draft council meeting agenda template · council meeting agenda – tuesday 4 july 2017 5 1....

Notice

Public meetings convened by East Gippsland Shire Council are recorded (sound and vision) and may be published.

Council Meeting Agenda

TUESDAY 4 JULY 2017

Ordinary Meeting will be held on Tuesday 4 July 2017

Council Chamber, Bairnsdale Corporate Centre,

273 Main Street Bairnsdale

commencing at 6.00 pm

Council Meeting Agenda – Tuesday 4 July 2017 2

Our Vision

East Gippsland is the most liveable region in Australia. A place of natural beauty,

enviable lifestyles, and opportunities.

Our Mission

A leading local government that works together with our communities to make East

Gippsland the most liveable region in Australia.

Our Values

Accountability

We will take responsibility for our actions and decisions in an open and transparent way.

Inclusion

We will be accessible and active in engaging with our community. We will invite, listen to and seek to understand the views of others, and proactively share information about Council’s plans, projects, services and activities.

Integrity

We will honour our commitments and conduct ourselves in an honest, ethical way.

Respect

We will value, support and help to develop our diverse community. We will respect the views and contributions of others and act with courtesy and consideration in all our interactions.

Resourcefulness

We will turn the challenges faced by our community into opportunities by being flexible and innovative in our response. We will actively seek better and more cost-effective ways to achieve the best outcomes for East Gippsland


Index

1. Procedural ......................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Opening and Recognition of Traditional Custodians.................................... 5

1.2 Apologies ..................................................................................................... 5

1.3 Declaration of Conflict of Interest ................................................................. 5

1.4 Confirmation of minutes ............................................................................... 5

1.5 Next meeting ............................................................................................... 5

1.6 Requests for leave of absence .................................................................... 5

1.7 Public question time .................................................................................... 5

1.8 Record of Assemblies of Councillors ........................................................... 6

1.9 Petitions ....................................................................................................... 8

2. Notices of Motion and/or Rescission .............................................................. 8

2.1 Notice of Motion 1/2017 – Mitchell River Revegetation Program ................. 8

3. Deferred Business ............................................................................................ 9

4. Councillor Reports ........................................................................................... 9

5. Officer Reports ............................................................................................... 10

5.1 Strong Communities .................................................................................. 10

5.1.1 Council Policy Review – Footpath Trading Policy and Footpath

Trading Procedures ........................................................................ 10

5.1.2 Council Policy Review – Compliance Policy ................................... 13

5.1.3 Proposed lease of part of 10 Coates Road, Lakes Entrance to

Lakes Entrance Men’s Shed Inc ..................................................... 16

5.1.4 Home and Community Care Service Funding Agreements ............ 20

5.1.5 Maternal and Child Health Funding Service Agreements................ 24

5.1.6 Progress of the Implementation of Community Plans during

2016/17 ........................................................................................... 27

5.2 A Liveable Region ..................................................................................... 36

5.2.1 Development Plan, 138 Palmers Road, 110 Palmers Road

and 90 Palmers Road, Lakes Entrance .......................................... 36

5.2.2 Proposal to end Section 173 Agreement AF202923J – 75

Paynesville Road, Paynesville ........................................................ 42

5.2.3 Proposal to end Section 173 Agreement AD851558A – 27 Golf

Links Road, Lakes Entrance ........................................................... 47


5.2.4 Planning Application No. 82/2017/P – 2 Western Boulevard,

Raymond Island – Application for Building and Building Works

Associated with a Dwelling.............................................................. 53

5.2.5 Planning Application No. 428/2014/P/A – 1-5 King Street

Paynesville: Subdivision of Land into Eight Lots ............................. 63

5.3 A Growing Region of Opportunities ........................................................... 71

5.3.1 East Gippsland Shire Council Economic Development Advisory

Board .............................................................................................. 71

6. Urgent business ............................................................................................. 74

7. Confidential Business .................................................................................... 74

7.1 Contract CON2017 1130 Replacement Handrail – Cunninghame Arm

Bridge ........................................................................................................ 74

7.2 Contract No. CON2017 1194 – Supply of Plant and Equipment and

Labour for Emergency Response and Recovery Works (Panel of Suppliers)

.................................................................................................................. 74

8. Close of meeting ............................................................................................. 74

Gary Gaffney Chief Executive Officer


1. Procedural

1.1 Opening and Recognition of Traditional Custodians

On behalf of Council, I would like to acknowledge the Gunaikurnai People, the

Traditional Owners of the land on which we are gathered and pay our respects to their

elders both past and present.

1.2 Apologies

Cr Marianne Pelz

1.3 Declaration of Conflict of Interest

1.4 Confirmation of minutes

That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday 6 June 2017 and

the Special Council Meeting held on Tuesday 27 June 2017 be confirmed.

1.5 Next meeting

Ordinary Council Meeting – Tuesday 1 August 2017 commencing in the Corporate

Centre at 6.00 pm

1.6 Requests for leave of absence

1.7 Public question time

Note Any citizen wishing to submit a written query will be required to hand their completed Public Question Time form to an appropriate Council Officer by no later than 6.00 pm on the day of the meeting.


1.8 Record of Assemblies of Councillors

1.8.1 Assemblies of Councillors – June 2017

Authored by Wendy Veldhuizen, Personal Assistant Corporate

Endorsed by Maryanne Bennett, Director Corporate

Document No 7253448

____________________________________________________________________

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In accordance with section 80A(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act), this report

presents a formal record of assemblies of Councillors held during the period 24 May to 26

June 2017.

The assemblies of Councillors covered by this report are as follows:

Assembly of Councillor meetings: Meeting date:

Councillors / Chief Executive Officer Discussion 06/06/17, 13/06/17

Planning Consultation Meeting – Planning

Permit No. 59/2017/P - 10-12 Clarke Street

Orbost, Utility Installation

30/05/17

East Gippsland Shire Council section 223

hearing for draft Council Plan 13/06/17

East Gippsland Shire Council section 223

hearing for draft Budget 2017/18 13/06/17

Planning Consultation Meeting – Planning

Permit No. 71/2017/P – 94 Bastion Point Road

Mallacoota, Aquaculture

22/06/17

A copy of the formal record for each of these assemblies is provided at Appendix 1.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council notes the record of assemblies of Councillors that occurred during the

period 24 May to 26 June 2017, as provided at Appendix 1.


OFFICER COMMENT / CONTEXT

Discussion

As required by the Local Government Act 1989, this report presents a formal record of

assemblies of Councillors held during the period 24 May to 26 June 2017.

An assembly of Councillors is defined as a meeting at which matters are considered that are

intended or likely to be subject of a Council decision or the exercise of a delegated authority

which is either of the following:

A meeting of an advisory committee where at least one Councillor is present; or

A planned or scheduled meeting that includes at least half the Councillors and at least one Council officer.

Financial

There are no financial implications for Council arising from this report.

Council Plan

Good Governance Goal 1 East Gippsland Shire Council is inclusive, engaged and open.

Legislation

Section 80A of the Local Government Act 1989 sets out the requirements Councils must

observe in respect of assemblies of Councillors. Section 80A(2) requires the Chief Executive

Officer to ensure that as soon as practicable after any meeting that is an assembly of

Councillors under the Act, a written record of the meeting is reported at an ordinary meeting of

Council and incorporated in the minutes of that meeting. The Act also specifies the type of

information to be provided in the written record.

The implications of this report have been assessed and are not considered likely to breach or

infringe upon the human rights detailed in the Victorian Government’s Charter of Human

Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS

Appendices

1. Assemblies of Councillors records

Attachments

Nil

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/lga1989182/s3.html#chief_executive_officer

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/lga1989182/s3.html#chief_executive_officer

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/lga1989182/s3.html#council


1.9 Petitions

Nil

2. Notices of Motion and/or Rescission

2.1 Notice of Motion 1/2017 – Mitchell River Revegetation Program

Take notice that it is my intention to move at the Ordinary Meeting of Council to be held on Tuesday 4 July 2017 at 6.00 pm or at any adjournment of that meeting: - “Leave the Flying Foxes Alone!

That the Mitchell River Revegetation Program be immediately modified so that the roosting

trees of the Grey Headed Flying Fox are not removed”.

Cr Ben Buckley Dated: 23/06/17

RATIONALE

This species is now classified as ‘vulnerable’, in danger of extinction due to loss of habitat.

The Grey Headed Flying Fox plays an essential role in pollination of our hardwood forests.

If Council destroys roosting habitat, the refugees will be forced to relocate into residential areas with high cost to Council and residents.

At present these indigenous creatures are a natural part of the Mitchell River wildlife corridor. Situated in the heart of the city they could be a unique international tourist attraction.

Safety has been used as an excuse for roosting tree removal. Revegetation should retain wildness with fenced off areas around trees of genuine concern.

To justify removal of habitat during absence of these migratory creatures is like destroying the home of an interstate worker during his shift away.


3. Deferred Business

Nil

4. Councillor Reports


5. Officer Reports

5.1 Strong Communities

5.1.1 Council Policy Review – Footpath Trading Policy and Footpath Trading Procedures

Authored by Aaron Hollow, Manager Statutory Services Endorsed by Paul Holton, Director Development Document No 7222626 In Attendance Aaron Hollow, Manager Statutory Services

___________________________________________________________________________ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report seeks Council’s review and approval, with or without amendment, of its draft

revised Footpath Trading Policy and Footpath Trading Procedures, which is provided at

Appendix 1 and 2.

The existing Footpath Trading Policy and Footpath Trading Procedures approved in July 2013 are scheduled for review. A review of the policy and procedures has been undertaken. The review identified that no material changes to the policy were required however the procedures require some amendment to reduce duplication and provide clarity. The recommended changes to the procedures will provide Council officers and the community with a more simplified, clearer and contemporary document. The policy and procedures provide for the fair, orderly and safe use of roads, road related areas and public spaces within the shire. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. approves the Footpath Trading Policy as provided at Appendix 1; 2. notes the Footpath Trading Procedures as provided at Appendix 2; 3. authorises the Chief Executive Officer to amend the adopted Council policy and

procedures without formal Council consideration if amendment is required as a result of changes to officer titles or administrative changes that occur from time to time

OFFICER COMMENT / CONTEXT Discussion

Council approved the Footpath Trading Policy and Footpath Trading Procedures in July 2013. The policy establishes Council’s obligations under the General Local Law to ensure the effective administration and enforcement of footpath trading.


Section 98(1) of the Local Government Act 1989 provides that by instrument of delegation, Council may delegate to a member of staff any power, duty or function under the Local Government Act 1989 or any other Act, other than certain specified powers. To allow for the efficient administration of local law compliance Council has delegated responsibility to community laws officers. The Footpath Trading Procedures were developed to ensure consistency in the application of the Footpath Trading Policy. Council Plan Strong communities: Goal 3 East Gippslanders enjoy healthy lifestyles Council Policy The policy and procedures as adopted require a review to be undertaken by July 2017. Council Officers have undertaken the required review. During the period of operation there have been no significant changes to the General Local Law which would necessitate a change to the policy. The draft policy is provided at Attachment 1 and the final policy is provided at Appendix 1. The review identified amendments to the procedures to provide clarity. The draft procedures are provided at Attachment 2 and the final procedures are provided at Appendix 2.

Both documents remain consistent with the General Local Law and have been operating successfully since being implemented. Based on the review undertaken it is considered that the documents in their amended form are suitable to perform the intended function. Legislation

The policy and procedures are a response to Council’s obligations under the following Acts and Regulations:

Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006;

Disability and Discrimination Act 1992;

Environment Protection Act 1970;

Food Act 1984;

General Local Law 2011;

Information Privacy Act 2000;

Local Government Act 1989;

Planning and Environment Act 1987 (and the East Gippsland Planning Scheme);

Summary Offences Act 1966; and

Road Safety Road Rules 2009.


Community The policy and procedures seek to achieve a balance through accommodating the business community to utilise roads, road related areas and public spaces and ensuring community safety and the amenity of the public realm is maintained. Organisational

Financial

There are no financial implications associated with the review and adoption of the policy and procedures.

Human Resources

Council has delegated investigation and enforcement powers to Council’s Community Laws Officers. No change is proposed to the existing delegation.

Amenity/Environment

The procedures provide a useful tool for the community, businesses and council officers to understand and adhere to the safe use and public realm amenity standards.

Consultation It was not considered necessary to undertake community consultation as part of the review process as the policy and procedures are a response to Council’s legislative requirements. APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS Appendices

1. Final Footpath Trading Policy (2017 version) 2. Final Footpath Trading Procedures (2017 version) Attachments

1. Draft Footpath Trading Policy (2017 version) 2. Draft Footpath Trading Procedures (2017 version)


5.1.2 Council Policy Review – Compliance Policy

Authored by Aaron Hollow, Manager Statutory Services Endorsed by Paul Holton, Director Development Document No 7255056 In Attendance Aaron Hollow, Manager Statutory Services

__________________________________________________________________________ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report seeks Council’s review and approval, with or without amendment, of its draft

revised Compliance Policy, which is provided at Appendix 1.

The existing Compliance Policy approved in February 2014 is scheduled for review. A review of the policy has been undertaken. The review identified that no material changes to the policy were required, as there has been little change in the context or environment in which the policy operates. Some changes were required in order to update other policies referred to within the compliance policy. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. approves the Compliance Policy as provided at Appendix 1; and 2. authorises the Chief Executive Officer to amend the adopted Council policy and

procedures without formal Council consideration if amendment is required as a result of changes to officer titles or administrative changes that occur from time to time.

OFFICER COMMENT / CONTEXT Discussion Council approved the Compliance Policy on 4 February 2014. The policy establishes Council’s obligations to ensure the effective administration and enforcement of various Acts and regulations. Section 98(1) of the Local Government Act 1989 provides that by instrument of delegation, Council may delegate to a member of staff any power, duty or function under the Local Government Act 1989 or any other Act, other than certain specified powers.

To allow for the efficient administration of compliance duties Council has delegated responsibility to various officers generally Community Laws Officers, Environmental Health Officers and Building Officers. Council Plan

Strong Communities: Goal 3 East Gippslanders enjoy healthy lifestyles.


Council Policy The policy as adopted requires a review to be undertaken.

Council Officers have undertaken the required review. During the period of operation there

have been no significant changes to the various Acts and regulations which would necessitate

a change to the policy. The draft policy is provided at Attachment 1 and the final policy is

provided at Appendix 1.

Based on the review undertaken it is considered that the policy in its amended form is suitable to perform the intended function. Legislation The implications of this report have been assessed and are not considered likely to breach or infringe upon the human rights detailed in the Victorian Government’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

The policy is a response to Council’s obligations under the following Acts and Regulations:

Building Act 1993

Country Fire Authority Act 1958

Domestic Animals Act 1994

Environment Protection Act 1970

Food Act 1984

Impounding of Livestock Act 1994

Infringements Act 2006

Infringements Regulations 2016

Local Government Act,1989

Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008

Residential Tenancies Act 1997

Roads Management Act 2004

Summary Offences Act 1966

East Gippsland Shire Council Local Laws 2011

Road Safety Road Rules 2009

Community Council has a range of legislative requirements of which one is to ensure compliance with various Acts, regulations and other subordinate legislation.


The East Gippsland community expects Council where legislatively required to ensure compliance with Acts and regulations thereby protecting the amenity of the shire, providing a safer shire and protecting valuable environmental assets. Organisational

Financial

Nil Consultation

It was not considered necessary to undertake community consultation as part of the review process as the policy is a response to Council’s legislative requirements. APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS

Appendices 1. Final Compliance Policy Attachments

1. Draft Compliance Policy


5.1.3 Proposed lease of part of 10 Coates Road, Lakes Entrance to Lakes Entrance Men’s Shed Inc

Authored by David Scott, Property Adviser Endorsed by Maryanne Bennett, Director Corporate Document No 7254789 In Attendance Maryanne Bennett, Director Corporate ___________________________________________________________________________ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report seeks Council’s consideration of a report and recommendation by the Committee of Council convened in accordance with section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 (the

Act) to consider written submissions received in relation to the proposed lease of part of 10 Coates Road, Lakes Entrance to Lakes Entrance Men’s Shed Inc. (LEMS) for the purpose of providing community men’s shed activities. The lease term proposed is 15 years, comprising of three, five-year terms. At its meeting on 9 May 2017 (refer item 5.2.8) Council resolved to support the proposed lease, subject to public notice being given and any submissions received being considered in accordance with section 223 of the Act. The land to be occupied by LEMS is located at Evett Park, Lakes Entrance and comprises approximately 550m2. A locality plan indicating the proposed lease area is provided at Appendix 1.

Having considered the single submission received and the recommendation of the Committee of Council convened to hear and consider submissions, Council is now in a position to accept, reject or modify the Committee’s recommendation, which is that the subject land is not reasonably required for public access or any other public purpose and therefore, can be leased as originally proposed. RECOMMENDATION That Council, having convened a Committee of Council to consider submissions received in regard to the proposed lease of part of 10 Coates Road, Lakes Entrance to Lakes Entrance Men’s Shed Inc. in accordance with section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989, and having considered the recommendation of that Committee: 1. determines that the proposed lease of part of 10 Coates Road, Lakes Entrance,

comprising of approximately 550m2 as shown at Appendix 1, for the purposes of providing community men’s shed activities is consistent with the Local Government Act 1989 and Council’s Rental Policy for Council-owned and Council-managed Land:

2. approves the leasing of the land in accordance with the provisions of section 190

of the Local Government Act 1989; and


3. notes that officers will now:

a) formalise the lease agreement with Lakes Entrance Men’s Shed for a period of 15 years, based on three, five-year terms with an annual community rental commencing at $114.40 per annum (including GST); and

b) vary the Evett Park Committee of Management Inc. Management Agreement to reflect the separate occupation of the Lakes Entrance Men’s Shed and remove that area from the Committee of Management’s responsibility; and

c) write to the single submitter advising of Council’s decision.


In response to the public notice inviting written submissions on Council’s proposal to lease part of 10 Coates Road, Lakes Entrance to Lakes Entrance Men’s Shed Inc. (LEMS) for the purpose of providing community men’s shed activities, one submission was received (provided at Attachment 1). Provided with the submission were the signatures of 102 people who had

signed in support of the statement, “Please save our park and ban all buildings now and future”. No requests to speak in support of the submission were received. The written submission was considered at a meeting of a Committee of Council convened for the purpose and held on 27 June 2017. The Committee comprised the whole of Council, with a quorum of five Councillors.

Details of the issues raised in the submission, and the Committee of Council’s responses, are outlined in the table below:

Submission received Committee Response

Land should be retained as green open space.

The land known as Evett Park will still contain sufficient open space to allow for suitable recreation purposes.

The men’s shed should be placed on a more suitable site

The site was chosen as a result of a comprehensive review of available land in the Lakes Entrance township and is believed to be the most appropriate location for the men’s shed.

Council Plan 2017-2021

The recommendation of this report contributes to achieving the following community goals:

East Gippsland has connected, inclusive and vibrant communities.

East Gippslanders enjoy healthy lifestyles.

East Gippsland has safe, accessible and well utilised open spaces and built environments that reflect the priorities of our community.


Council Policy The proposed lease is consistent with the community rental provisions of Council’s Rental Policy for Council-owned and Council-managed Land. Legislation

The proposal to lease the subject land was publicly advertised and the submission received was considered by a Committee of Council in accordance with section 223 of the Act. The lease of the land has been undertaken and will be finalised in accordance with section 190 of the Act. The implications of this report have been assessed and are not considered likely to breach or infringe upon the human rights detailed in the Victorian Government’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. Community It is believed that the site at Evett Park will provide an outstanding space for the construction of the Lakes Entrance Men’s Shed and the conducting of activities and programs to achieve the men’s shed objectives. The creation of a men’s shed in Lakes Entrance is supported by the East Gippsland Municipal Health and Wellbeing Plan as an avenue for improved social inclusion, wellbeing and mental health for men in that community. Organisational

Financial

The occupation of the leased area as proposed is considered to be “community use” under the provisions of Council’s Rental Policy for Council-owned and Council-managed Land (the Policy). In accordance with the Policy, the rental will be set at the

current community rate of $114.40 per annum including GST.

The construction of the community men’s shed will be undertaken and funded by LEMS for and on behalf of Council. All operating costs associated with the occupation of the lease will be borne by the Lessee.

Planning Scheme and Strategies

Investigations with a cultural heritage advisor have concluded that the completion of a Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) will not be required as the construction of the men’s shed on the nominated location does not activate all the triggers associated with the requirement for a CHMP. As the works are deemed to be for and on behalf of Council, a planning permit for the works or the use will not be required.

Human Resources

There are no additional human resources requirements inherent in the proposal.


Consultation

All members of the public were entitled to make a submission in response to the public notice and section 223 hearing process. APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS

Appendices

1 Locality site plan Attachments

1. Copy of the written submission received and considered by the Committee of Council

on 27 June 2017. It is noted that the supporting document containing 102 signatures is not provided with this report, in the interests of retaining the privacy of the individual signatories. However, a full copy of the submission was provided to Councillors separately.


5.1.4 Home and Community Care Service Funding Agreements

Authored by Sascha Johns, Community Development Coordinator Endorsed by Kate Nelson, Director of Community and Strategic Development Document No 7231412 In Attendance Wayne Richards, Manager Community Programs

_______________________________________________________________________ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Home and Community Care program (HACC) is jointly funded by the Commonwealth and Victorian governments under the Home and Community Care Act (Commonwealth) 1985. In

Victoria, local councils also contribute significant funds and resources to HACC services. East Gippsland Shire Council makes an annual financial contribution to four major health service providers toward the provision of Home and Community Care (HACC) services. These services are critical to the health and wellbeing of community members with moderate, severe or profound disabilities, and their unpaid carers. The current funding agreements for Council contribution to HACC service providers end on 30 June 2017. This report seeks endorsement to enter into new funding contracts with these providers for the 2017/2018 financial year, and to authorise the Chief Executive Officer to exercise an option for a further 12 months should this be appropriate. The reasoning for the relatively short term of the funding agreement is due to the changing environment created by the roll out of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The terms of the agreements have minimal change from the existing agreements. A recommendation has been made to remove a previously included financial cap from two of the agreements to ensure consistency across all service providers. The proposed budget for 2017/18 was set based on the existing funding agreements and therefore the endorsement of these agreements, including the proposed changes, will have limited implications on the 2017/18 budget. RECOMMENDATION That Council:

1. Enters into funding service agreements with Omeo District Health; Orbost Regional

Health Service; and Mallacoota and District Health and Support Service (the Recipients) to provide annual funding equal to 25% of the grants (excluding GST) provided to the Recipients by the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services and Australian Department of Health for the performance of the nominated Home and Community Care activities for the 2017-2018 financial year generally in accordance with the draft agreement at Appendix 1;

2. Enters into a funding service agreement with Gippsland Lakes Community Health

(the Recipient) to provide annual funding equal to 25% of the grants (excluding GST) provided to the Recipient by the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services and Australian Department of Health for the performance of the nominated


Home and Community Care activities and any grants or allocations provided by the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services to fund the employment of one Community Service Organisation Coordinator for the 2017-2018 financial year generally in accordance with the draft agreement at Appendix 2; and

3. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to exercise options for a further funding

service agreement period, not exceeding 12 months, for the 2018-2019 financial year for the Omeo District Health; Gippsland Lakes Community Health; Orbost Regional Health; and Mallacoota and District Health and Support Service agreements.

OFFICER COMMENT / CONTEXT Discussion The HACC Review Agreement (2007), is an agreement between the Commonwealth Government and the State that sets out the responsibilities under the Home and Community Care Act 1985 to support people to remain in their own homes and communities. Under this agreement, HACC services target older and frail people with moderate, severe or profound disabilities and younger people with moderate, severe or profound disabilities, and their unpaid carers. HACC services provide basic support and maintenance to people living at home to help avoid premature or inappropriate admission to long-term residential care. The HACC program aims to:

• provide a coordinated and integrated range of basic maintenance and support services for frail aged people, younger people with disabilities and their carers;

• support these people to be more active and independent at home and in the

community, thereby enhancing their quality of life and/or preventing inappropriate admission to long-term residential care; and

• provide flexible, timely and responsive services.

The majority of local governments in Victoria deliver HACC services directly, in East Gippsland Shire however, rather than the Shire delivering the service the funding is directed to health service providers by the Commonwealth and Victorian governments to deliver HACC. These health services providers are:

• Gippsland Lakes Community Health: delivering HACC services to Bairnsdale; Lakes Entrance area; Paynesville area; Eagle Point; Newlands Arm; Bengworden; Lindenow and surrounds; Bruthen; Buchan and Nowa;

• Orbost Regional Health Services: delivering HACC services to Orbost to Cann

River and surrounds, including the Tubbut, Bonang and Bendoc areas; • Omeo District Health: delivering HACC services to Omeo and district; and

• Mallacoota and District Health and Support Service: delivering HACC services to

Mallacoota and Genoa districts. The model of East Gippsland’s service delivery was independently reviewed in 2012 (Pivotal Point Consulting Services and Impact Consulting Group August 2012) where the current model was determined as the most cost effective and efficient way of delivering services to an aging and dispersed community. The health services delivering HACC have proven effective


and have the additional benefit of being able to package the delivery of other services into the one client visit. Recent and upcoming HACC changes: Prior to July 2016, all Victorian HACC services were funded by the Victorian Government. In July 2016 the responsibility for services for people aged 65 and over changed from being a Victorian Government responsibility to being directly managed by the Commonwealth Government. Services for people aged under 65 continue to be funded and managed solely by the Victorian Government, which will remain the case until the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is in full operation. The NDIS is scheduled to be implemented in East Gippsland in January 2019, and to be in full operation in July 2019. The implications of these changes and transition period are expected to be wide reaching however the full impact of these changes on the community or service providers is not fully known. An action task force has been established in Gippsland to develop strategy for the service providers through this period of transition. Shire Contribution: In addition to the funding provided by the State and Commonwealth governments, East Gippsland Shire Council contributes significantly to HACC services. Funding agreements are currently in place with the identified service providers, under these agreements EGSC contributes an amount that is 25% of the funding received by the service provider from the State and Commonwealth governments. As the Gippsland Lakes Community Health Service provides a very large HACC service to the East Gippsland community they may also be eligible for additional coordination resources which Council has also contributed toward in the past. It should be noted that under the most recent agreements, two of these contracts, Orbost Regional Health, and Mallacoota and District Health and Support Service, this contribution has been capped. It is recommended however, that the caps be removed to ensure a consistent approach across all four service providers Council is funding. The removal of this cap is expected to have no impact on the Orbost Regional Health contribution as the anticipated contribution is below the current cap. The removal of the cap for Mallacoota Regional Health is expected to increase the contribution required by Council from $12,000 to $18,500. A Draft Funding Service Agreement for each organisation can be found at Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 of this report. The 2015/16 contracts were endorsed by Council at the 2 June, 2015 Ordinary Council Meeting (Refer to Item 5.1.1) and included an option to extend an additional year. This option was actuated meaning that the current agreements between EGSC and the health service providers expire on 30 June 2017. The duration of the agreements was designed to accommodate for the rollout of the NDIS, which at that stage was proposed for June 2016, but has since been pushed out to January 2019. To inform the Shire’s role and contribution as a result of these changes, a review of the role and financial contribution of Council beyond June 2019 with the implementation of the NDIS will be required once the impact of the changes on the service providers is better understood.


The four service providers have confirmed their funding for HACC services from the Victorian and Commonwealth governments will remain consistent until June 2019. Council Plan

Strong Communities – Goal 3 East Gippslanders enjoy healthy lifestyles Community

The funding provided by Council has been vital in allowing service providers to maintain levels of service in an environment that would have seen the level and frequency of support decreased otherwise. Service providers have indicated they consider the Council contribution imperative, especially through the current transition period. Organisational

Financial The 2017/18 draft Council budget includes an allocation for HACC of $642,600. This amount was based on the terms of the current agreements. Implications from the endorsement of these agreements will have no expected negative impact on the budget, with Council contribution estimated to be $625 000 (allowing for minor increases). These calculations have been determined through consultation with the four HACC service providers and their known funding for 2017-2018 financial year, with very similar funding expected for the 2018-2019 financial year. Confirmation of funding for the 2018-2019 financial year will be determined closer to that period and will inform the extension of the funding agreement for a further 12 months.

Consultation Consultation with the four aforementioned service providers, funding bodies (Department of Health and Human Services and Australian Department of Health), and the Municipal Association of Victoria have informed the recommendations. Ongoing consultation will be required periodically with these stakeholders to understand the full impact of the changes occurring for community and service providers, particularly with the rollout of the NDIS in January 2019. APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS

Appendices 1. Draft Funding Agreement applicable to Orbost Regional Health, Omeo District Health

and Mallacoota and District Health and Support Service 2. Draft Funding Agreement for Gippsland Lakes Community Health Service Attachments

Nil


5.1.5 Maternal and Child Health Funding Service Agreements

Authored by Sascha Johns, Community Development Coordinator Endorsed by Kate Nelson, Director of Community and Strategic Development Document No 7234222 In Attendance Wayne Richards, Manager Community Programs

_______________________________________________________________________ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Maternal and Child Health Service (MCH) is a primary care service for Victorian families with children from birth to school age. The service is provided in partnership with the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV), local government and the Department of Education and Training (DET) with the aim to promote healthy outcomes for children and their families. Across Victoria, a significant number of local governments deliver MCH services directly. In East Gippsland however, the funding is directed to health service providers. East Gippsland Shire Council makes an annual financial contribution to the providers of MCH, these being Gippsland Lakes Community Health (GLCH) and Orbost Regional Health (ORH). Under the current contracts EGSC funds 50% of the provider’s Universal MCH service, with DET funding the other 50%. This is in accordance with an MOU that is in place between MAV and DET. Universal services support families in the areas of parenting, health and development, promotion of health, wellbeing and safety, social supports, referrals and linking with local communities. In addition to universal MCH services, there are “enhanced services” available for families with greater needs however this enhanced service does not receive funding from EGSC. The current funding agreements with Gippsland Lakes Community Health and Orbost Regional Health for the provision of universal MAC services expires on 30 June 2017. This report seeks endorsement to enter into new funding agreements with these providers from 1 July 2017 for term of three years. RECOMMENDATION

That Council enters into funding service agreements with Orbost Regional Health and Gippsland Lakes Community Health to the amount equal of any grants or allocations (excluding GST) provided to the Recipient by the Victorian Department of Education and Training for the performance of the Care Activities (specified as Maternal and Child Health Services – Universal) generally in accordance with the draft Agreement at Appendix 1 commencing 1 July 2017 for a three (3) year term.


OFFICER COMMENT / CONTEXT Discussion Universal Services (co funded by EGSC) The universal MCH service supports families in the areas of parenting, health and development, promotion of health, wellbeing and safety, social supports, referrals and linking with local communities. It offers ten free Key Ages and Stages consultations. At each of these consultations, parents are given the opportunity to discuss their concerns, parenting experiences, and how to optimise their child’s health, growth and development. It should be noted that immunisation is separate to this service with East Gippsland Shire Council (EGSC) being responsible for immunisation across East Gippsland, working closely with the MCH service providers. The universal MCH funding is determined by two factors, the number of births in the previous 12-month period and the unit price. The birth data is collated and reported to DET in March on an annual basis by the MCH service providers and the unit price is indexed at a 2.5 per cent increase annually. For this reason, unless there are major variations in the numbers of babies born across East Gippsland, the level funding provided will remain relatively stable. GLCH have indicated they have had steady numbers of births and their projections are that this will continue unless there are any major economic impacts or changes that would see a shift in the demographics of East Gippsland. ORH however, have indicated a drop in births over the 2016-2017 financial year that will trigger a decrease in the funding they will receive for the coming 2017-2018 financial year from DET, and consequently the Council’s contribution. Enhanced Services (not funded by EGSC) The enhanced MCH service assertively responds to the needs of children and families at risk of poor outcomes, in particular where there are multiple risk factors. This service is provided in addition and provides a more intensive level of support, including short term case management in some circumstances. The recent Australian Government Budget released on 9 May 2017 provided an injection of additional funds in the enhanced MCH services There is also a MCH telephone line that provides advice and support to families with young children 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This telephone line is fully funded by DET and the MCH nurses who deliver the service are employed by DET. Memorandum of Understanding The MCH Service Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the MAV and the DET was first agreed to in 2000, and has been periodically reviewed and updated by the State Government and MAV (on behalf of local government) since this time. The current MCH Service MOU commenced 31 March 2017 and concludes 31 December 2020. A copy of the MOU is provided at Attachment 1 of this report. Principles to guide the funding of the Victorian MCH Service are outlined in the MOU. Specifically, it states that state and local government will contribute equally (50:50) to the hourly price for the Universal MCH Service. The current, and proposed funding agreements align with these principles. A draft funding agreement is provided for information at Appendix 1 to this report.


Council Plan

Strong Communities – Goal 3 East Gippslanders enjoy healthy lifestyles Community The funding provided by Council has been vital in allowing Maternal and Child Health service providers to maintain levels of service. Organisational

Financial

The 2017/18 draft Council budget includes an allocation for MCH of $323 600. This amount was based on the terms of the current agreements therefore there are no financial implications from the endorsement of the proposed agreements. In accordance with the MOU, the funding provided by DET will increase by an indexation rate of 2.5 per cent. An annual increase in the EGSC contribution of 2.5 per cent will therefore be required for the duration of the funding agreement. Consultation Consultation with GLCH and ORH service providers, the Department of Education and Training, and the Municipal Association of Victoria have informed the recommendation. APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS Appendices

1. Draft Funding Agreement Attachments 1. Memorandum of Understanding MAV and DET


5.1.6 Progress of the Implementation of Community Plans during 2016/17

Authored by Bruce Smith, Senior Social Planner Endorsed by Kate Nelson, Director Community and Strategic Development Document No 7236808 In Attendance Fiona Weigall, Manager Strategic Planning ___________________________________________________________________________ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides Council with an update on the progress of projects and objectives aligned to the community plans during the 2016/2017 year. It reports the quantum of projects and allocated spending as well as addressing the way in which Council has used the Community Vision to support or advocate for the objectives of those community plans. The report also discusses the community’s positive perceptions of Council’s role in the community planning processes and proposes the alignment of those processes with Council’s undertakings in establishing a place based planning framework. Community Plans were first developed in 2009, with there now being 11 adopted Community Plans for areas within the Shire including: Bemm River; Omeo and District; Buchan and District; Twin Rivers District; Paynesville and District; Mountain Rivers District; Orbost and District; Bruthen and District; Metung/Nungurner District; Nowa Nowa District; and Lindenow and District. Given their size and complexity Community Plans were not developed for either Bairnsdale or Lakes Entrance. At present there are no Community Plans covering the Lake Tyers Beach; Mallacoota; and Cann River areas. During 2016/17 303 actions were undertaken to implement aspects of the 11 adopted Community Plans. This reflected $8.72million of Council investment (no $ value was placed on actions undertaken using Council Officer time only). These actions are summarised in Appendix 1.

As well as working with the community to implement specific actions within a Community Plan, the plan is also a strong advocacy tool. In 2016/17 the Plans have been used to advocate for a range of community road safety upgrades and have resulted in VicRoads agreeing to invest heavily in the implementation of these priorities across a range of places and plans. Without the plans it would have been very difficult to attract this sort of commitment from the Victorian Government. With so many different communities, perceptions of the community plans differ from community to community and indeed individual to individual. Many of the communities are aware that the Community Plans are now five years old and are advocating for their plans to be reviewed and refreshed, or are undertaking such reviews themselves. With East Gippsland now having had Community Plans for five years, the success of the plans has been informally reviewed so that the organisation can continue to improve the way it plans with its local communities. This report outlines the proposed shift from Community Planning to Place Planning, recognising that this shift will enable East Gippsland Shire Council to develop


a coordinated, place-based planning framework for multiple remote areas within the Shire. It will enable the diverse communities across East Gippsland to participate in decision making about how their community operates, the facilities and services they access and the way they work with Council and other agencies to plan now and into the future within their chosen Place. The capacity and skill of community members to understand council planning processes and undertake their own data gathering activities and evidence based projects will also be developed through a range of capacity building activities. A Place Planning Toolkit will be developed to enable Council to undertake Place Planning across the shire with the diverse communities across East Gippsland RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. notes the expenditure of $8.72 million on 303 community plan actions in 2016/17

as detailed in Appendix 1; 2. notes the new approach being undertaken to review existing Community Plans

and re-badge these as Place Plans as outlined in this report; 3. notes the refined Place Planning boundaries to be used for future local planning

work, as detailed in Appendix 2; and 4. notes the high level advocacy and facilitation role of Council and Council

officers in the implementation of actions that support the outcomes in community plans.

OFFICER COMMENT / CONTEXT Discussion In 2009 East Gippsland Shire began working with communities throughout the Shire to develop Community Plans. By 2015 there were eleven adopted Community Plans for communities/places within East Gippsland being:

Omeo and District

Bruthen and District

Buchan and District

Metung/Nungurner District

Twin Rivers District

Nowa Nowa District

Paynesville and District

Lindenow and District

Mountain Rivers District

Bemm River

Orbost and District

Each plan has a range of actions and priorities that are worked on by both community groups and Council, with implementation of the community plan actions identified as a Major Initiative within the East Gippsland Shire Council Plan (2103 – 2017). Implementation ranges from specific capital works projects through to service delivery and working with the community on advocacy and capacity building initiatives.


Expenditure on Community Planning Actions The table below provides a brief summary of the number of Council led or supported actions linked to Community Plan objectives actioned within 2016/17. The estimate of expenditure does not include officer time, due to the difficulty of accurately recording time against projects. The 2016/17 Community Plan implementation is broken down into more detail in Appendix 1

and is reported against the objectives of each specific plan. In addition to the area or place-specific actions, there are also actions that are being undertaken at a shire wide level that also assist with the delivery of specific Community Plan actions.

The way in which the Community Vision and/or advocacy has been used to help communities achieve Community Plan objectives:

Community Plans are not only used to guide Council’s own resourcing and effort, they also play a role is supporting advocacy to other levels of government and decision makers. In 2016/17 the Community Plans have been used in particular to advocate for community safety – particularly road safety with the plan empowering local communities to build relationships with agencies such as Victoria Police and VicRoads and influence where these agencies spend their resources. This approach was used to address the road safety issues represented in a number of community plans where the responsible authority was VicRoads. It involves a holistic view of the road transport system and the interactions among roads and roadsides, travel speeds, vehicles and road users. As part of implementing this approach Council officers have worked with communities, VicRoads, and Victoria Police to plan for and implement road safety projects in 2016/2017. Council was also consulted in a major VicRoads upgrade project to provide direction on community engagement methods and practice. Communities have successfully advocated for VicRoads to spend considerable budget on addressing their issues. This is evident in the Twin River owns where VicRoads has already installed some safety treatments in Swan Reach and will shortly commence similar work in Johnsonville and Nicholson.

Community Plan / PlaceNumber of Actions

Value of actions undertaken

(excluding officer time)

Shire Wide 33 $1,812,601

Bemm River 8 $417,883

Bruthen 16 $165,910

Buchan 13 $165,563

Lindenow 25 $1,509,692

Metung-Nungurner 18 $1,346,338

Mountain Rivers 14 $764,766

Nowa Nowa 16 $157,900

Omeo and District 52 $1,629,400

Orbost and District 43 $1,767,126

Paynesville and District 41 $529,618

Twin Rivers 24 $263,630

TOTAL 303 $8,717,826


Where possible, actions and aspirations have been grouped together locally into larger projects capable of addressing multiple Community Planning actions. Examples of this include the redesign of the Orbost main street area and the preparation of the Metung Village Master Plan. Signage and wayfinding is often represented in community plans. Council has recently worked in both Buchan and Bruthen to fund wayfinding studies, design and construction, new town entry signs and sign rationalisation. Consultation with local communities have provided opportunities to refine those elements of community planning. Communities’ perceptions of the Community Plan process and Council’s role in it:

The Community Plans commenced in 2009 were Council’s first opportunity to involve the community in a coordinated approach to explore the future impacts for communities moving into the 21st century. It was intended to work directly with communities on the current and future challenges and opportunities they would face, economically and socially and to identify what the community wanted to see implemented in the coming years. There have been previous reports to Council on the outcomes of the work directly targeting those actions developed within community plans and there have been a series of short and medium term outcomes that have been directed by those action plans. Communities are becoming more aware of the capacity of various organisations, including Council, to deliver on their planned actions. As the planning is refined to be a realistic action plan that covers most of the Community’s high priorities, we are seeing communities becoming better equipped to articulate their needs and to participate in the project processes and partnerships that are essential to successful outcomes. In recent community planning activities within the Twin Rivers District, Council has been able to facilitate important conversations between the community and VicRoads on major road and safety works planned for the Princes Highway. Council’s role has been appreciated by the community group leading this work and it is building trust in the partnership between Council and the community. The functioning of Community Planning Groups has been assessed as part of the ongoing engagement with communities and we have been aware of the dynamic nature of such groups, especially where there are difficulties in maintaining a level of support for those groups. Where there has been a facilitated process these groups have been able to remain focussed on their goals and been able to work through issues relating to group decision making and partnership development. Council’s role as facilitator and provider of actions is being better understood by communities especially as we improve our communications and feedback opportunities. This year we have also commenced regular place-based e-newsletters Place Connect to keep communities informed of some of the council activity in their place. The feedback on the newsletters has been positive, though perhaps not enough linkage between the Place Connect newsletters and the Community Plans has been made. Many communities and groups including those in the Mountain and Rivers, Omeo, Twin Rivers, and Metung Nungurner Districts are now asking when their Community Plans will be reviewed and what the process for this will be. Other communities without current plans including Mallacoota and Cann River are similarly requesting that Community Plans be developed for their area. In other areas including Buchan and Glenaladale, the community has already begun a community led process or reviewing or developing a Community Plan.


Proposed next steps for Community Planning in East Gippsland:

The first phase of the Community Planning process for the East Gippsland Shire is coming to an end. Council officers have informally reviewed the Community Planning process and product and has identified many learnings from the first Community Planning process.

A total of 750 actions were identified from the original Community Plans. There was perhaps insufficient internal ownership and engagement in the development of the plans, and as a result the plans did not fully reflect what the organisation was already doing or planning to do within a community. This meant that the Community Plans frequently documented actions that were aspirations that sat on top of what the organisation was already doing. Often the resources or the ability to implement them was compromised. Going out to the community with a ‘blank page’ led to plans that were lists of infrastructure requests, rather than ways to better target and deliver community outcomes and shape future planning decisions for sustainable and thriving communities.

It is considered that there is a need to better understand the community’s current and future capacity and skills to drive and own the priorities within the Community Plans. Too much focus was on what we could build, not the collective capacity of the community and council to implement the plan. Through the review, it became apparent that Community Plans need to utilise what is already working within the community, rather than inventing new governance and community implementation structures. There was limited focus on developing a process for ongoing community ownership and involvement in the community planning process. This has meant many plans do not have key community drivers, leading to plans being shelved or remaining dormant. Some groups have disbanded, leaving a gap in the community concerning the implementation of the plan. Our experience to date has also indicates that there is a need to provide a clear and supportive process for communities to work across the multiple council departments for the implementation of community plans. Council departments need to understand their varied roles in implementing and integrating the community plans into council’s internal processes. Based on this informal review and the feedback from a variety of community groups it was concluded that the next generation of plans should: 1. Re-badge community plans as place plans so they are relevant to more of the

organisation and better align with Place Management and Service Reviews;

2. Realign planning to incorporate the whole of East Gippsland Shire and its 171 localities;

3. Be strategic in the reviewing of the plans because a simultaneous review process doesn’t allow for evaluation of the process and risks an approach that isn’t tailored to unique communities;

4. Start the development process internally, so that there is an organisational picture of what is already being planned and delivered at a place level. This can be discussed with the community and forms the basis of the place-based plan as a starting point;


5. Have very clear and concise action plans that are understood at a project or service level and are therefore easy to transition into business unit plans, budget initiatives and council’s capital works program;

6. Focus as much on capacity building and non-physical actions as building infrastructure so that the plans are assisting to foster community collaboration and participatory governance processes;

7. Ensure that the plans can deliver achievable outcomes, which work within the existing and future capacity of both the community and council.

Based on these findings a Project Management Plan has been developed for the next generation of plans to provide a planning framework that will deliver integrated place plans and build community capacity to participate effectively in place-based decision-making.

Funding applications have also been made to both the Australian and Victorian governments to pilot this new place planning approach in select places across the Shire. The funding applications have the working title of One Place One Plan. Place Planning Framework

Before embarking on One Place One Plan or any review of individual plans it was considered

important to firstly develop a new framework for delivery of Community/Place planning which enables Council to map the entire Shire and develop Place Plans that are actionable at both Local and District levels. Recent work undertaken by Council officers has identified a total of 171 localities across the shire. This localities listing has been developed using government gazetted localities, Victoria Place names reference documents and the working knowledge of Emergency Management, Services Centres and Strategic Planning. Using the 171 localities that make up East Gippsland, officers have developed 12 districts that cover the whole municipality’s geographical area these Place districts are provided as Appendix 2. The districts use geographical boundaries, service boundaries and social connections to make sense of the historical and natural connections that occur between localities. It also takes into account how the localities, settlements, villages and towns see themselves as a part of a larger planning district. These districts can then be used both for place planning purposes and as the logical areas for shire-wide plans such as Open Space Plans, Health and Wellbeing Planning and the revision of Youth and Early Years Plans. Importantly the new finance system to be used council will allow expenditure to be captured and analysed at this place level using the same place boundaries.

Place Planning Approach:

Resource limitations and a focus on learning and continuous improvement means that not all new Place Plans will be developed at once, instead Plans will be trialled in a small number of communities with a different focus with the aim that tools can be developed and then applied to the development of the next plans. Therefore, it is proposed to trial the new approach on the development of a Place Plan for the Cann River district and to renew the Twin Rivers Place Plan. Depending on the success of funding applications the Place Planning process would then be extended to Mallacoota; Omeo; and Mountain and Rivers (as a sub-set of the Orbost district).


To be effective, place plans need to address and deliver the following:

1. A clear picture of the existing physical and community assets (built and human) that are key to the community or place;

2. A mechanism that brings together the key plans that apply to a place and distils this into one plan providing a holistic approach to place. i.e. the place plan shouldn’t be one of a myriad of plans that applies to that place.

3. A mechanism for working through community priorities and accepted trade-offs for existing infrastructure, maintenance and services provided by Council;

4. A framework for understanding the role each stakeholder plays in the development of infrastructure, services and planning. i.e. the community, Council and other partner agencies;

5. Processes to build community capacity, self-determination and resilience; and

6. A comprehensive community profile that assist stakeholders to better understand the community’s characteristics and how to effectively engage with them.

Officers are currently working on the detail of a process to support the achievement of Place Plans that are designed to meet these objectives.

Council Plan Strong Communities – Goal 2 – Communities plan for their future The Community Plans address multiple goals within the Council Plan and have been identified as a Major Initiative within the 2017 – 2021 Council plan Community

The development and implementation of Community Plans has its foundations in community partnerships. Development of the plans involved significant consultation as has implementation of individual initiatives. Organisational

Financial

Each year the Council budgeting process considers the alignment of projects with community plan priorities and attempts to resource high priority actions across multiple plans. In 2016/17 this saw over $8.72 million of Council cash and attracted grants spent on implementing community plans. This figure does not include the cost of officer time. This represents approximately 10% of the total annual budget.

Human Resources

Initially funded in 2009 by Regional Development Victoria for three years, Council has continued to fund community planning through the Community Planning Project Officer and Community Engagement and Planning Officer positions. In total these positions


equate to 1.5 EFT, within the Strategic Planning Unit. In addition to these two dedicated officers, staff from throughout the organisation are responsible for implementing the initiatives outlined within the Community Plans.

Amenity/Environment

One of the key aims of community planning, is the opportunity for communities to prioritise and shape their own local environment and their level of amenity. Such opportunities are to be planned and developed in partnership, not only with Council but with other land and amenity managers. The outcomes of this prioritisation process will also ensure that Council and other agencies align their efforts to achieve the high levels of social benefit that place based planning can achieve

Consultation

An important part of the successful delivery of Community Plans is the opportunity Council provides for community members to participate in and be informed of engagement activities and planning exercises. This has occurred throughout East Gippsland in a variety of ways, specifically: • the use of online engagement tools, including valuable community surveys, under the

Your Say web portal; • use of Council’s full range of traditional engagement tools including media releases,

community notices; drop in sessions; mail outs etc.; • the introduction of well subscribed Community e-Newsletters Place Connect to a

number of communities throughout the region; and • Project specific engagement. The following example, of a recent consultation with the Metung community, highlights the multi-faceted community engagement strategies that Council undertakes when implementing Community Plan actions and the connection that is made back to the Community Plan itself:

Case Study: Metung Village Centre Master Plan Consultation

The public information period for Metung Village Centre Master Plan commenced on Friday 16 December 2016 and concluded 5pm Monday 20 February 2017.

The ‘invitation to comment’ e-newsletter was sent to 28 recipients using Mailchimp, including the Project Control Group.

The general community were informed via council’s standard processes of: media release, shire advertisement and hard copy display in Customer Service Centres.

Council ran a pop-up information stall at the February 2017 Farmers’ Market

The Your Say page received 810 visits during the consultation with 102 new registrations and 276 participants viewing multiple project pages.

A total of 96 surveys were received, with the majority being online via Your Say. There were 336 visitors to the Your Say Survey and 47 views of the Your Say Frequently Asked Questions.

The ‘closing the loop’ e-newsletter was sent to 132 subscribers, showing a subscriber increase of 371% from the first ‘invitation to comment’ newsletter.


APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS Appendices

1. Summary of Community Plan Outcomes 2016/2017

2. Place Planning Boundaries (revised) Attachments

Nil


5.2 A Liveable Region

5.2.1 Development Plan, 138 Palmers Road, 110 Palmers Road and 90 Palmers Road, Lakes Entrance

Authored by Nicole Reynolds, Strategic Planning Coordinator

Endorsed by Kate Nelson, Director Community and Strategic Development

Document No 7239260

In Attendance Fiona Weigall, Manager Strategic Planning

____________________________________________________________________

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to seek formal endorsement of an Independent Traffic Report

prepared in relation to one sub-precinct within the Lakes Entrance Northern Growth Area

Outline Development Plan (LENGA ODP) study area.

Officers commissioned the preparation of the Independent Traffic Report “Access Assessment

- Development East of Palmers Road Lakes Entrance Northern Growth Area” (15 July 2016)

by Cardno (the Report) to provide advice in relation to the transport infrastructure required to

support the development of a significant sub-precinct of the Lakes Entrance Northern Growth

area to the east of Palmers Road.

The subject land as described in the Independent Traffic Report refers relates to land at 54 Thorpes Lane (Merrangbaur Heights), part of land at 138 Palmers Road, 110 Palmers Road and 90 Palmers Road Lakes Entrance and comprises five parcels of land described as Properties 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 within the Lakes Entrance Northern Growth Area Outline Development Plan (LENGA ODP). The same Independent Traffic Report has been previously endorsed by Council as part of the approval of the development plan for the Merrangbaur Heights Residential Estate at 54 Thorpes Lane Lakes Entrance in February 2017 (refer Item 5.1.5). The Independent Traffic Report proposes in addition to the Development Contributions Plan and the Lakes Entrance Northern Growth Area a methodology to implement an equitable and fair distribution of the developer funded construction works associated with the road works for the sub-precinct. The endorsement of the Independent Traffic Report for more general use within the sub-precinct results in an orderly, fair, transparent and equitable approach to the provision of road infrastructure as part of future residential subdivision. The Independent Traffic Report will form part of the strategic documentation applying to the LENGA ODP.


RECOMMENDATION

That Council having considered all relevant planning matters endorses the Independent

Traffic Report “Access Assessment – Development East of Palmers Road Lakes

Entrance Northern Growth area July 2016 as provided at Appendix 1 as a Development

Plan and Development Contributions Plan for land located at 90 Palmers Road, 110

Palmers and part of 138 Palmers Road Lakes Entrance as described in Appendix 2.

OFFICER COMMENT / CONTEXT

Discussion

Planning Scheme Amendment C112 PART 1

The Independent Traffic Report refers specifically to five individual properties located with the

Lakes Entrance Northern Growth Area which was approved as part of the gazettal of Planning

Scheme Amendment C112 Part 1 in August 2014 into the East Gippsland Planning Scheme,

which implemented new strategic and statutory planning controls that guide the future

development of this part of Lakes Entrance.

Planning Scheme Amendment C112 Part 1 rezoned a total of 159 hectares for total net

residential area for residential purposes, implemented a development contributions plan

overlay (drainage scheme and community facilities), implemented a native vegetation precinct

plan, incorporated a development plan overlay and incorporated into the Municipal Strategic

Statement (MSS) an update residential strategy for Lakes Entrance and the Lakes Entrance

Northern Growth Area Outline Development Plan.

The approval of the Lakes Entrance Northern Growth Area Development Contributions Plan

did not include the provision of roads, intersections and gully crossing as part of the

Development Contribution Plan (DCP) as the decision was made at the time of preparation

that the construction of the required road and intersection infrastructure could be effectively

managed on a site by site basis. The DCP has been designed to address drainage

infrastructure and identified community facilities.

The DCP that relates to the Lakes Entrance Northern Growth Area does not include any

reference to road hierarchy, intersections, external road upgrades and creek/ gully crossings.

The benefit, however, of inclusion in a DCP is that it gives opportunity for the provision of road

infrastructure on a precinct basis and allows for a fair and equitable apportionment of the

financial costs associated with such items which ultimately benefit the overall precinct and in

this case improve the distribution of the traffic.

The subject land parcels are subject to an array of planning controls which require the

preparation and approval of a development plan and a suite of documents which require

compliance with the principles and requirements of the Outline Development Plan.


The LENGA Development Contributions Plan

In accordance with the Planning & Environment Act 1987 and the Ministers Direction on

Development Contributions, the DCP is required to make a distinction between “development”

and “community” infrastructure.

Items of infrastructure of a community or social nature can be classified as community

infrastructure whilst all other infrastructure required under a DCP is classified as development

infrastructure.

Contributions relating to community infrastructure are to be made by the landowner at the time

of building approval. Contributions relating to the community infrastructure will be paid on ‘per

dwelling’ rate. The rate is currently capped at $900 per dwelling (currently subject of a

planning scheme amendment to increase cap as increased by the Victorian Government).

Community Infrastructure identified in the DCPs includes the construction of an active open

space pavilion, construction of a multipurpose community centre, a library extension, an

extension to the aquadome, redevelopment of existing youth centre and development of a

senior citizens centre (these have triggers of 400, 600 or 800 lots created).

Contributions relating to development infrastructure are to be made by the developers at the

time of subdivision. Contributions relating to development infrastructure will be paid at a per

Net Developable Hectare rate in respect of the subject of the residential land.

The same strategic planning exercise identified 22 development infrastructure items which

were divided into 5 categories: land; active open space; drainage; community facilities; and

strategic planning costs. These items are generally triggered at number of lots created within

the whole of study area. Drainage infrastructure includes construction of drainage works

including retarding basins and wetlands, land acquisition for drainage works.

There are no road infrastructure provision items detailed within the current DCP neither,

apportionment of provision of major connector roads, provision of new intersections to existing

road hierarchy or upgrade of existing external road hierarchy.

This lack of inclusion of major road infrastructure within a DCP is unusual when compared to

standard strategic planning exercises across the Victorian context.

The Independent Traffic Report

The outcome of the Independent Traffic Report provided as Appendix 1 is to propose for the

sub-precinct the inclusion of key road infrastructure (four items) for the sub-precinct as part of

a development contribution plan at a strategic planning level. The area affected by the report

is detailed in Appendix 2.


Importantly this will have the effect and outcome of apportioning the costs across the whole of

the sub-precinct, rather than as present, leaving to cost of each item with the individual land

owners upon the land in which the infrastructure is to be constructed.

The report assumes a development approach that has been developed for each of the

properties in question and models the expected traffic volumes.

In order to facilitate the future development of the area east of Palmers Road as contemplated

in the LENGA ODP, road and intersection works will be required to provide appropriate road

capacity and ensure permeable local street network. The report makes recommendations that

the entire sub-precinct is able to be satisfactory served by the provision of two (2) higher order

access street connections to Palmers Road (intersections 13, 11 and 10) see Appendix 2.

As such it is proposed that development contributions from the broader area would be

allocated for two intersections, notionally 11 and 13 if the entire area develops, or in the event

that the land that is currently Farming Zone is not changed, an allocation would be made to

intersection 10.

To ensure the timely provision of the intersections and gully crossings required, it is

recommended that a development contributions plan be established, with funds collected for

future subdivisions in the area, including Lot 31, to provide for the required works.

The contribution fund, administered on a per lot basis, should be structured to fund the

construction of the two recommended intersections to Palmers Road as progressively required

to provide access to properties fronting Palmers Road, with the two creek crossings being

constructed towards the completion of the development of the area to provide a desirable local

connectivity and reduce traffic connections to Stirling Road and Thorpes Lane

The contribution to the four projects, on a per lot basis is equivalent to $2,588 per lot.

The Report provides a contingency in the event that property 27 and the northern portion of

property 28 (currently zoned Farming Zone) are required to also form part of a modified

development contributions plan.

The development contribution would be levied though the execution of a legal agreement

pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, which will relate to each

of the affected properties, at the time of approval of a development plan and/ or subdivision

planning permits.

Council Plan

A liveable region – Goal 1 – East Gippsland has safe, accessible and well utilised open

spaces and built environments that reflect the priorities of our community.


Council Policy

There are many existing adopted Council Policies relevant to the matter at hand including the

following:

Lakes Entrance Coastal Towns Urban Design Framework (2007);

East Gippsland Shire Council Plan 2013-2017;

East Gippsland Social Impact Guidelines for Development Applications;

East Gippsland Water Sensitive Urban Design policy;

East Gippsland Shire Access & Mobility Plan;

Infrastructure Design Manual; and

East Gippsland Shire Council Development Plan Overlay Policy.

Legislation

The development plan requires approval in accordance with Section 149(1)(a) of the Planning

& Environment Act 1987, being a matter that requires consideration and endorsement to the

satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.




Community

The endorsement of the Independent Traffic Report sets a benchmark for development

contributions and results in a fair and equitable apportionment of the costs associated with key

road infrastructure premised upon a sub-precinct approach. The outcome results in a fairer

distribution of the development expenses associated with future subdivision and this approach

is proposed to facilitate a good planning outcome for future residents of this area.

There is considered to be a net community benefit to implement the additional development

contributions plan.

Organisational

Financial

An independent peer review of the traffic management both currently and to provide guidance

into the longer term for precinct based transport planning objectives has been commissioned

and paid for in full. There are no further costs associated with the report itself.

The implications and recommended solutions proposed by the report will benefit the whole of

the sub-precinct and provide a sound strategic framework and basis for future decision making

relating to the sub precinct.


The Independent Traffic Report recommends that a development contribution fund,

administered on a per lot basis should be structured to fund the construction of the

recommended two intersections to Palmers Road as progressively required to provide access

to property fronting Palmers Road, with the two gully crossings being constructed towards the

completion of the development of the area to provide desirable local connectivity and recue

traffic concentrations to Stirling Drive and Thorpes Lane.

The development contribution fund would be administered by Council.

Overall and premised upon the proposed lot yield within the precinct, the contribution over the

five land holdings is on a per lot basis is equivalent to $2,588.00 per to and includes the

Merrangbaur Heights Residential Estate.

Consultation

The Independent Traffic report formed part of the community consultation associated with the

consideration of the Merrangbaur Heights development plan. The Independent Traffic Report

formed part of the material made available to the public as part of the consultation process.

In addition, individual meetings were conducted with the affected land owners to discuss the

implications of the approval of the Independent Traffic Report. Each of the land owners and

their respective advocates has been provided with a copy of the Independent Traffic Report.

There were no written submissions received from the land owners affected by the proposed

development contributions.

Consideration of Item number 5.1.5 at Council Meeting of 7 February 2017, addressing the

approval of a Development Plan for the Merrangbaur Estate, attracted written and oral

submissions. These submissions formed part of the previous consideration of the matter.

Endorsement of the Report at this time is consistent with the decision made by Council in

respect to the Merrangbaur Estate.

It is not considered necessary to conduct further community consultation in relation to this item

other than to inform affected land owners of the outcome of this report to Council.

APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS

Appendices

1. “Access Assessment – Development East of Palmers Road, Lakes Entrance Northern Growth Area (July 2016), Cardno.

2. Table of affected land holdings and diagram of proposed intersections.

Attachments

Nil


5.2.2 Proposal to end Section 173 Agreement AF202923J – 75 Paynesville Road, Paynesville

Authored by Martin Ireland, Senior Statutory Planner Endorsed by Paul Holton, Director Development Document No 7234176 In Attendance Aaron Hollow, Manager Statutory services ___________________________________________________________________________ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report seeks Council approval to end an Agreement made under Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act). Specifically, Agreement AF202923J wholly as it

applies to land at 75 Paynesville Road Paynesville. The Agreement was lodged on Title in 2007 as a condition of planning permit 94/2007/P. Planning permit 583/2004/P gave consent for a multi lot subdivision that includes land bounded by Paynesville Road and Newlands Drive. The later permit 94/2007/P was for a two lot subdivision to create two large land parcels and was the catalyst for the Agreement to be entered into to ensure the two larger lots respected the multi lot subdivision. In February 2017, Council issued planning permit 392/2016/P which allowed the use and development of land for the purpose of a residential village. The permit was issued under delegation. A condition of this permit required that Agreement AF202923J be ended for the permit to have any force or effect. Until the Agreement is ended, the land may only be developed in accordance with the endorsed plans of the original subdivision permit. Following on from Council giving in principle support to end the Agreement, all parties to the Agreement have been notified. To date, no submissions have been received. It is considered that the proposal to end the Agreement is acceptable and is suitable for Council support. Ending the Agreement will facilitate the orderly development of the approved residential village, and successfully addresses the tests under the Act. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. determines to end Section 173 Agreement AF202923J wholly as it applies to 75

Paynesville Road, Paynesville,

2. advises the land owner in writing as to Council’s decision to approve the proposal to end Section 173 Agreement AF202923J wholly as it applies to 75 Paynesville Road, Paynesville; and

3. advises the land owner that all costs associated with the ending of the Agreement must be borne by the land owner.



Agreement AF202923J was lodged on the title as a result of the conditions placed on planning permit 94/2007/P to ensure that the multi lot subdivision was undertaken in an orderly manner. A map indicating the land to which the agreement applies is contained in Attachment 1. A copy of the agreement as it currently stands is contained in Attachment 2.

In the intervening years, a higher and better land use has come forward. Council has consented to the development of the land for a residential village via planning permit 392/2016/P. It was viewed that a residential village is compatible with the wider vision and strategic direction for Paynesville. The residential village as approved was considered to be suitable within the context of the site, locality and zoning. For planning permit 392/2016/P to have any force or effect, Agreement AF202923J must be ended wholly as it applies to the land. Subject Site Land Location

The subject site is located west of Paynesville and is bounded by Paynesville Road to the north and Ashley Street to the south. ‘The Coast’ estate has been developed to the west and Council has also approved a child care centre on Ashley Street. Adjoining land is used for residential purposes with the exception of a garden supplies centre adjoining the north east corner of the site. The subject land is 9 hectares in size and is largely flat with no distinguishing features.

Figure 1 – The site highlighted and surrounds.


Description of Proposal Council has received a proposal to end the Agreement relating to Lot 10 on PS742846B wholly as it applies to the land. The applicant explains that the Agreement is redundant in light of planning permit 392/2016/P that consents to the development of a residential village. The applicant elected to proceed under Section 178A of the Act as the Agreement of all parties to the Agreement was not obtained when the proposal was lodged with Council. Current Status

Council gave in principle support to the ending of the Agreement at the 9 May 2017 Ordinary Council Meeting. All parties to the Agreement were notified by direct mail in accordance with Section 178A(3) of the Act on 29 May 2017. After a period of at least 14 days, no submissions were received. Council Plan A Liveable Region: Goal 2 - Sustainable planning and growth supports thriving townships,

while maintaining our commitment to sustainability and protecting our natural environment. Council Policy The Council Plan 2013-2017 identifies at strategic objective 2.2.2 that ‘Our built environment will adapt to changing needs and conditions’. The ending of the Agreement reflects the desire for the site to adapt to changing needs. The residential subdivision previously approved for the site has not proceeded and an alternate development in the form of a residential village has been approved. The approved development represents the site responding to the changing needs of the locality. Legislation




The proposal to end the Section 173 Agreement has been submitted pursuant to Section 178A of the Act. A proposal submitted under this Section of the Act, pursuant to Section 178B must be considered against set requirements. An assessment against these requirements is as follows: The purpose of the Agreement

The Agreement was entered into as a result of a planning permit condition. The planning permit related to a wider multi lot residential subdivision. The residential village does not compromise the strategic vision for the area or undermine the intent of the Agreement on the balance of land where it applies.


The Agreement states: 3. SPECIFIC OBLIGATIONS OF THE OWNER

3.1 Compliance with other permits The Owner agrees that regardless of any rights conferred by the Planning Scheme, except with the prior written consent of Council, the Subject Land, or any part of it, must only be subdivided in a manner which depicts a lot layout and title boundaries which are: 3.1.1 generally in accordance with the configuration and layout of the subdivision

authorised by planning permit no. 583/2004/P/A (First Subdivision Permit) issued by Council and the various conditions included in that planning permit. A copy of the First Subdivision Permit is available for inspection at Council offices during normal business hours upon giving the Council reasonable notice; and

3.1.2 wholly in accordance with the plans from time to time endorsed pursuant to

condition 1(b) of the First Subdivision Permit, which shows the required staging of the subdivision authorised by that permit.

The purpose of the Agreement was to ensure that the approved residential subdivision was undertaken in an orderly fashion in accordance with the approved plans. Whether and why the Agreement is no longer required

The purpose of planning is to provide for the fair and orderly development of Victoria. Planning permit 392/2016/P approved the use and development of the site for the purpose of a residential village. The approved development is considered to be an orderly development. The approved residential village is considered to be appropriate within the context of the site, locality and zoning. As such, it is considered that the Agreement as it relates to the subject site is no longer required. Whether the ending of the Agreement would disadvantage any person, whether or not a party to the Agreement

It is considered that the ending of the Agreement would not disadvantage any person whether party to the Agreement or not. The proposal to end the Agreement as it relates to 75 Paynesville Road, Paynesville, was notified to all parties to the Agreement and no submissions were received. The reasons why the responsible authority entered into the Agreement

The responsible authority entered into the Agreement to ensure the orderly development of the residential subdivision. The proposal to end the Agreement as it relates to 75 Paynesville Road Paynesville is sensible given the property is vacant and is subject to a subsequent approval for an alternate development. Any relevant permit or other requirements the land is subject to under the Subdivision Act 1988.

It is considered that no matters under the Subdivisions Act 1988 will be impacted upon by this proposal. Any other prescribed matter


The Act is prescriptive as to the processing and consideration of proposals to end Section 173 Agreements. In accordance with Section 178E(2) if no objections are made under Section 178D, the responsible authority may, after considering the matters in Section 178B – (a) amend or end the Agreement in accordance with the proposal. Organisational

Financial

Nil

Amenity/Environment

In light of the consideration above, there are no foreseen impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining area.

Consultation

The proposal to end the Agreement was made subject to the notice provisions of the Act. All parties to the Agreement have been notified and no submissions have been received. APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS

Appendices Nil Attachments

1. Locality plan 2. Legal Agreement AF202923J


5.2.3 Proposal to end Section 173 Agreement AD851558A – 27 Golf Links Road, Lakes Entrance

Authored by Martin Ireland, Senior Statutory Planner Endorsed by Paul Holton, Director Development Document No 7229289 In Attendance Aaron Hollow, Manager Statutory services ___________________________________________________________________________ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report seeks Council approval to end an Agreement made under Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act). Specifically, Agreement AD851558A wholly as

it applies to 27 Golf Links Road, Lakes Entrance. The Agreement was lodged on title in 2005 as a condition of a planning permit that sought to subdivide the land for residential development. For a variety of reasons, the development was not fully progressed, and the land remains vacant. The Agreement states that the land may only be developed in accordance with the endorsed plans of the now expired permits. Following on from the Council giving in principle support to end the Agreement, all parties to the Agreement have been notified. To date, no submissions have been received. It is considered that the proposal to end the Agreement is acceptable and is suitable for Council support. Ending the Agreement will facilitate the orderly development of the subject site and successfully addresses the tests under the Act. RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. determines to end Section 173 Agreement AD851558A wholly as it applies to 27

Golf Links Road, Lakes Entrance,

2. advises the land owner in writing as to Council’s decision to approve the proposal to end Section 173 Agreement AD851558A wholly as it applies to 27 Golf Links Road, Lakes Entrance and

3. advises the land owner that all costs associated with the ending of the Agreement must be borne by the land owner.


Agreement AD851558A was lodged on the Title of 27 Golf Links Road as a result of the conditions placed on planning permits 243/2004/P and 103/2005/P. The Agreement was placed on Title as a way to ‘lock in’ the development and to ensure that a consistent form of development occurred.


In the intervening years, the land to the west was subsequently developed resulting in two established dwellings at 25A and 25B Golf Links Road Lakes Entrance. The balance of the land was not developed and to date remains vacant. Council, at its meeting of 6 June 2017, approved Planning Permit application 413/2016/P for use and development of 27 Golf Links Road for a service station, convenience restaurant, carwash and associated facilities. The development as approved was not consistent with the Agreement as it appears on the title for 27 Golf Links Road. As such, a condition of the permit was applied requiring the applicant to end the Agreement prior to commencement of the development. Subject site land location

The subject site is located north east of the commercial centre of Lakes Entrance along the Princes Highway. The site is at the intersection of the Highway and Golf Links Road. The land is vacant, having previously contained the Kinkuna Country Fun Park and Zoo between the 1980’s and 1990’s.

Figure 1 – The site highlighted and surrounds


Figure 2 – The subject site (image courtesy of Google maps)

The area is within the sewered district and has access to reticulated water, electricity and telecommunications. Adjoining properties feature dwellings or are vacant. Across the Highway is St Brendan’s Primary School. A plan that includes details of the site location and the location of properties given notice of the proposal is provided at Attachment 1. Description of Proposal

Council has received a proposal to end the Agreement relating to Lot A on PS535111H wholly as it applies to the land. The applicant explains that the Agreement is redundant in light of the permits that they relate to having expired and not been acted upon. The applicant also claims that keeping the restrictive Agreement on title is unreasonable as it burdens the land by preventing further/different developments. The applicant elected to proceed under Section 178A of the Act as the Agreement of all parties to end the legal Agreement was not obtained when the proposal was lodged with Council. Current Status

Council gave in principle support to the ending of the Agreement at the 4 April 2017 Ordinary Council Meeting. All parties to the Agreement were notified by direct mail in accordance with Section 178A(3) of the Act on 1 May 2017. After a period of at least 14 days, no submissions were received. No other referrals or notices were required.


It is noted that the Agreement also afforded protection to the ‘rainforest’ area to the north east of the lot. A condition of planning permit 412/2016/P (7 lot subdivision) binds the applicant to enter into a new Agreement that solely serves the purpose of prohibiting the removal of vegetation or damage to the wetlands. As such, this protection will remain via a different and new Agreement. Council Plan A Liveable Region - Goal 2 Sustainable planning and growth supports thriving townships, while maintaining our commitment to sustainability and protecting our natural environment.

Council Policy The Council Plan 2013-2017 identifies at strategic objective 2.2.2 that Our built environment will adapt to changing needs and conditions.’ The removal of the subject Agreement reflects

the desire for the site to adapt to changing needs. The residential development approved for the site has not proceeded and an alternate use for the site has been approved which reflects a changed need and demand for services in the locality. Legislation The implications of this report have been assessed and are not considered likely to breach or



The proposal to end the Section 173 Agreement has been submitted pursuant to Section

178A of the Act. A proposal submitted under this Section of the Act, pursuant to Section 178B

must be considered against set requirements. An assessment against these requirements is

as follows:

The purpose of the Agreement The Agreement was entered into as a result of planning permit conditions relating to two previously issued permits (243/2004/P and 103/2005/P) which were granted for a 35 dwelling development and subdivision of land. The permits have expired and the land remains vacant. The Agreement states that: The Owner with the intent that the covenants hereunder shall run with land hereby covenant and agree that they (which term shall include the Owner or owners of the land or any part thereof from time to time):

(a) Covenants that the rainforest area shown to be retained and planted in the approved landscaping plans shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscaping maintenance plan; and

(b) Covenants that it or its successors in Title will contribute to any future special rates and charges scheme for the upgrade of Golf Links Road, Lakes Entrance when required by the Responsible Authority.

(c) Covenants that the lots approved for development pursuant to Planning Permit No. 103/2005/P will only be developed in accordance with the Plans endorsed as part of Planning Permit 243/2004/P.


In simple terms, the Agreement ‘locked in’ the development as approved by 243/2004/P and prevents any other use, development and subdivision. Planning permit 243/2004/P has now expired having not been acted upon. The Agreement will, for as long as it remains on title, prevent any other land use, development or subdivision. It is clear that the Agreement was entered into by the developer and Council to ensure that orderly planning, protection of the environment and a pleasant living environment were maintained based on the land being used for the approved residential development. Whether and why the Agreement is no longer required

The purpose of planning is to provide for the fair and orderly development of Victoria. It is considered that the Agreement is no longer required as it unreasonably restricts the future development of the land that could otherwise come forward under the provisions of the planning scheme. At its meeting of 6 June 2017, Council approved an application (413/2016/P) for use and development of the site for the purpose of a service station, convenience restaurant, car wash and associated facilities. The approval of the application demonstrates that the site is suitable for uses other than that approved in 243/2004/P. As such it is considered that the Agreement is no longer required. Whether the ending of the Agreement would disadvantage any person, whether or not a party to the Agreement

It is considered that the ending of the Agreement would not disadvantage any person either party to the Agreement or not. The proposal to end the Agreement as it relates to 27 Golf Links Road was notified to all parties to the Agreement and no submissions were received. The reasons why the responsible authority entered into the Agreement The responsible authority entered into the Agreement to ensure the orderly development of the approved residential subdivision. The removal of the Agreement will permit alternate development options to be considered for the site. Any relevant permit or other requirements the land is subject to under the Subdivision Act 1988.

It is considered that no matters under the Subdivisions Act 1988 will be impacted upon by this

proposal. Any other prescribed matter

As a part of planning application 413/2016/P, Council included permit conditions that requires the applicant to reconstruct Golf Links Road and to construct a footpath on the south side of Golf Links Road. The ending of this Agreement will establish the legal ability to develop the land in a manner different to what the Agreement permitted. As there are additional community benefits, it is considered that the ending of the Agreement is a good outcome.


The Act is prescriptive as to the processing and consideration of proposals to end Section 173 Agreements. In accordance with Section 178E(2) if no objections are made under Section 178D, the responsible authority may, after considering the matters in Section 178B – (a) amend or end the Agreement in accordance with the proposal. Organisational

Financial

Nil

Amenity/Environment

In light of the consideration above, there is no foreseen impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining area.

Consultation The proposal to end the Agreement was made subject to the notice provisions of the Act. All parties to the Agreement have been notified and no submissions have been received. APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS

Appendices

Nil Attachments 1. Locality plan 2. Legal Agreement AD851558A


5.2.4 Planning Application No. 82/2017/P – 2 Western Boulevard, Raymond Island – Application for Building and Building Works Associated with a Dwelling

Authored by Bill Williams, Statutory Planner

Endorsed by Paul Holton, Director Development

Document No 7233629 In Attendance Aaron Hollow, Manager Statutory Services

Paul Holton, Director Development

___________________________________________________________________________ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report seeks Council approval for planning permit application 112/2016/P for development of a two storey dwelling on land at 2 Western Boulevard, Raymond Island. The dwelling as proposed is considered to be compatible with the surrounding locality, consistent with the requirements of a Section 173 agreement and covenant relating to the land and consistent with the requirements of the East Gippsland Planning Scheme. The application has been referred to all required external agencies including the East Gippsland Catchment Management Authority and the Country Fire Authority who consent to the application subject to conditions. The application has been subject to public notification and received a number of objections. In accordance with Council policy, a Planning Consultation Meeting (PCM) has been undertaken. It is considered that all objections have been suitably addressed or are able to be resolved by way of condition. The proposed dwelling is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval subject to conditions. RECOMMENDATION

That Council being the Responsible Authority and having considered all the relevant planning matters, determines that planning application 112/2016/P is consistent with the requirements and objectives of the East Gippsland Planning Scheme and therefore resolves to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for building and works (dwelling) at 2 Western Boulevard Raymond Island subject to the following conditions: 1. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without

the written consent of the responsible authority. 2. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

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

The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.


The responsible authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date where the development has not started, or, within 12 months after the permit expiry date where the development has started lawfully before the permit expiry date. If a request is made outside of the above time, the responsible authority cannot consider the request and the holder of this permit cannot apply to Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) for a review of this matter.

3 Before works commence, the Board Walk design must be submitted to and

approved by the responsible authority. 4 Before any works associated with the development start, drainage construction

plans to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. The stormwater drainage system must be designed in accordance with standard engineering practice for the collection and control of all stormwater runoff and concentrated by buildings, pavements, and/or site works to avoid damage or inundation to any other neighbouring property or the wetlands The design and documentation for the drainage works must show:

• Drainage infrastructure, including swale drains and culverts, piping/drains,

pits and gross pollutant traps (where required).

• Any modification to the terrain, such as excavation.

• Easements and legal points of discharge.

• Methods of on-site detention to limit the rate of discharge of stormwater runoff from the development to the low lying wetland portion of the lot.

• Stormwater runoff from both building and paved areas must be controlled so

as not to flow or discharge over any adjoining property or damage the wetlands. Stormwater needs to be dispersed over as great an area as possible by use of water distribution manifolds.

• Before the use commences, all stormwater runoff from the roofed areas must

be discharged by a drainage system connected to an approved point of discharge to the low lying wetland to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

All earthworks associated with the construction of the drainage must be stabilised to protect against erosion and failure, and must not encroach onto other properties.

All drainage works and requirements must be undertaken and completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

5 Before the dwelling is occupied:

A concrete vehicle crossover design is to be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority prior to construction commencing.


The vehicular crossing must be constructed in accordance with the approved design to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

6 Catchment Management Authority Conditions

The finished floor level of the dwelling must be a minimum of 2.5 metres AHD. This is referred to as the Nominal Flood Protection Level (NFPL).

7 Stumps rather than fill must be used to raise the dwelling up to the NFPL if

required. If the sub-floor is to be enclosed, it must be of an open style that allows for the free passage of flood waters under the dwelling.

8 The finished floor level of the garage must be at or above the existing ground

surface level. 9 All electrical outlets in the garage must be installed at or above the NFPL of 2.5

metres AHD. 10 Any high value and/or hazardous materials in the garage must be stored at or

above the NFPL of 2.5 metres AHD. 11 The under-residence water tank must be secured by means of footings to

prevent movement due to floodwaters. 12 Country Fire Authority Conditions

The bushfire mitigation measures forming part of this permit or shown on the endorsed plans, including those relating to construction standards, defendable space, water supply and access, must be maintained to the satisfaction of the responsible authority on a continuing basis. This condition continues to have force and effect after the development authorised by this permit has been completed.

13 Bushfire Management Plan

Before the development starts, a bushfire management plan must be submitted to and endorsed by the Responsible Authority. The plan must show the following bushfire mitigation measures, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the CFA and the Responsible Authority: a) Defendable space Show an area of defendable space around the proposed building to the property boundary where vegetation (and other flammable materials) will be modified and managed in accordance with the following requirements: • Grass must be short cropped and maintained during the declared fire danger

period. • All leaves and vegetation debris must be removed at regular intervals during

the declared fire danger period. • Within 3 metres of the dwelling, flammable objects including fences made

from flammable material must not be located close to the vulnerable parts of the dwelling.

• Plants greater than 10 centimetres in height must not be placed within 3m of a window or glass feature of the building.


• Shrubs must not be located under the canopy of trees. • Individual and clumps of shrubs must not exceed 5 sq. metres in area and

must be separated by at least 5 metres. • Trees must not overhang or touch any elements of the building. • The canopy of trees must be separated by at least 5 metres. • There must be a clearance of at least 2 metres between the lowest tree

branches and ground level. b) Construction standards Nominate a minimum Bushfire Attack Level of BAL – 12.5 that the building will be designed and constructed. c) Water supply Show 2,500 litres of effective water supply for fire fighting purposes which meets the following requirements: • Is stored in an above ground water tank constructed of concrete or metal. • All fixed above-ground water pipes and fittings required for fire fighting

purposes must be made of corrosive resistant metal. Note: All buildings erected on this site must comply with the requirements of the Victorian Building Act and Regulations, the Building Code of Australia and relevant Council Local Laws.

OFFICER COMMENT / CONTEXT The Site The land is bounded by Western Boulevard to the east, Eighth Avenue to the south and a residential dwelling to the west. The subject land forms part of a 13 lot subdivision which created lots that abutted Common Property (a wetland area) to the north and McMillan Strait further to the north of the common property. The land includes part of an area of wetland.


Fig. 1 -The subject land at 2 Western Boulevard Raymond Island

Discussion

The subject land is vacant and located within a residential area of Raymond Island. The abutting lots to the west of the subject land are developed with dwellings with a simple building form in a coastal style. The surrounding locality is residential in nature displaying a mix of building types and styles reflecting the pattern of development over time. The land is formally described as Lot 4 on PS 446615X. The following restrictions are registered to the title: Covenant AD814375T Agreement section 173 WO42629K Agreement section 173 AC24662PM These registered restrictions are designed to:

Manage the height, form and appearance and location of dwellings on the land;

Ensure that the environmental values of the site and area are protected; and

Ensure that a boardwalk is constructed and that the foreshore is rehabilitated and revegetated

The restrictions are discussed in detail below; Covenant AD814375T covenants that:

the height of any structure must not exceed 10 metres,

the floor level of a dwelling must not be less than 2.1 metres AHD,

the area of any building with floor levels above the ground floor level must not exceed 60 percent of the area of the building footprint at ground floor level excluding garages, carports and decks.

specified external cladding to be prohibited,


decking shall not be lower than 1.2 AHD.

fill materials must only occur in specified ways.

sub - floor structures must be designed to minimise impact on wetlands and salt marsh vegetation.

Agreement section 173 WO42629K requires that:

the applicant will not build on or develop areas of saltmarsh.

the responsible authority must remove rubble currently on the foreshore,

the responsible authority will provide the materials required for and facilitate the construction of the boardwalk on the foreshore.

the responsible authority and the applicant will work together to rehabilitate and revegetate the foreshore.

Agreement section 173 AC24662PM requires that: The land must only be developed in accordance with the endorsed plans and conditions of planning permit 99/00475/DS. This agreement stipulated building envelopes. The application as amended is considered to be in accordance with all registered restrictions. A plan that includes details of the site location, the location of properties given notice of the application, and nearby objectors is provided at Attachment 1.

At the PCM on 16 May 2017, a range of matters were discussed and required further investigation. The minutes of the PCM can be found at Attachment 2. An address to the matters raised is found at Attachment 3. It is considered that all matters raised have been

suitably addressed. Description of the proposal

The amended application proposes to construct a two storey dwelling with a contemporary appearance The lower floor is proposed to contain a garage, master bedroom and ensuite, study and a combined kitchen, meals and sitting area and external decking. The upper floor is proposed to contain a second bedroom with an ensuite. The dwelling will have a maximum height of 7.9 metres AHD. The exterior will be clad with a range of materials including timber cladding, painted weatherboards, painted magnesium oxide wall panelling with stainless steel handrails and glass balustrading. With the exception of the garage, driveway and car parking area, the remainder of the dwelling and deck will be elevated above ground level on a series of piers. No fill will be placed in the wetlands area and storm water will be disposed of to a point of discharge to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. A 2500 litre water tank will be located under the house to control stormwater runoff and to provide water for fire - fighting purposes. Development plans can be viewed at Attachment 4.


Council Plan

A Liveable Region: Goal 1 East Gippsland has safe, accessible and well utilised open spaces and built environments that reflect the priorities of our community. Goal 2 Sustainable planning and growth supports thriving townships, while maintaining our commitment to sustainability and protecting our natural environment. Council Policy

The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the goals of the Council Plan 2013-2017, specifically Place Goals 2.2 and 2.4 as described above. The development is considered to be an orderly development of the site which reflects the conditions of the environment in which the site is located. The development is sensitive to its surroundings and has been appropriately designed so as not to adversely impact on the environmental features of the site and locality. Legislation

The application has been assessed against the East Gippsland Planning Scheme in accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

The applicable controls under the planning scheme are summarised below:

Application No. 112/2016/P

Address 2 Western Boulevard Raymond Island

Zone General Residential Zone 1

Overlays Land Subject to Inundation Overlay

Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 2

Design and Development Overlay Schedule 11

Bushfire Management Overlay

The application has been triggered by the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay, Design and Development Overlay Schedule 11 and the Bushfire Management Overlay. A full assessment against the East Gippsland Planning Scheme is at Attachment 5.

The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the requirements of the Planning Scheme. The application to amend the planning permit application was received on 22 May 2017.

Referrals Council Engineers – No objection subject to conditions Department of Environment Land, Water and Planning – No objection West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority – No objection subject to conditions Country Fire Authority (CFA) – No objection subject to conditions Municipal Building Surveyor – No objection

Notification The permit applicant was required to send letters to neighbours advertising the proposal and place an A3 sign on the land The permit applicant has provided a statutory declaration confirming that letters had been sent and the site notice was displayed for a minimum of 14 days.

Objections 21


Community

The application was required to be notified to adjoining landowners and occupiers. As a result of the notification 27 objections were received. Following amendments to the plans the application was re-notified to adjoining landowners and occupies and all objectors. As a result of the second notification 8 objections were withdrawn resulting in a total of 21 objections remaining current. A copy of the objections can be found at Attachment 6.

Issues raised in the objections highlighted concerns relating to the following:

Adverse effects of wind turbines - noise, visual, health, wildlife, tourism, safety, shadow flicker, wetlands,

Neighbourhood character;

Will breach the registered restriction on the title to the land;

Out of character with existing buildings;

Above the permissible building height of 7.5 metres;

Building outside the building envelope;

Wetland damage;

Contrary to the Raymond Island Urban Design Framework;

Too large for the small block;

Lack of information with the planning application;

Total area of the second storey exceeds 60% of the lower storey;

Not CFA compliant due to existing brush fence;

Will effect TV reception; and

Devalue real estate values; Officer comments Adverse effects of wind turbines The application has been amended to remove the wind turbines

Neighbourhood character Raymond Island has been developed over a considerable period of time and the existing dwelling types reflect this. The proposed dwelling, although a modern design, is in accordance with the diverse and evolving neighbourhood character of the island and the area.

The building will breach the registered restriction on the title to the land The application has been carefully examined against all the registered restrictions on the title to the land and the application will not breach any of these registered restrictions Out of character with existing buildings The proposed dwelling is different from the dwellings within the immediate locality to the west of the subject land. However, the design is consistent with the restrictive covenant on the title and compliments the style of dwellings in the locality which display a mixed character reflective of the development of the locality over time.


Above the permissible building height of 7.5 metres There is no maximum building height limit relating to the land. The land is covered by the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 11 which triggers the need for planning approval in accordance with the East Gippsland Planning Scheme. In accordance with this overlay any building over 7.5 metres in height needs a planning permit and needs to be assessed against the requirements of this overlay. Building outside the building envelope There are two types of building envelopes registered to the title to the land. One building envelope is to contain all buildings and a second building envelope decking is to contain decking. The proposed building and decking are wholly contained within the building envelopes. Wetland damage The registered restrictions on the title restrict and require the management of development on the land to ensure that damage to the wetland is minimised. The covenants registered to the title relating to the wetland require weed control, soil and water management, the rehabilitation and revegetation of the foreshore area, no fill of the wetland area, stormwater control, limiting the area of site coverage to prevent the shading of the saltmarsh, and for decking and boardwalks over the wetland to be an elevated open slat design to allow light penetration. This application is considered to comply with the registered restrictions relating to the wetland. Contrary to the Raymond Island Urban Design Framework The Raymond Island Urban Design Framework informed the development of the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 11 covering the urban zoned areas on the island. The Raymond Island Urban Design Framework has the status of a Reference Document in the

planning scheme and has less statutory weight than the Design and Development Overlay. The Design and Development Overlay Schedule 11 allows application to be made for a building over 7.5 metres. Too large for the small block The registered restrictions on the title to the land outline the extent of permissible development on the land. This includes building envelopes and restrictions on building height and bulk. The building is wholly contained within the specified building envelopes. Total area of the second storey exceeds 60% of the lower storey The total area of the second storey is 24.81% of the lower storey. Not CFA compliant due to existing brush fence The dwelling has been designed to be setback a minimum distance of 3.00 metres from the existing brush boundary fence and this complies with CFA requirements. Will effect TV reception


There is no evidence to support this assertion. Devalue real estate values There is no evidence available to Council that this application will devalue real estate values. Organisational

Financial Nil


Nil Attachments

1. Locality plan 2. Minutes of the PCM 3. Follow up report of matters raised at PCM 4. Development plans 5. Assessment against the Planning Scheme 6. Copy of objections


5.2.5 Planning Application No. 428/2014/P/A – 1-5 King Street Paynesville: Subdivision of Land into Eight Lots

Authored by Ben Marchbank, Statutory Planner Endorsed by Paul Holton, Director Development

Document No 7193498 In Attendance Aaron Hollow, Manager Statutory Services

___________________________________________________________________________ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report relates to an amendment to a planning permit to subdivide land at 1-5 King Street Paynesville. The original planning permit 428/2014/P was approved 2 December 2016 for an eight lot subdivision with an internal common property access drive onto King Street (municipal road). The proposal seeks to amend a planning permit condition to allow vehicle access from Lots 3, 4 and 5 onto a public purpose reserve and separate access to King Street for Lot 3 adjacent to the intersection with Slip Road. Public foreshore land is a precious resource and there is an established principle to avoid private vehicle access onto public purpose reserves as it compromises the usability of the public space and can conflict with pedestrian circulation and safety. Council Engineers do not support vehicle access to King Street for Lot 3 or to the Public Purpose Reserve from the subdivision given the availability of suitable vehicle access and egress points designed into the subdivision via the common property. Moreover, there are road safety concerns if an additional access point were to be located in the vicinity of the King Street and Slip Road intersection The public reserve is included in a strategic plan that is part of the Planning Scheme and intends to revitalise this section of the public reserve through provision of passive open space (lawn), playground facilities and landscaping with an emphasis on pedestrian connectivity and a safe environment for the public. Council officers submit that the original approved eight lot subdivision is a good planning outcome that is appropriately configured to provide for safe and convenient common property access onto a fully constructed Urban Collector road. The proposal before Council would raise road safety concerns and introduce formal vehicle access for private residential lots onto a public purpose reserve foreshore that would compromise pedestrian safety and the future strategic direction for the precinct. This planning application amendment has been through the public notification process and has not attracted any objections from adjoining land owners. This report presents the planning background to the proposal and seeks Council's decision on the application.


RECOMMENDATION

That Council, being the Responsible Authority and having considered all the relevant planning matters, determines that planning application 428/2014/P/A for an amendment to the eight lot subdivision is inconsistent with the requirements and objectives of the East Gippsland Planning Scheme and therefore resolves to refuse to Grant a Permit for the following reasons: 1. the proposal is inconsistent with the State and Local Planning Policy framework,

specifically Clause 12 and Clause 21.03-2; 2. the proposed access to Lot 3 from King Street would prejudice road safety; 3. the proposal is inconsistent with the Paynesville Urban Design Framework; 4. the proposal is incompatible with the primary purpose of the adjoining ‘public

purpose reserve; and 5. the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning do not support vehicle

access from 1-5 King Street Paynesville to the Crown foreshore Public Purpose Reserve.


Site and Surrounds The site is approximately 4000 square metres and located along the constructed canals at the King Street and Slip Road intersection on Burrabogie Island, Paynesville. A public purpose reserve adjoins the eastern boundary. The reserve is owned by the Crown and managed by East Gippsland Shire Council.

Fig.1 – Location plan showing subject site and adjoining public purpose reserve to the east.


The public purpose reserve stretches along the entire eastern foreshore frontage of Burrabogie Island. The section of reserve relevant to this amendment comprises part of the former ‘Slip Road’, gravel parking, toilet block and landscaped areas. The subject land was previously occupied by Webster Marine and is currently vacant. Webster Marine gained formal access off King Street (fig.2) and informal access across a grassed nature strip and barrier kerb to the public reserve (fig.3) where no kerb lay back exists.

Fig. 2 Access from Slip Road Fig. 3 Access from Public Reserve

It is the principle of providing vehicle access onto a public purpose reserve and the strategic direction of the planning scheme that forms the focal point of consideration of the proposal to amend the planning permit. The title for the subject land showing the Public Purpose Reserve can be viewed at Attachment 1.

Description of Proposal The proposal seeks to delete permit condition 4(a) to allow vehicle access from the approved eight lot subdivision onto the public purpose reserve for Lots 3, 4 and 5 and also allow access onto King Street for Lot 3. The plan of subdivision approved under 428/2014/P will remain unchanged. Permit condition 4 currently reads: Before the issue of a Statement of Compliance, the owner of the land must enter into an

agreement with the responsible authority in accordance with Section 173 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987, which will provide that:

a) Vehicle access of any kind is not permitted directly onto King Street for Lot 3 or onto

the Crown reserve for Lots 3 to 5 inclusive.

b) Bollards preventing vehicle access between Common property 1 and Common property 2 must be maintained in their location at all times except for temporary removal for emergency vehicles.

This agreement must be prepared by the owner. The cost of the preparation, review and recording on the title of the agreement in accordance with Section 181 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be borne by the owner of the land.


Copy of planning permit 428/2014/P can be viewed at Attachment 2.

In support of the proposal the applicant submits that:

There is no valid reason why access directly off King and Slip Road should be prevented.

Whilst an internal access drive (common property) is provided it has always been anticipated that primary access would be taken from King and Slip Road for Lots 3, 4 and 5.

Lot 5 only has a 3.72 metre wide frontage to the internal access drive.

The internal access drive is to be used in times of emergency. The permit application for the approved subdivision did not make a case for vehicle access onto King Street for Lot 3 or onto the Public Purpose Reserve. The Planning Scheme requires each new lot to achieve safe and convenient access to satisfy the objectives of Clause 56 Subdivision. In this regard the applicant’s assessment against Clause 56 stated the following:

“Whilst it is anticipated that each of the proposed allotments will take access from the proposed common property No.2 it is envisaged that future development on proposed Lots 1, 2 and 3 will orientate toward King Street. They will also have the potential to make use of water views to the north east.” “The creation of common property internally to the site will ensure that vehicle access is safe and convenient. It will also limit the number of vehicle crossings required.”

The applicant’s comments demonstrate consistency with the approved plan of subdivision in terms of common property access and were taken into account during the decision making process by Council officers. It is good practice to reduce the number of vehicle access points in close proximity to intersections and avoid access onto Public reserves from private land. Council engineers consider that an additional northern vehicle access point onto King Street from Lot 3 would prejudice road safety. It should be noted that Council officers never contended vehicle access being taken directly from King Street for Lot 1 of the approved subdivision. Precedence for access off the Crown land reserve Prior to the development of the canal system, Slip Road continued through to the Esplanade. After the development of the Canal, Slip Road was included within the foreshore reserve. The portion of sealed access road south of the intersection of Slip Road and King Street is not included in Council’s Public Road Register. Its function is to give access to the car park, boat ramp, and other marine facilities located within the reserve.

Council has obligations in relation to the management of this land as foreshore reserve. There is an established principle to avoid private vehicle access onto public purpose reserves unless there is an overriding reason as it compromises the usability of the public space and can conflict with pedestrian circulation and safety.

The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning as the underlying owner of the reserve provided the following response after reviewing the proposal to amend the planning permit.


‘The Department offers the following comments in respect of this application:

The foreshore area to the east of the subject land is Crown land (public purpose reserve), with the East Gippsland Shire Council appointed as the Committee of Management.

The area of public purpose reserve abutting Lot 3, 4 and 5 has not been declared/proclaimed as road reserve.

The East Gippsland Shire Council has not specifically named this souther extension of the Slip Road (86m) on their public road register.

The department support access for Lots 3, 4 and 5 being provided via a Common Property to King Street and not directly from the public purpose reserve.’

A copy of the full response from DELWP can be viewed at Attachment 3.

Council has previously approved subdivision applications on other sites including 24 Milton Avenue, Paynesville, where vehicular access to adjoining public reserve was not permitted. In each case it has been determined that access to a public reserve is not a desirable outcome and has not been supported by DELWP or Council.

Strategic documents

Paynesville Urban Design Framework (2007)

This is a reference document in the East Gippsland Planning Scheme.

The Paynesville Urban Design Framework (UDF) sets a vision of Paynesville as the best recreational boating destination to access the Gippsland Lakes and that the preservation and enhancement of the natural environment will have a high priority.

The UDF advocates for a Slip Road project to strengthen the marine related industrial focus for the precinct, and to improve its identity and appearance and pedestrian connections, including the following:

multi use park opposite the King Street entry – a large open lawn area is proposed to be available for casual use and events, including a boating themed children’s play area near the amenities block, car park and promenade

southern parking area – a limited road space is proposed with associated parking to service boats, a proposed new café and open space

Whilst there are currently no specific works planned, allowing the proposed amendment to proceed would restrict future opportunities to develop the site in accordance with the adopted strategic direction.

Paynesville Maritime Precinct Master Plan (2009)

This document has been adopted by Council and informs the forthcoming Slip Road Master Plan.

The purpose of the Paynesville Maritime Precinct Master plan is to provide a detailed framework and corresponding implementation strategy for the development of the Slip Road area of Burrabogie Island. This includes proposals for land use, movement networks, landscape, built form and public facilities. Again, allowing the proposed amendment to proceed would restrict future opportunities to develop the site in accordance with the adopted strategic direction. Draft Paynesville Foreshore Management Plan (October 2016)

This foreshore management plan was created under the Coastal Management Act 1995 to

provide a framework for the preparation of management plans for coastal Crown land reserves including setting out future development and works to achieve the plan. A management plan


sets out a vision, priorities and actions to protect and improve the environmental values of the foreshore reserve, to meet community needs and to recognise future economic opportunities.

The Plan identifies opportunity to:

improve the function and layout of the boat ramp and the area around it

implement the Paynesville Maritime Precinct Master Plan

reclaim some of the existing hardstand areas back to green space, especially in locations that are considered to be activity nodes – the King Street Boat Ramp being an activity node

reduce conflict with pedestrians

The draft Paynesville Foreshore Management Plan also addresses the matter of delineation between Crown and private land boundaries. An encroachment policy is foreshadowed which amongst the various types of encroachment will address informal access tracks.

It is also standard practice that vehicular access along or across Crown land foreshore reserve is not allowed or provided for without the written approval of the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning.

Conclusion

The former Slip Road south of King Street is not declared or proclaimed as road reserve.

The Department of Environment, Land Water and Planning as owners, object to the creation of access onto the public purpose reserve.

Council has been consistent in not supporting vehicle access to public reserves from private land where there are adequate alternatives available onto the public road network.

It is considered inappropriate to allow private benefit over Crown land and public interest foreshore reserve land where there is a viable alternative access to facilitate development.

The proposed private access will compromise the full development potential of coastal foreshore reserve for which plans have been well articulated in strategy since 2007.

The consistent theme being advocated by successive strategic documents is to develop the King Street boat ramp area as open space and associated facilities related to the foreshore environment for public use.

The area is envisioned to be a pedestrian friendly family environment and introducing additional traffic, and potential conflict, would compromise this aspiration.

Council Plan Strong communities Goal 2 East Gippsland communities plan for their future A liveable region: Goal 1 East Gippsland has safe, accessible and well utilised open spaces and built environments that reflect the priorities of our community. A liveable region: Goal 2 Sustainable planning and growth supports thriving townships, while maintaining our commitment to sustainability and protecting our natural environment. Legislation

The application has been assessed against the East Gippsland Planning Scheme in accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987.


The applicable controls under the planning scheme are summarised below:

Application No. 428/2016/P/A

Address 1-5 King Street Paynesville

Zone General Residential Zone

Overlays Design and development Overlay Schedule 2

Land Subject to Inundation Overlay

An assessment against the East Gippsland Planning Scheme is at Attachment 4. Organisational

Financial Nil

Consultation

The application was referred to a range of internal and external authorities. The table below summarises the responses received.

Referrals Council’s Engineering Unit – Object to the proposal and advise that 3.72 metres is an adequate width for access to Lot 5 with no additional accesses considered necessary. Council’s Strategic Planning Unit – Object to the proposal as it would increase undesired private vehicle access onto a public purpose reserve increasing the likelihood of pedestrian and vehicle conflict and compromise the strategic vision for the locality. Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning – Object to the proposal and advise that the area of public purpose reserve abutting the subdivision is not declared or proclaimed as a road.

Notification The permit applicant was required to send letters to neighbours advertising the proposal. The permit applicant has provided a statutory declaration confirming that letters had been sent and the site notice was displayed for a minimum of 14 days.

Objections No objections

The application has been made subject to the public notice provisions of Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.



Nil Attachments 1. Title for subject land 2. Copy of planning permit 428/2014/P 3. A copy of DELWP referral response 4. Assessment against the Planning Scheme


5.3 A Growing Region of Opportunities

5.3.1 East Gippsland Shire Council Economic Development Advisory Board

AUTHORED BY John Morton, Manager Economic Development ENDORSED BY Paul Holton, Director Development DOCUMENT NO. 7209141 In Attendance: John Morton, Manager Economic Development

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report makes recommendations regarding the appointment of members to Council’s Economic Development Advisory Board. In 2005 Council established an Economic Development Advisory Board (EDAB) and a Tourism Advisory Board(TAB). Following a review in 2015 involving consultation with both the EDAB and the TAB Council resolved to reconstitute both boards as one Economic Development Advisory Board that would deal with economic development and tourism matters. A new Terms of Reference and Charter was developed and adopted by Council. Expressions of interest were invited from the public to be appointed to the Economic Development Advisory Board. As a result, twelve expressions were received for the six community vacancies as outlined in the Terms of Reference and Charter. The applications received were reviewed and evaluated on the criteria and skill set articulated in the Economic Development Advisory Board Terms of Reference and Charter. RECOMMENDATION

That Council appoint the following applicants to the Economic Development Advisory Board -

Andrew Cruickshank

Bob Carter

Michelle Brooker

Jeanette Severs

Greg Beadle

Jane Ponting


Following public invitation for submission of Expressions of Interest (EoI’s), Council received a total of eleven EoI’s, applications which were then scored against the skills matrix as per the Terms of Reference and Charter documents.


The following applicants were shortlisted:

Andrew Cruickshank

Bob Carter

Michelle Brooker

Jeanette Severs

Greg Beadle

Jane Ponting

The Terms of Reference and Charter state that the Economic Development Advisory Board (EDAB) will consist of six (6) representatives from East Gippsland primary industries, (manufacturing, construction, agriculture/forestry/fishing, retail, professional services, and tourism) selected via a public ‘Expression of Interest’ process and in line with the following skills set.

Preferred Economic Development Advisory Board Skills Set:

Representative of a recognised business or industry group

Membership / affiliation with a recognised business / industry groups, Gippsland Committee

Leadership

Technology / ‘e’ Commerce

Marketing

Finance / Investment

Innovation

Business Planning

New Business Development

Education

The Terms of Reference and Charter also states that every effort will be made to ensure the EDAB has a broad skills base and members are genuinely representative of their industry or field of expertise. This report comes to Council with six (6) applicants for endorsement. Council Plan

A growing region of opportunities: Goal 1 East Gippsland is a region of economic opportunity with strong industry sectors, a skilled workforce and local jobs. Good Governance: Goal 1 East Gippsland Shire Council is inclusive, engaged and open. Council Policy

Council approved Terms of Reference for the EDAB.

East Gippsland Shire Council Annual Action Plan 2015/16 – 3.1.1.2 Explore ways to engage business and industry on matter of strategic importance and simplify access to Council for business investment.


East Gippsland Shire Economic Development Strategy 2014-2018, Strategic Direction 1: East Gippsland Open for Business, Action 4: Determine and recommend the most appropriate forums and mechanisms to engage with business and industry to enable increased industry contribution on matters of strategic importance, including issues/barriers to investment and opportunities for growth. Organisational Financial

Nil Human Resources

The administration of the Economic Development Advisory Board will be managed by Councils Economic Development Unit.

APPENDICES AND ATTACHMENTS Appendices Nil Attachments

Nil


6. Urgent business

Nil

Council will now move into ‘in camera’ pursuant to section 89 (2)(d) of the Local

Government Act 1989, to consider Items 7.1 to 7.2 as these items relate to contractual

matters.

7. Confidential Business

Consideration of confidential matters under Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act

1989.

7.1 Contract CON2017 1130 Replacement Handrail – Cunninghame Arm

Bridge

7.2 Contract No. CON2017 1194 – Supply of Plant and Equipment and Labour

for Emergency Response and Recovery Works (Panel of Suppliers)

8. Close of meeting

draft council meeting agenda template · council meeting agenda – tuesday 4 july 2017 5 1....

Documents