the conversion of the area to a rural lifestyle area. Approval of a dwelling on this 3.9ha site has the potential to undermine local policy, and also a potential to contribute to a concentration and proliferation of ‘rural living’ dwellings in the area. COMMENTS ON A SIMILAR CASE This was also a consideration in Chisnall v Indigo SC [2008] VCAT 28 which is possibly the most contextually relevant Tribunal case, where Council refused to grant a permit for a dwelling on a 1.65ha lot zoned Farming at the corner of Lake and Moodemere Roads, Norong. The following notes outline the issues involved in the Chisnall matter. There are many similarities between this case and the current (Howard) application. Council was of the view there had been no demonstration that a dwelling was required on the land to establish or operate an agricultural activity. Council considered that allowing the establishment of a dwelling on a small rural lot in this locality would have strategic implications leading to the creation of opportunities for the establishment of a defacto rural living area. A business plan was provided with the permit application regarding the establishment of a vineyard. Councils’ view was that given the close proximity to Rutherglen there was no need to establish a


Page 39

dwelling on the land to enable the establishment of a vineyard and questioned whether the land could in fact be developed for a more intensive and potentially viable agricultural use than what it was currently being used for (grazing). Between Councils’ refusal of that application and the Tribunal hearing, the applicant changed. The new applicant relied on the details previously submitted about the viability of the proposed vineyard but submitted that any intensive agricultural activity could be carried out on the land if a dwelling was established. The Tribunal commented (emphasis added):

“This may be so, but when the establishment of a dwelling on land is dependent on the conduct of an agricultural activity then it is considered that it is incumbent on an applicant to be able to satisfy the Tribunal regarding the particular type of agricultural activity that requires an onsite dwelling. In this application the land is currently being used for an agricultural activity, namely grazing and whilst this is not an intensive use this activity could be continued on the land with or without a dwelling on the land, however this type of agricultural activity is not dependent on a dwelling being established on the land. To justify the reason why a dwelling is required on the land it has been linked to the establishment of a vineyard. It was submitted that a section 173 agreement could be placed on the title to the land requiring the vineyard to be established to the Responsible Authority’s satisfaction. I consider in such circumstances that this is an appropriate condition. In this matter I am unable to conclude that allowing the establishment of a dwelling on this land will lead to a defacto rezoning of the land into rural living. This may be so if the establishment of the dwelling was not also linked with the establishment of an intensive agricultural activity. I accept that there is a requirement for a dwelling on the land to ensure the more intense agricultural activity of a vineyard is properly conducted on the land. I also accept that the more intense agricultural activity of a vineyard is a viable agricultural activity in this area justifying in this case the establishment of a dwelling in association with such an activity.”

In overturning Councils decision and directing that a Permit issue subject to conditions, the Tribunal also stated (emphasis added):

“The Tribunal understands the Responsible Authority’s reluctance in these types of cases to approve such a proposal but it must be remembered that a dwelling is not a prohibited use within a rural area and provided there is a link with an intense agricultural activity then in this case the approval of a dwelling on this land is more than likely to ensure the land will be put to a more intense agricultural use than what it is currently being used for. In reaching my conclusion that the establishment of a dwelling on the subject land in association with a vineyard is appropriate, I have considered the existing and surrounding agricultural land uses, the environmental characteristics of the surrounding area and the rural character of the locality. I am unable to conclude having considered the policies relevant to this application in the Indigo Planning scheme that the proposal should not be permitted.”


Page 40

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Though very similar to the current case, it should also be noted that the above decision was made under a different policy setting than exists today. Namely Clause 22.01-5 which related to dwellings on existing small rural allotments formed part of the Local Planning Policy Framework. That policy applied to existing small lots (<20 hectares) in the Farming Zone and essentially had the effect of encouraging their development for the purposes of a dwelling. Despite this, it is significant that the Tribunal relied on an intensive agricultural use of the land to support the grant of a permit. Amendment C24 in 2012 resulted in the deletion of that particular policy and clearer policy direction in relation to rural areas being included in the MSS at Clause 21.05-9 (see Attachment B). WHY HAVE WE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL Notwithstanding this, given the outcome in relation to Chisnall v Indigo SC [2008] VCAT 28, if a genuine intense agricultural activity was put forward, then a dwelling on the subject site may well be an acceptable outcome. No bona fide rural activity has been put forward to support the proposal. Rather it has, quite honestly, been put forward as an application to permanently remove the land from agricultural production and develop it as a lifestyle property. It would be reasonable to expect however, that a genuine intensive agricultural activity would materialize on review of a Council decision to refuse the current application on these grounds. The small lot size and the existence of many small lots in the area does not in itself justify converting the land for rural residential or rural living purposes. If that were the case then thousands upon thousands of small lots in the Farming Zone across Victoria (and many hundreds within Indigo Shire) could potentially accommodate dwellings without any regard to strategic planning considerations that seek to direct dwellings into specified areas. Having regard to the development aspects of the proposal, no detail other than ‘building zones’ has been put forward. Settlement and Infrastructure policy is set out in Clause 22.01 with rural dwelling siting and design guidelines set out in Clause 22.01-2. It applies to the development of dwellings in the Farming Zone (as distinct from use of land for dwellings) and is primarily focused on design, siting and infrastructure issues associated with dwellings. It is policy that proposals are assessed against a comprehensive criteria relating to access, water supply (domestic and fire fighting), electricity and telephone services, effluent disposal & water quality, landscape and visual amenity preservation, and siting. The majority of these matters can have engineered responses in order to meet policy requirements and the information submitted with the application demonstrates that a policy compliant area capable of accommodating a dwelling can be achieved. It is acknowledged that there are few real physical constraints to the construction of a dwelling on this site but an assessment and discussion about development issues misses the fundamental ‘use’ threshold. Under the circumstances, the planning scheme is quite clear and indicates that if you want to have a dwelling on this site; it must be linked with agriculture. Having regard to impacts on views raised in submissions, unless specifically mandated by the Scheme, such as protection of National Trust Classified Landscapes, it is not generally a planning consideration. Decision guidelines at Schedule 2 to the Environmental Significance Overlay in relation to Lake Moodemere and surrounds, state that the development of land surrounding the Lake must be assessed on its merits, having regard for the protection of the environment, visual and aesthetic qualities, and the long term use of the Lake for public purposes. These are lake-centric considerations


Page 41

however, and do not readily assist submitters concerns regarding privacy, views and the sense of intrusion an additional dwelling in the locality would have on their current levels of amenity. Achieving adequate setbacks to prevent overlooking of the reserve areas, avoid hazards such as the BMO and other identified site constraints such as the Scarred Tree that is located within the road reserve (VAHR 8125-0027), and sensitive design as required by policy and the Environmental Significance Overlay, would combine to centralize development on this site and assist in minimizing the degree of intrusion that a dwelling would have on neighbouring properties. CONCLUSION

Given the outcome in relation to Chisnall v Indigo SC [2008] VCAT 28, if a genuine intense agricultural activity was put forward, then a dwelling on the subject site may well be an acceptable outcome. It is considered entirely reasonable therefore that, if a Permit is to issue for the use of this land for a dwelling, Council make it conditional on an intensive agricultural use being established that is also consistent with the environmental values of the locality. It is therefore suggested that a Permit issue subject to Conditions that would make a dwelling on this undersized property acceptable. Matters to be addressed would include:

Establishment of an intensive agricultural activity that was consistent with Schedule 2 to the Environmental Significance Overlay in relation to Lake Moodemere and surrounds;

Consolidation of the land into a single lot;

Adequate setbacks and buffers being achieved, and;

Appropriate and sensitive design.

Subject to these hurdles being overcome and an intensive agricultural use being established, it is considered that approval of a dwelling would be a consistent and acceptable planning outcome on this site.

Attachments 1. Attachment A - Planning Permit Application 2. Attachment B - Planning Policy Framework

3. Attachment C - Objections


Page 42

11.3 SECTION 173 AGREEMENT - PP13-0061 - SUBDIVISION - GENTLE ROAD TANGAMBALANGA



For Decision

RECOMMENDATION

That Council resolve to enter into the attached Agreement pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 with North East Region Water Corporation and Nortree Pty Ltd and to sign and seal the appropriate documentation.

RESOLUTION

That Council resolve to enter into the attached Agreement pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 with North East Region Water Corporation and Nortree Pty Ltd and to sign and seal the appropriate documentation.

Moved: Cr Trenery Seconded: Cr Murdoch

Carried

BACKGROUND Planning Permit PP13-0061 was issued on the 6th December 2013 and allows the subdivision of land at Kiewa East Road, Tangambalanga into 12 rural living allotments in accordance with the plan below.


Page 43

The owner has proposed to provide a reticulated water supply to the lots. The supply is however subject to flow and pressure issues pending augmentation of the system by future residential development in the locality. North East Region Water Corporation and Nortree Pty Ltd (the Owner) propose and have prepared the Agreement, at Attachment A, to provide notification to future owners regarding water supply issues and requirements. Such agreements, made under Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act, are legally binding and recorded on Title and the attached Section 173 Agreement is presented to Council with a recommendation for approval under the seal of Council. Council will be responsible for making application to the Registrar of Titles for the recording of the Agreement and the payment of all legal costs in relation to this is to be borne by Nortree Pty Ltd (the Owner).

Attachments 1. Section 173 Agreement


Page 44

11.4 INDIGO SHIRE 2015-2016 COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM

File No: 2015/466 Chris Westwood - Team Leader Community Development


For Decision

RECOMMENDATION

That Council funds the following applications totalling $50,000 under its 2015/2016 Community Grants Program:

No. Applicant Name Grant

GENERAL COMMUNITY GRANTS

1 Beechworth Men’s Shed $1,000.00

2 Coulston Park Committee of Management $4,000.00

3 Beechworth Neighbourhood Centre (on behalf of Changing Minds Dementia Friendly Community Project) $1,000.00

4 Stanley Cemetery Trust $1,000.00

5 Rutherglen Little Athletics Club $500.00

6 Rutherglen Kindergarten $500.00

7 Chiltern Rodeo Club $1,600.00

8 Bruarong Community Centre Committee of Management $4,000.00

9 Vine Valley Horse Club $1,500.00

10 Chiltern Playgroup $722.20

11 Beechworth Senior Citizens Club $649.00

12 Stanley Athenaeum $1,720.00

13 Wooragee Community Centre Committee of Management $2,300.00

14 Stanley Rural Community Incorporated $2,500.00

15 Rutherglen Agricultural Society $1,000.00

16 Rutherglen Lake Rowing club $1,200.00

17 Beechworth Wanderers Cricket Club $1,500.00

18 Chiltern War Memorial and Hall Committee of Management $4,000.00

19 Yackandandah Men’s Shed $2,800.00

20 Barnawartha Playgroup $2,000.00

21 Chiltern Pony Club $3,621.30

22 Cornishtown Recreation Reserve $1,000.00

23 Indigo Adult Riding Club $1,000.00

24 Rutherglen Golf Club Incorporated $600.00

25 Indigo North Health $2,000.00

26 Stanley Spring Ditch and Wetlands Committee of Management $1,000.00

27 Beechworth Heritage Group Incorporated $700.00

ARTS & CULTURE

28

Barnawartha Development Association Incorporated $2,000.00

29 Beechworth Servicemen's Memorial Hall Committee $1,000.00


Page 45

YOUTH GRANTS

30 FC (Soccer) Yackandandah $987.50

31 Chiltern Valley and Wahgunyah Karate and Kobudo Club Incorporated $600.00

TOTAL $50,000

MOTION

That Council funds the following applications totalling $49,000 under its 2015/2016 Community Grants Program:

No. Applicant Name Grant

GENERAL COMMUNITY GRANTS

1 Beechworth Men’s Shed $1,000.00

2 Coulston Park Committee of Management $4,000.00

3 Beechworth Neighbourhood Centre (on behalf of Changing Minds Dementia Friendly Community Project) $1,000.00

4 Stanley Cemetery Trust $1,000.00

5 Rutherglen Little Athletics Club $500.00

6 Rutherglen Kindergarten $500.00

7 Chiltern Rodeo Club $1,600.00

8 Bruarong Community Centre Committee of Management $4,000.00

9 Vine Valley Horse Club $1,500.00

10 Chiltern Playgroup $722.20

11 Beechworth Senior Citizens Club $649.00

12 Stanley Athenaeum $1,720.00

13 Wooragee Community Centre Committee of Management $2,300.00

14 Stanley Rural Community Incorporated $2,500.00

16 Rutherglen Lake Rowing club $1,200.00

17 Beechworth Wanderers Cricket Club $1,500.00

18 Chiltern War Memorial and Hall Committee of Management $4,000.00

19 Yackandandah Men’s Shed $2,800.00

20 Barnawartha Playgroup $2,000.00

21 Chiltern Pony Club $3,621.30

22 Cornishtown Recreation Reserve $1,000.00

23 Indigo Adult Riding Club $1,000.00

24 Rutherglen Golf Club Incorporated $600.00

25 Indigo North Health $2,000.00

26 Stanley Spring Ditch and Wetlands Committee of Management $1,000.00

27 Beechworth Heritage Group Incorporated $700.00

ARTS & CULTURE

28

Barnawartha Development Association Incorporated $2,000.00

29 Beechworth Servicemen's Memorial Hall Committee $1,000.00

YOUTH GRANTS

30 FC (Soccer) Yackandandah $987.50


Page 46

31 Chiltern Valley and Wahgunyah Karate and Kobudo Club Incorporated $600.00

TOTAL $49,000

Moved: Cr Croucher Seconded: Cr Murdoch

Carried

Cr Chambers declared a direct Conflict of Interest as he is a member of the Rutherglen Agricultural Society. Cr Chambers also declared a Direct Conflict of Interest on Item 11.5 as he is on the Board of Keep Australia Beautiful Victoria. He left the meeting at 7.11pm

MOTION

That Council funds the following application under its 2015/2016 Community Grants Program:

15 Rutherglen Agricultural Society $1,000.00

Moved: Cr Trenery Seconded: Cr Murdoch

Carried

INTRODUCTION

As part of the 2015/2016 Budget process, Council allocated the following funds through its Community Grants Program:

1. Council’s Community Grants – General and Arts and Culture $47,500

2. Council’s Community Grants – Youth Initiatives $ 2,500

Council has delegated the assessment of Council’s Community Grants Program to the Indigo Shire Community Grants and Awards Advisory Committee (ISCGAAC). This Committee assesses all applications based on the appropriate criteria and then recommends to Council how the funds should be distributed. BACKGROUND

Due to a lack of applications received, a one week extension was added to the original grant submission date of Friday 24 July 2015. Following this extension, applications for the 2015/2016 program closed on Friday 31 July 2015. All applications were assessed by ISCGAAC at its meeting on Thursday 6 August 2015 with the following table detailing the applications recommended for funding by ISCGAAC.

A more detailed summary of the applications, which includes details of the project and applicant contributions are contained in the attachment to this report.


Page 47

KEY IMPLICATIONS

Council received 50 applications under the Program requesting grants totalling $142,218.65 for projects valued at $448,721.55. Whilst the number of applications received was down on 2014/15, the total value of funding requested was similar. In general, the majority of applications requested funding in the range of about $500 to $4,000.

The Committee has recommended that Council provide funding to 31 of the 50 applications. It was also recommended that several applications be referred to more appropriate funding sources such as State and Federal government opportunities.

It should be noted that the majority of the recommendations from ISGCAAC were not for the full amount requested in the application. In most cases the decision to reduce the grant requested was based on the Committee’s desire to see as many good projects receive funding as possible. It is also important to note that the Committee, when reducing the amount of the grant, was confident that the project could still be completed and provide positive benefits to the applicant body and the community.

RISK MANAGEMENT

There is always some risk that a project recommended for funding does not get completed, is partially completed or requires an extension to the completion date. These situations are rare and in most cases, after discussion with Council, support can be given or the project completion date can be extended to ensure the project is completed.

From time to time there is disappointment from an applicant who misses out on funding. To support these groups, Council, in its letter to the unsuccessful applicants provides the opportunity to the group to contact Council to look at other options to fund the project. This support has been very welcome in the past. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The following table details the applications for funding and the allocations recommended:

Grants Program Total No. of Applications

Total Number Funded

Amount Funded $

Council Community Grants – General 39 27 $45,412.50

Council Community Grants – Arts and Culture 7 2 $3,000.00

Council Community Grants – Youth Initiatives 4 2 $1,587.50

TOTALS 50 31 $50,000.00

As mentioned previously in this report, Council has made a financial commitment in its 2015/2016 budget to fund this Program.

LEGAL/COUNCIL PLAN/POLICY IMPACT

This initiative will assist with the achievement of the key strategic objective 4.3. Empower all people in Indigo Shire to access the information, support & services they need to lead healthy, active, safe and culturally diverse lifestyles, as set out in the Council Plan 2013-2017.


Page 48

CONCLUSION

It has been Council policy for ISCGAAC to review all applications under Council’s Community Grants Program and make recommendations to Council on which applications should receive funding assistance. This procedure was followed for the 2015/2016 Program and the recommendations from ISCGAAC to Council are contained in this report.

Attachments 1. 2015-2016 Council Community Grants - Listing of all applications


Page 49

11.5 KEEP VICTORIA BEAUTIFUL TIDY TOWN - SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES AWARDS CEREMONY 2015

File No: 2015/467 Jess Johnston - Executive Assistant Development & Planning


For Decision

RECOMMENDATION

That Council support the 2015 Keep Australia Beautiful Tidy Town - Sustainable Communities State Awards Nights by contributing $500 from the Council Contingency Fund to the welcome event to be hosted by the Mayor on Friday 16 October 2015.

RESOLUTION

That Council support the 2015 Keep Australia Beautiful Tidy Town - Sustainable Communities State Awards Nights by contributing $500 to the welcome event to be hosted by the Mayor on Friday 16 October 2015.

Moved: Cr O’Connor Seconded: Cr Horne

Carried

Cr Chambers returned to the meeting at 7.13pm INTRODUCTION

The 2015 Keep Australia Beautiful Tidy Town - Sustainable Communities State Awards Nights will be held in Beechworth on Saturday 17 October from 6:30pm. A welcome event is scheduled to be hosted by the Mayor and Councillors on Friday 16 October at the Burke Museum.

BACKGROUND

In 2014 Beechworth was the State winner of the Keep Australia Beautiful Victoria Tidy Town- Sustainable Communities Award. The winning town then hosts the awards night the following year.

Following the State awards in Wangaratta in 2014, Beechworth Tidy Town committee members, Council staff and Councillors represented Victoria at the Australian Tidy Towns Award in Tasmania.

The Beechworth Tidy Towns Committee with support of Council staff has been working hard to ensure there are events scheduled over the course of the State Awards weekend. These include a walking tour of projects, complimentary tickets into the historic precinct and a BBQ breakfast on Sunday morning.

Beechworth, Rutherglen and Wooragee have a total of 12 entries in the finals in various categories; the winner of each category is announced at the State Awards night. Beechworth and Rutherglen are also finalists in the Tidy Town of the Year category.

KEY IMPLICATIONS

The support of the welcome event will publically profile Council’s long time commitment to the Keep Australia Beautiful program, and support the local volunteer committee in the staging of an important weekend of events.


Page 50

RISK MANAGEMENT

There are no risks associated with supporting the welcome event as requested. Not supporting the event may give rise to angst from the community FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

$500 from the Mayor and Councillor Discretionary Fund is required to support the welcome event. Note: In passing the resolution, funding will be provided from the Development and Planning Budget. CONCLUSION

The Awards weekend is a fantastic opportunity for the Town of Beechworth to promote the wonderful work being done by various community groups to keep our Shire Beautiful. It will also attract a large number of attendees to the town for the weekend and the $500 investment from Council is considered appropriate.

Attachments Nil


Page 51

11.6 ELECTION OF A NEW MEMBER TO INDIGO SHIRE HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

File No: 2015/522

Ian Scholes - Manager Planning & Statutory Services


For Decision

RECOMMENDATION

That Council appoint Mr Simon Killeen to the Indigo Shire Heritage Advisory Committee.

RESOLUTION

That Council appoint Mr Simon Killeen to the Indigo Shire Heritage Advisory Committee.

Moved: Cr Horne Seconded: Cr Murdoch

Carried

INTRODUCTION

The meeting of the Indigo Shire Heritage Advisory Committee (ISHAC) on Tuesday 4 August 2015 resolved to request Council to appoint Mr Simon Killeen to the committee. BACKGROUND

The purpose of the ISHAC as set out in its Terms of Reference is as follows:

To provide advice, input and guidance to Council on the best methods to conserve and promote Indigo Shire’s unique cultural heritage and to ensure that heritage related matters are given due consideration in all decision-making processes.

Cultural heritage includes both tangible cultural heritage (such as buildings, monuments, landscapes, trees, books, works of art and artefacts) and intangible cultural heritage (such as folklore, traditions, language and knowledge). The Indigo Shire contains a wide variety of cultural heritage places of local, regional and national significance, owing to its richly-layered history dating back over 40,000 years including those of the Indigenous, Chinese and other immigrant communities.

To provide an advocacy role for cultural heritage matters in the Indigo Shire.


Page 52

The committee comprises of up to 15 voting members, including the following members:

2 Councillors of the Indigo Shire Council.

12 Community Representatives (ensuring fair representation from across the Shire) with experience in at least one of the following fields:

Architecture;

Design;

Town Planning;

Building industry;

Arts community;

Indigenous culture;

Heritage and sites;

Chinese and other ethnic immigration and heritage in Australia;

Cultural heritage, museums and collections management;

Historical societies/collections/museums;

Rural and urban landscape;

Parklands;

Trees and open spaces;

Local history;

Public relations;

Marketing;

Writing or media skills; or

Cultural heritage management or heritage tourism.

National Trust of Australia.

The Committee may comprise of nonvoting members:

Heritage Advisor.

Manager of Planning and Sustainable Development (or delegate).

Representative of Indigo Shire Council Economic Development and Tourism Department.

Representative of Heritage Victoria.

The Council upon recommendation by the Committee, or at its own instigation, may consider changes to the composition of the Committee.

Relating to specific agenda topics or cultural heritage matters, the Committee will be empowered to invite unpaid attendance of guest speakers. These guests will not have voting rights.


Page 53

KEY IMPLICATIONS

As the committee membership has fallen to 50% it is important to rebuild the membership numbers, and an ongoing “recruitment” process is being undertaken. Mr Killeen is a well-known Rutherglen winemaker/vigneron and member of the Rutherglen Historical Society, has considerable knowledge of the local history and will be a valuable addition to the committee. The committee is actively seeking a new member from the Kiewa/Tangambalanga area to ensure an appropriate spread of representation. LEGAL/COUNCIL PLAN/POLICY IMPACT

COUNCIL PLAN The above proposal will assist with the achievement of the key strategic objective 4.3 “Empowering our communities” as set out in the Council Plan 2013-2017. CONCLUSION

The ISHAC requests that Council support the appointment of Mr Simon Killeen to the committee.

Attachments

Nil


Page 54

12. INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

12.1 REVISED CAPITAL WORKS PROGRAM 2015/16

File No: 2015/470 Brad Dinsdale - Manager Capital Projects Infrastructure Services

For Decision

RECOMMENDATION

That Council notes the additional funding that has been confirmed by the Commonwealth Government and VicRoads and approves the following additions to the 2015/16 capital works program:

1. Resheeting of gravel roads (shire-wide) $200,000

2. Safety improvements to Jacks Road (Rutherglen) $30,000

3. Final seal on Sanatorium Road (Yackandandah) $35,000

4. Final seal on Carlyle Road (Wahgunyah) $120,000

5. Sealing of short section of Hellhole Creek Road (Kergunyah) $32,504

6. Sealing of Hopetoun Road (Rutherglen) $190,000

7. Sealing of Lord Street (Rutherglen) $24,000

8. Sealing of Mineral Lane (Yackandandah) $30,000

RESOLUTION

That Council notes the additional funding that has been confirmed by the Commonwealth Government and VicRoads and approves the following additions to the 2015/16 capital works program:









Moved: Cr Chambers Seconded: Cr Horne

Carried


Page 55

INTRODUCTION

Since developing the 2015/16 budget, Council has received notification from the Commonwealth Government that additional funds will be allocated to all Councils for the 2014/15-2018/19 Roads to Recovery (R2R) program. The boost in R2R funding is possible as a result of the reintroduction of fuel excise to inflation. For 2015/16 the allocation to Indigo Shire has increased to $2,294,504 which is an additional $646,504 to the amount budgeted. In addition, officers have been in discussion with VicRoads about improvements to the intersection of Jacks Road and the Murray Valley Highway west of Rutherglen. These improvement works are estimated to cost approximately $30,000 and VicRoads has committed to contributing 50% or $15,000. Hence, this report seeks Council’s endorsement of additional road projects made possible by the additional Roads to Recovery funding and VicRoads’ commitment to contribute to safety improvements on Jacks Road, Rutherglen. BACKGROUND

The Federal Government’s R2R Program is run as a 5-year funding program and has been ongoing since its inception in 2001. The current 2014/15-2018/19 R2R program was originally announced by the Commonwealth Government in 2014 with Indigo Shire Council’s allocation totalling $4,818,708. In July 2015 it was announced that the allocation was to be increased to $7,353,831 which is an additional $2,535,123. The additional income is to be allocated in 2015/16 and 2016/17. The revised breakdown for the current program is:

Original Allocation Additional Funds Total Allocation 2014/15: $803,118 $803,118 2015/16: *$1,606,236 $688,268 $2,294,504 2016/17: $803,118 $1,846,855 $2,649,973 2017/18: $803,118 $803,118 2018/19: $803,118 $803,118 Total $4,818,708 $2,535,123 $7,353,831

*Note that the adopted 2015/16 budget includes R2R revenue of $1,648,000 which is more than the original 2015/16 allocation shown in the above table. Changes to the capital program recommended in this report will bring the budget into alignment with the revised Roads to Recovery allocation. When Council adopted its 2015/16 budget, it also endorsed a 5-year capital works program to guide the priorities for funding in future years. Eligible roads projects from the 5-year capital works program have been identified and are recommended in this report to be brought forward to 2015/16. The key considerations in identifying suitable projects were:

Expenditure had to be on roads projects;

The relative priority in the capital works program;

Projects which are able to be delivered in 2015/16.


Page 56

Proposed works program for additional funds


Additional resheeting, to better meet asset renewal requirements, and to improve maintainability of gravel roads.


Jacks Road and Murray Valley Highway intersection safety improvements. Part funded by VicRoads. Net cost to Council $15,000.


Final seal and associated line marking for Sanatorium Road, which was constructed and sealed in 2014/15.


Final seal and associated line marking for Carlyle Road, which was constructed and sealed in 2014/15.


Hellhole Creek Rd is a rural road sealing priority currently listed in 2016-17. Section of unsealed road between 2 sealed sections.


Hopetoun Rd is an urban road sealing priority currently listed in 2016/17. Section of unsealed road up to wine bottle from Murray Valley Highway.


Lord Street is an urban road sealing priority currently listed in 2016/17. Opportunity to carry out with other road sealing projects in same vicinity currently listed in 2015/16 capital works program. (Lord, Booth and Nott Streets)


Mineral Lane is an urban road sealing priority currently listed in 2016/17. High priority due to dust and maintenance issues.

TOTAL: $661,504

KEY IMPLICATIONS

When Roads to Recovery was first announced, it was to boost spending on local roads and brought with it a requirement that Councils had to maintain their pre-R2R level of own-source road spending. This remains one of the few criteria that Councils have to comply with in receiving funds under this program. Hence, the announcement of additional funding means that Council is expected to increase it road spending by a corresponding amount. The intersection of Murray Valley Highway and Jacks Road west of Rutherglen has been the scene of a number of accidents, most recently in July 2015. A road safety audit was prepared in 2013 and recommended, among other things, for a splitter island to be constructed on the north leg of the intersection to improve visibility of the intersection. Following discussions with Council officers, VicRoads has committed to sharing the cost of these works.


Page 57

Note that the Hopetoun Road sealing project ($190,000) is included as a “Council-funded” component in a recent grant application. This will mean that road projects totalling $190,000 in the adopted 2015/16 budget but currently proposed to be funded by Council will need to be re-allocated to R2R funding. This is an administrative task that will be undertaken by officers in managing and reporting on Roads to Recovery. The increase in funding for 2015/16 and 2016/17 will require a review of the 5-year capital works program in the roads and bridges area. The revised program will be presented to Council for endorsement in the near future. RISK MANAGEMENT

Resourcing is a significant risk to be considered in the delivery of the increased capital works program as a result of the additional funding. This risk will be managed through a combination of “In-house” operations resources and the contracting of suitably qualified civil construction contractors. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The increase in R2R funding for 2015/16 brings forward $646,504 of additional works on roads. This report proposes that the Jacks Road project be funded at an estimated cost of $30,000 with half ($15,000) being funded by the additional R2R funding and half by VicRoads. Hence, the total value of additional works recommended in this report is $661,504, being the unbudgeted amount of Roads to Recovery funding ($646,504) plus the VicRoads-funded component of the Jacks Road intersection ($15,000) LEGAL/COUNCIL PLAN/POLICY IMPACT

COUNCIL PLAN The additional R2R funding will assist with the achievement of the Strategy 2.14 Expand our sealed road network, as set out in the Council Plan 2013-2017, specifically by contributing to strategic actions 2.14.1 implement a priority list for sealing urban roads and 2.14.2 implement a priority list for sealing rural roads. It will also assist Council in meeting the renewal requirements for the unsealed road network and performance measures applicable to the built environment for “satisfaction with maintenance of unsealed roads”. CONCLUSION

The announcement by the Federal Government of an additional $2.5million in Roads to Recovery funding over the next two financial years is a significant boost for Council which has enabled road projects scheduled for future years to be brought forward for consideration in 2015/16. The commitment by VicRoads to part fund the works on Jacks Road will enable important safety improvements to be carried out.

Attachments Nil


Page 58

12.2 CONTRACT 12/2257 - CLEANING OF COUNCIL BUILDINGS

File No: 2015/481 Jim Redmond - Coordinator Buller Gas Infrastructure Services

For Decision

RECOMMENDATION

That Council takes up the 2-year extension option in Contract 12/2257 for the cleaning of Council Buildings, Public Toilets and Amenities to commence on 1 November 2015.

RESOLUTION

That Council takes up the 2-year extension option in Contract 12/2257 for the cleaning of Council Buildings, Public Toilets and Amenities to commence on 1 November 2015.

Moved: Cr Murdoch Seconded: Cr Croucher

Carried

INTRODUCTION

The current contract for the Cleaning of Indigo Shire Council Buildings, Public Toilets and Amenities has an initial term of 3 years which will finish on 31 October 2015. The contract has an extension option for up to a further 2 years and Council is required to give notice of its intention to extend the contract at least 60 days prior to the expiry of the initial term. BACKGROUND

At its ordinary meeting of 14 August 2012, Council awarded Contract 12/2257 for Cleaning of Indigo Shire Council Buildings, Public Toilets and Amenities to ACS Property Services. The contract commenced on 1 November 2012 with an initial term of 3 years and an option to extend for up to a further 2 years. The decision to extend the contract is Council’s. This contract covers 54 Shire venues of which 22 are public toilet facilities. There is a system of communication books throughout the Shire area to record issues and questions and the cleaners are able to raise maintenance issues through Conquest. There is also a service plate in each of the public toilets with the contact number of ACS Property Services by which users may raise cleaning issues via ACS customer service. All known issues raised by any of these means have been resolved. Over the initial term, the Contractor has adequately performed the requirements of the contract and there is a productive and responsive relationship in place. There have been no breaches or performance issues to report. At the commencement of the contract the annual cost was $157,862.79 plus extra cleans for our larger community events where required. There have been 8 contract variations due to adding or increasing services to existing venues and as a result of the office relocation project. There has also been a CPI increase applied at each anniversary as required by the contract. The current annual cost is $203,659.77.


Page 59

KEY IMPLICATIONS

The contract is quite clear in the mechanism for extending into the option period. Council is required to notify its intent to extend no earlier than 6 months and no later than 2 months before the first 3 year period ends. RISK MANAGEMENT

If the contractor had not performed well or was unwilling to continue, it is unlikely that a contract extension would be recommended. However, the contractor performance has been suitable and the company has confirmed its desire to have the contract extended. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

If the contract is extended, the annual cost will only be affected by the annual CPI increase, which will be applied on the anniversary of the contract commencement. However, if the extension option is not exercised, Council would be exposed to current market costs which are not expected to deliver any savings, as well as the cost of re-tendering. The value of this contract over the initial 3-year term will amount to approximately $525,000. Further costs over the extended period are estimated at approximately $210,000 to $215,000 per year. LEGAL/COUNCIL PLAN/POLICY IMPACT

COUNCIL PLAN This contract extension will assist with the achievement of the key strategic objective 4.1: Ensure Delivery of Community Services, as set out in the Council Plan 2013-2017. CONCLUSION

When the service was tendered in 2012, ten companies’ submitted tenders and ACS Property Services won the contract in a very competitive field. The recommendation to take up the option to extend this contract is on the basis of good contractor performance and a good working relationship having been developed. There is no financial justification to end the contract at the expiry of the initial term and re-tender the service.

Attachments Nil


Page 60

12.3 SALE OF LAND "ARDSVILLE" YACKANDANDAH AND O'KEEFES ROAD, WAHGUNYAH

File No: 2015/473 Brett Direen - Property Officer Infrastructure Services

For Decision

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Proceed with the sale of the property at 32 High Street, Yackandandah known as ‘Ardsville’.

2. Proceed with the sale of Lots 16 & 17 O’Keefes Road, Wahgunyah.

RESOLUTION

That Council:

1. Proceed with the sale of the property at 32 High Street, Yackandandah known as ‘Ardsville’.

2. Proceed with the sale of Lots 16 & 17 O’Keefes Road, Wahgunyah.

Moved: Cr Chambers Seconded: Cr O’Connor

Carried

INTRODUCTION

This report recommends that Council proceed with the sale of two (2) properties following the s223 process as required in the Local Government Act, 1989. BACKGROUND

At the 26 May 2015 Council meeting, Councillors endorsed the Excess Property Review (EPR) report that provided approval to progress Lots 16 & 17 O’Keefes Road, Wahgunyah to sale, with ‘Ardsville’ already previously approved for sale by Council on 3 March 2013. The 26 May resolution also authorised the CEO to sign and seal documents to enable the sale of the seven nominated (7) properties as long as the required statutory processes had been undertaken. KEY IMPLICATIONS

The Local Government Act 1989 provides for an advisory and consultative process related to the disposal of property through the following sections:- The Local Government Act requires Council to provide at least four (4) weeks public notice through media outlets and its website before any sale or exchange of land. The Local Government Best Practice Guideline provides key content for such advertising for Council to meet its statutory requirements. The proposed ‘Ardsville’ and O’Keefes Road property sales were advertised in accordance with the conditions of this section of the Local Government Act on 20 June, 2015 in the Border Mail including Council’s website.


Page 61

The Local Government Act provides that a person has a right to make a submission under section 223 on the proposed sale or exchange of land. Again, the Local Government Best Practice Guidelines provide for clear communication obligations through the advertising process, including for submissions to be heard in person by Council if requested, and Council reserving the right to place all submissions received on its Council Agenda. As part of the sales advertising process, submissions were invited in accordance with this section of the Local Government Act for a period of 31 days, closing Monday 20 July 2015, at 5pm. Only one submission was received. This was from the Wahgunyah Progress Association (WPA) and related to the sale of the land at O’Keefes Road in Wahgunyah. In essence, the submission is supportive of the sale, but states that the committee would like to see any realised funds spent in the Wahgunyah town-ship/ area. The CEO has responded to the WPA and informed them that any proceeds from sale would flow in general revenue to be placed toward projects municipality wide, including Wahgunyah, rather than Wahgunyah exclusive. The Corowa Model Aero Club, which had previously shown an interest in leasing the Wahgunyah lots, confirmed in an email that they no longer held any interest in the land. No submissions were received related to the proposed sale of ‘Ardsville’ in Yackandandah. Heritage and Zoning ‘Ardsville’ is included in Council’s Commercial 1 Zone (C1Z), under Council’s planning scheme. The property is also subject to a Heritage Overlay (HO198). The land at O’Keefes Road is Farming Zone (FZ) under Council’s planning scheme. The land is also subject to Environmental Significance Overlays, (ESO3) and (ESO5). RISK MANAGEMENT

Prior to the sale of Council land and property, a valuation must be made not more than 6 months before by a qualified person. This process was completed in June, 2015 to ensure current valuation. One risk for Council is failure to achieve the valued price of the properties through the recommended sale process, with the potential of then holding the properties for an extended period before a sale eventuates. This is considered to be a low risk, but O’Keefes Road may have less appeal than ‘Ardsville’ to prospective purchasers. Sales will be achieved by engaging an external Real Estate Agency. The sale process will be undertaken with transparency, and will meet all probity requirements. All communication and negotiations with prospective purchasers will be undertaken by the Real Estate Agency on behalf of Council, in accordance with standard market processes. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Council has budgeted $375,000 for the sale of ‘Ardsville’. A recent valuation of this property has been obtained from and independent property valuer along with market appraisals from three Real Estate Agencies. Details are included in a confidential attachment. The sale process will be conducted on behalf of Council by a Real Estate Agency. The CEO will be guided as to the most appropriate method of sale through professional opinion provided from the preferred agency to achieve best value.


Page 62

There will be a minor cost to Council for the sale process. These can be expected to be in order of 2.5-3.0% of sale price (selling agent) plus associated marketing costs. Standard legal fees will also be applicable. Costs will be recouped through the sales process. COMMUNICATION Statutory communication processes have been carried out in accordance with the Local Government Act 1989. Consultation related to the ‘Ardsville’ and O’Keefes Road property sales has been undertaken with the Executive Management Team, a number of internal staff including Planning staff, and Council’s Heritage Adviser. CONCLUSION

If approved by Council, staff will follow the legislated process and best practice guidelines to move these properties through to final sale. A Real Estate agency will be engaged to act on Council’s behalf for both sales. As the properties are advertised, feed-back from the Agent will provide a better understanding of the market and realistic reserves values to ensure that best value is achieved.

Attachments 1. Confidential Attachment - Ardsville O'Keefes Rd Sale (Confidential)

2. WPA - O'Keefe's Road Land Sale


Page 63

12.4 PROPOSED BOUNDARY REALIGNMENT - LADY FRANKLIN ROAD, BARNAWARTHA NORTH

File No: 2015/503 Ian Ellett - Director Infrastructure Services

For Decision

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. Council, acting under clause 3 of schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act):

i. resolves that the statutory procedures be commenced to discontinue the road which is shown hatched on Attachment 2;

ii. directs that under sections 207A and 223 of the Act public notice of the proposed road discontinuance be given; and

iii. authorises the Chief Executive Officer to undertake the administrative procedures necessary to enable Council to carry out its functions under section 223 of the Act in relation to this matter.

2. Council hold a Special Meeting of Council to hear from any persons who ask to be heard in support of their written submission at a meeting on a date to be determined in relation to the proposed discontinuance of the Road.

3. Should no submissions be received, Council:

i. resolves to discontinue the Road; and

ii. directs that a notice pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(a) of schedule 10 of the Act is to be published in the Victoria Government Gazette.

4. Should no submissions be received Council agree to purchase a Crown grant of the Road and the road shown cross-hatched on Attachment 2, from the Crown at market value and authorise the CEO to sign on behalf of Council a contract for the purchase of the land and any other documents required to be signed in connection with the purchase of the land.


Page 64

RESOLUTION

That:

1. Council, acting under clause 3 of schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act):

i. resolves that the statutory procedures be commenced to discontinue the road which is shown hatched on Attachment 2;

ii. directs that under sections 207A and 223 of the Act public notice of the proposed road discontinuance be given; and

iii. authorises the Chief Executive Officer to undertake the administrative procedures necessary to enable Council to carry out its functions under section 223 of the Act in relation to this matter.

2. Council hold a Special Meeting of Council to hear from any persons who ask to be heard in support of their written submission at a meeting on a date to be determined in relation to the proposed discontinuance of the Road.

3. Should no submissions be received, Council:

i. resolves to discontinue the Road; and

ii. directs that a notice pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(a) of schedule 10 of the Act is to be published in the Victoria Government Gazette.

4. Should no submissions be received Council agree to purchase a Crown grant of the Road and the road shown cross-hatched on Attachment 2, from the Crown at market value and authorise the CEO to sign on behalf of Council a contract for the purchase of the land and any other documents required to be signed in connection with the purchase of the land.

Moved: Cr Horne Seconded: Cr Croucher

Carried

INTRODUCTION

The proposed rail hub at Logic, Wodonga straddles the municipal boundaries of Wodonga and the Indigo Shire. A previous report presented to Council on 24 March, 2015 outlined the intention to have a minor boundary realignment undertaken at Lady Franklin Road, Barnawartha North. The request for the municipal realignment currently sits with the Minister for Local Government for formal approval. Included in this report was also the proposal for discontinuance of a section of Lady Franklin Road ( approximately 3,228m2) which is to be included in the sale to the rail hub proponent. This report considers the proposed discontinuance of this portion of Lady Franklin Road and the processes which need to be followed to progress this matter. It was intended to proceed with the road discontinuance once the boundary realignment had been completed, however, as this process is


Page 65

taking longer than first expected, in order to meet contractual obligations and time frames it is now necessary for council to proceed with the road discontinuance in conjunction with the City of Wodonga. BACKGROUND

Municipal Boundary Realignment At its Special Council meeting held on 28 January 2015, Wodonga City Council resolved to sell land at Logic to a private rail operator, enabling an application for a rail hub to be progressed. During discussions between officers from both Councils, the implications of having two planning authorities involved in a future planning permit application was raised. The suggestion that a minor boundary realignment would mitigate this was put and supported by senior officers of both Councils Indigo Shire has supported Wodonga’s request for boundary realignment and a joint request to the Minister for Local Government was sent on 29 May, 2015 It will be noted that an area set aside for the rail hub’s arrivals road (approximately 60m in width) and a buffer strip (approximately 101m wide) will be included into the Wodonga municipal area, as will the small portion of discontinued Lady Franklin Road. (refer Attachment 1) Discontinuance of Lady Franklin Road Councillors will be aware that the Wodonga/Indigo municipal boundary is located down the longitudinal centre of Lady Franklin Road, and was closed at the railway reserve boundary, having received no submissions during the 28 day public notice. The closure was gazetted in the Government Gazette of 10 June 2010. This resulted in Lady Franklin Road becoming a dead end south of Tom Tanners Road. The Wodonga City Council’s resolution taken at the Special Council meeting of 28 January 2015 included the sale of a portion of Lady Franklin Road to the rail hub proponent. This area of roadway measures 3,228m2in total equally split between Indigo (shown cross hatched) and Wodonga (shown hatched). (refer Attachment 2) There are no known property access points from this portion of roadway and it is unlikely to negatively impact on any property owners in the area. KEY IMPLICATIONS

The realignment of the municipal boundary and the discontinuance of Lady Franklin Road will support the strategic development of Logic. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

As Wodonga City Council is the initiator of the boundary realignment (with support from Indigo Shire), it is anticipated that all costs associated with the process (*estimated at less than $20,000) will be borne by Wodonga City Council. Surveyors have been engaged to assemble plans of subdivision, which, once approved, will be lodged with the titles office. Wodonga City Council’s surveyors have also prepared a plan for the road discontinuance.


Page 66

LEGAL/COUNCIL PLAN/POLICY IMPACT

LEGISLATIVE Municipal Boundary Realignment The legislative procedures for boundary realignment have been completed and now await the formal approval of the Minster. This approval is expected in late September. Discontinuance of Lady Franklin Road A portion of Lady Franklin Road requires to be discontinued as shown on Attachment 2. Council has the power to discontinue a road or part of a road under Section 3 of Schedule 10 of the Act but it must follow the process as specified in the Act. The proposal will need to be publically advertised. This proposal gives rise to seeking public submissions (section 223 of the Act) which Council must consider at a Special or future Council meeting. It is advised that each council publish their own separate public notice but that these notices are placed side by side on the same date to ensure the notice of intention is clear. CONSULTATION

A public notice needs to be published in the local newspapers regarding the proposed boundary realignment, in both the Indigo Shire and in Wodonga. With regard to the discontinuance of a portion of Lady Franklin Road, the Act states that any person may make a submission. In the event of submissions being received, the Council will have to consider these prior to making a final decision on this matter at a future council meeting. OPTIONS

There are two options to consider: Option 1 – Do nothing. This option will impact the contractual obligations of Wodonga City Council with the possible result of the purchaser reneging on the contract as it will impact their access via the arrivals road to the terminal site. Option 2 – Commence the statutory processes to discontinue the portion of Lady Franklin Road and that section 223 of the Act is followed. This option is recommended. CONCLUSION

Discussions with senior staff from both Councils have resulted in support for a proposed minor realignment to the Wodonga/Indigo municipal boundary. A joint request in this regard was sent to the Minister for Local Government on 29 May, 2015. In order to realign the municipal boundary and effect the sale of the road reserve as resolved at the City of Wodonga Council meeting of January 2015, each Council must consider the discontinuance of a portion of Lady Franklin Road. This process triggers a section 223 process and any submissions received in terms of this proposal will need to be considered before a final decision is made.


Page 67

Attachments 1. Barnawartha North

2. Amended Road closure plan


Page 68

12.5 TIMBER TOWNS VICTORIA MEMBERSHIP

File No: 2015/504 Ian Ellett - Director Infrastructure Services

For Decision

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Continue its membership with Timber Towns Victoria for the 2015/16 financial year and reviews the benefits of membership before the preparation of the 2016/17 annual budget.

2. Appoint Councillor _____________ to represent Council and attend Timber Town meetings.

RESOLUTION

That Council:

1. Continue its membership with Timber Towns Victoria for the 2015/16 financial year and reviews the benefits of membership before the preparation of the 2016/17 annual budget.

2. Appoint Cr Chambers to represent Council and attend Timber Town meetings.

Moved: Cr Murdoch Seconded: Cr Trenery

Carried

INTRODUCTION

Timber Towns Victoria (TTV) is an incorporated local government association representing the interests of municipal councils in relation to forestry on both public and private land. The Association’s primary function is to provide a forum for local government to address the management of forests and forest industries and their impact on local communities. BACKGROUND

Indigo Shire Council was a member of TTV for an estimated 10-15 years up to June 2012. At its Ordinary meeting on 12 June 2012, Council resolved to discontinue its membership of TTV but to remain open to re-joining “if significant forestry related road priorities arise”. At its Ordinary meeting on 25 November 2014, Council resolved to resume its TTV membership for the remainder of the 2014/15 year. Cr Chambers was appointed as the representative and Cr Gaffney as the sub. Correspondence received from TTV in July 2015 has confirmed that it is in the process of creating the 2016 – 2020 iteration of the Timber Industry Roads Evaluation Study (TIRES).The study is an initiative of TTV and is used to assess and prioritise road projects that support the timber industry.


Page 69

The previous TIRES document was based on the period 2011 – 2015 and was a key tool in seeing significant state government funding allocated to regional Councils for road projects. Given the current review of the TIRES document for the next 5 years, it would be considered

premature for Council to discontinue its TTV membership at this time.

KEY IMPLICATIONS

There are no legislative, regulatory or environmental implications resulting from ongoing TTV membership or non-membership. The timber industry in Indigo Shire is not as significant as in a number of other regional Councils. There is not considered to be a high likelihood of any Indigo Shire road projects being among the highest priorities in the region but the review of the TIRES document for the 2016 – 2020 period will provide a mechanism to make an objective assessment prior to the next budget cycle. RISK MANAGEMENT

There are no financial, legislative, reputational or legal risks identified with this recommendation. If Council was to discontinue its membership at this time, there is some risk that funding for any priority road projects in Indigo Shire might not be realised. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

An amount of $1,700 has been included in the 2015/16 budget, based on the pro-rata membership contribution that Council paid in 2014/15. However, annual membership to TTV costs $3,000 (ex GST) so remaining a member for 2016/17 will result in a slight overspend against budget. LEGAL/COUNCIL PLAN/POLICY IMPACT

COUNCIL PLAN This initiative will assist with the achievement of the key strategic objective “We will improve the quality of the built environment, with a focus on long-term sustainability”, as set out in the Council Plan 2013-2017 CONCLUSION

The review of the TIRES document to identify regional timber road priorities for 2016 – 2020 provides a sound justification for continuing TTV membership for 2015/16 and will provide a basis for a review of its advantages to Indigo Shire.

Attachments Nil


Page 70

13. EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT

13.1 ADVOCACY PLAN 2015-2016

File No: 2015/491 Roberta Baker - Manager Communications Executive Management

For Decision

RECOMMENDATION

That Indigo Shire Council adopts the attached Advocacy Plan 2015-2016 that sets out items for advocacy action.

RESOLUTION

That Indigo Shire Council adopts the attached Advocacy Plan 2015-2016 that sets out items for advocacy action.

Moved: Cr Murdoch Seconded: Cr Croucher

Carried

INTRODUCTION

The attached Advocacy Plan 2015-2016 sets out a number of key issues for Council’s advocacy action and funding bids during the year. The items are not listed in priority order. The plan is the basis for Council to clearly articulate at State and Federal Government levels those projects that are of higher priority to the community and that require additional support from governments to be realised. Advocacy action by Council can involve a range of methods including lobbying State and Federal Members of Parliament, submissions, deputations, and publicity campaigns. BACKGROUND

The framework of this plan has been designed to allow Council to take advantage of advocacy opportunities that may arise throughout the year, outside of known grant funding programs. These opportunities can arise with little warning. The Advocacy Plan is therefore a flexible document allowing for additions and changes, if required. KEY IMPLICATIONS

Council’s advocacy work is underpinned by the priorities in the Council Plan 2013-2017 Reviewed June 2015 and the 2015-16 Budget. The Advocacy Plan allows Council to address some issues that are beyond the capacity of Council to achieve on its own. RISK MANAGEMENT

The risk of not having an Advocacy Plan that reflects Council’s priorities is the inability to capitalise on funding opportunities as and when they arise. It is needed to articulate Council priorities and to be ready for any advocacy opportunity with changes in State Government funding programs and during the lead up to the Federal Government election.


Page 71

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Council has provided part funding for a number of the items in the Advocacy Plan, and will apply for appropriate grant funding where available. If an application is successful, a report will be brought before Council outlining the implications and what additional funding might be needed to progress the initiative. LEGAL/COUNCIL PLAN/POLICY IMPACT

COUNCIL PLAN This Advocacy Plan 2015-2016 will assist with the achievement of the key strategic objective: We will continue to strengthen community engagement in Council planning and decision making, specifically by contributing to strategic action: 1.9.3 Monitor and update our Advocacy Plan. LEGAL Under the Local Government Act 1989, the role and function of Council includes 3D. (2)(d) advocating the interests of the local community to other communities and governments; and 3E. (1) (a) advocating and promoting proposals which are in the best interest of the local community. Council has a responsibility to advocate on behalf of the community on appropriate matters.

COMMUNICATION

Advocacy efforts by the Mayor and Councillors and key staff will be supported by appropriate background material on each advocacy item, including the impact of the successful realisation of any project. Where appropriate, pre-publicity will be provided to support Council’s advocacy.

CONCLUSION

The attached plan lists priority items for advocacy action in a framework that allows for additions and new priorities if opportunities arise. It is a succinct guide that provides flexibility for a range of advocacy actions.

Attachments 1. Advocacy Plan 2015-2016


Page 72

14. NOTICES OF MOTION

Nil reports.


Page 73

15. COMMITTEE AND DELEGATES REPORTS (ARE ALL FOR INFORMATION ONLY)

15.1 CR GAFFNEY - MAYOR

For Information

DATE TIME FUNCTION/EVENT LOCATION

1/7 9 am Rutherglen Wine Centre Board Meeting Rutherglen

2/7 10 am Meeting with CEO Beechworth

2/7 6 pm Meeting with ACSUM Albury

4/7 9 am Beechworth Farmers Market Beechworth


7/7 11 am Briefing Meeting Beechworth

10/7 6 pm Opening of Anglican Op Shop Rutherglen

12/7 2 pm Chiltern Lions Changeover High Tea Chiltern


14/7 3 pm Councillor Only Meeting Beechworth

14/7 3.30 pm Briefing Meeting Beechworth

14/7 6.30 pm Community Forum Beechworth

17/7 5 pm Launch Placemaking Program Chiltern

18/7 10 am Meeting with SRCI Stanley


20/7 2 pm Attend Rutherglen Red Cross Meeting Rutherglen

21/7 5 pm Open new Pizza Restaurant Beechworth

22/7 9 am Meeting with Winemaker Rutherglen

26/7 10 am Attend Wooragee LandCare Meeting Wooragee

28/7 3.30 pm Councillor Only Meeting Beechworth

28/7 4.30 pm Briefing Meeting Beechworth

28/7 6.30 pm Council Meeting Beechworth

30/7 4 pm Meeting with Chiltern Rec. Reserve Committee

Chiltern

30/7 6 pm Attend opening of Galaxy Restaurant Beechworth

Attachments Nil


Page 74

15.2 CR MURDOCH - DEPUTY MAYOR

For Information


July 2 11am

6pm

MAV Professional Development Committee

ACSUM General Meeting

Melbourne

Wodonga

7 11am

3:30pm

Council Briefing

Indigo Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting

Beechworth

Chiltern

9 7pm BW Urban LandCare & Sustainability Group

Fair Food Documentary and Q&A

Beechworth

10 5pm Rutherglen Op-Shop Opening Rutherglen

12 1:30pm Change Over High Tea Chiltern Lions Chiltern

13 4pm Beechworth Trees Meeting Beechworth

14 3pm

4pm

6:30pm

Councillor Only Meeting

Council Briefing Meeting

Beechworth Community Forum

Beechworth

17 5pm Chiltern Place-Making Launch Chiltern

20 7:30pm AGM Chiltern Tourism and Development Chiltern

22 11am Rutherglen Primary School Children’s Public Speaking Judging

Rutherglen

24-26 All-Day MAV Councillor Development Weekend Torquay

27 1:30pm

4:30pm

ISC Audit Committee Meeting

Beechworth Trees Consultative Group Meeting

Beechworth

28 3:30pm

4:30pm

6:30pm

Councillor only Meeting

Council Briefing

Council Meeting

Beechworth

29 4:30pm

7pm

Meeting Re-Chiltern Place-Making

Chiltern Rodeo AGM

Chiltern

30 5:30pm Chiltern Industrial Land Forum Chiltern

Attachments Nil


Page 75

15.3 CR CROUCHER - COUNCILLOR

For Information


2nd July 12.30pm Rostrum Albury

6pm ACSUM Albury

6th 11am Briefing Beechworth

8th 9.30am Pop Up Library Opening Tangambalanga

7pm Urban LandCare & Sustainability Group Beechworth

14th 4pm Briefing Beechworth

6pm Community Forum Beechworth

16th 12.30pm Rostrum Albury

5pm Chiltern Placemaking Opening Chiltern

19th 10.30am Kerferd Oration Beechworth

21st 9.15am Story time- Rutherglen Library Rutherglen

10am Rutherglen PS – Junior Council Rutherglen

11am Meeting with Councillor Rutherglen

22nd 10am Meeting with constituent Yackandandah

12.30pm Meeting with constituent Beechworth

25th 10am Opening of Yack Toy library Yackandandah

27th 9am Presentation of SRC Badges- KVPS Tangambalanga

3pm Meeting with Councillor Yackandandah

30th 12pm Meeting with constituent Tangambalanga

31st 6pm Judging of Battle of the Bands- Freeza Beechworth

Attachments Nil


Page 76

15.4 CR CHAMBERS - COUNCILLOR

For Information


1/7/15 1030-1330 KABV Board Meeting Melbourne

1/7/15 1400-1550 Gillian Sparks, Commissioner for Environment Melbourne

2/7/15 1100-1430 MAV Environment Meeting Melbourne

3/7/15 1000-1400 Discussions with Indigenous groups re Mt Pilot Melbourne

5/7/15 1000-1200 NAIDOC Week celebrations Wangaratta

6/7/15 1000-1200 Rutherglen Historical Society Rutherglen

6/7/15 1400-1530 Burke Museum Advisory Committee Beechworth

7/7/15 1100-1500 Council Briefing Beechworth

1530-1730 Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Chiltern

8/7/15 1000-1130 Meeting CEO Beechworth

1200-1330 Meet with constituent re Organics collection Beechworth

1400-1630 NEWRRG meeting Wangaratta

1715-1830 Meet with constituent Rutherglen

10/07/15 1000-1300 Timber Towns Meeting Melbourne

12/7/15 1000-1200 Rutherglen Market Rutherglen


14/7/15 0900-1130 Review of Heritage Act at MAV Melbourne

1500-2000 Council Briefing and Community meeting Beechworth

15/7/15 1000-1500 NEWRRG meeting Wangaratta

16/7/15 0830-1600 NEWRRG Tour Melbourne

1800-2000 NEWRRG Forum Meeting Melbourne

17/7/15 1800-2030 Kerferd Oration Dinner Beechworth

18/7/15 1100-1400 Kerferd Oration Beechworth

20/7/15 1145-1245 Meet with constituents Beechworth

1300-1530 Indigo Shire Disability Advisory Committee Beechworth

21/7/15 1030-1500 Meeting with EO NEWRRG Wangaratta

22/7/15 0930-1230 Fire Advisory Meeting Beechworth

1900-2030 Gold Battery AGM Rutherglen

24/7/15 1400-1600 Funeral Corowa

25/7/15 1000-1130 Yackandandah Morning Tea Yackandandah


28/7/15 1530-2100 Council Briefing and Council Meeting Beechworth

29/7/15 1100-1600 Plantings at Gold Battery by Schools Rutherglen

30/7/15 1300-1600 MAV Planning Meeting Melbourne

31/7/15 0900-1300 Plantings at Gold Battery by Schools Rutherglen

31/7/15 1400-1700 Funeral Albury

31/7/15 1730-1915 Community Meeting Chiltern

Attachments Nil


Page 77

16. GENERAL BUSINESS

MOTION

That Kelsey Mull, Gundowring receive $200 sponsorship from Contingency Fund to attend the National Pony Club Championships.

Moved: Cr Croucher Seconded: Cr Horne

Carried

MOTION

That the CEO prepare a submission to the Local Government Act review allowing time for Councillor input.

Moved: Cr Chambers Seconded: Cr Trenery

Carried

MOTION

That Council expresses its interest in addressing the matters contained in the Wine Equalisation Tax paper

Moved: Cr O’Connor Seconded: Cr Horne

Carried

16.1 Cr Chambers tabled the following:

motions put to the Murray Darling Association National Conference

NEWRRG implementation plan

Climate Change Act Review

16.2 Cr Chambers requested the Mayor to raise the smoking ban to alfresco dining areas issue at HRLGN to request a regional approach to implementation funding request.

16.3 Cr O’Connor requested a briefing from “Australia on Tap” for an in principle partnership. The group supports Shires to have water points for water bottle refill.


Page 78

17. CONFIDENTIAL

RESOLUTION

That the Ordinary Meeting of Council move into Confidential session in accordance with Section 89(2)(d) of the Local Government Act 1989.

Moved: Cr Croucher Seconded: Cr Murdoch

Carried

Recess called: 7.44pm Meeting resumed: 7.51pm Meeting Concluded: 8.42pm

Next Meeting: Tuesday, 29 September 2015 at 6.30pm

Documents

ORDINARY COUNCIL MINUTES - 25 AUGUST 2015 · OPENING PRAYER, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ... Council will conduct a flag raising ceremony involving indigenous groups on 23 ... ORDINARY COUNCIL