Council Minutes - Section B: Reports - 29 January 2019
Contents | Previous Page: Section A - Procedural Matters | Next Page: Section C - Assembly of Councillors
Contents | Previous Page: Section A - Procedural Matters | Next Page: Section C - Assembly of Councillors
Reports tabled at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Tuesday date held at the Council Conference and Reception Centre in City Hall, 57 Little Malop Street, Geelong.
Amendment C386 Covenant College – Creamery Road, Bell Post Hill - Adoption
Electronic Gaming Machines Application – Polish Community Association
Tender T1900015 – Provision of Grinding and Decontamination Services
Revocation of Flood Prone Area Designation of New Lots at Warralily Estate Stage 78B
Revocation of Flood Prone Area Designation of New Lots at Charlemont Stage 5
Geelong Gambling Advisory Committee (Confidential)
Source: |
Planning and Development - Strategic Implementation |
Director: |
Gareth Smith |
Portfolio: |
Sustainable Development |
To consider the submissions received in relation to the exhibition of Amendment C386 and draft Planning Permit PP-720-2018 and to adopt Amendment C386 and recommend to the Minister that he issue Planning Permit PP-720-2018.
Amendment C386 (amendment) rezones a 3.237 ha portion of land at 65 Creamery Road, Bell Post Hill from Farming Zone (FZ) to Special Use Zone Schedule 15 (SUZ15), for a private education centre, consistent with the purpose of the schedule. Planning Permit PP-720-2018 (planning permit) seeks subdivision of the land to be rezoned and consolidation of that land with the land at 105 Creamery Road, which is already zoned SUZ15.
The amendment and draft planning permit were exhibited between 18 October 2018 and 19 November 2018.
Exhibition of the amendment resulted in one submission being received from the Environment Protection Authority (EPA).
The EPA recommended that potential soil contamination be considered. The applicant responded to this issue and Council officers are satisfied the submission is resolved.
Having exhibited the amendment and considered the submissions, and there being no objecting submissions or submissions requesting changes, Council can adopt the amendment and recommend to the Minister for Planning that he issue the planning permit.
Councillor Mason moved, Councillor Aitken seconded:
That Council:
Adopt Amendment C386 in the form outlined in Attachment 4 of this report;
Submits the adopted Amendment C386 together with the prescribed information to the Minister for Planning requesting approval; and
Recommends to the Minister for Planning that Planning Permit PP-720-2018 be approved in the form outlined in Attachment 5 of this report.
Carried.
There will be no financial implications for Council as a result of the adoption of this amendment.
The amendment and draft planning permit were exhibited in accordance with the provisions of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Act) from Thursday 18 October 2018 to Monday 19 November 2018.
The rezoning will allow the school to expand and have a positive social impact by providing improved educational facilities in the northern suburbs of Geelong.
The change proposed by this amendment and planning permit will have no policy, legal or statutory implications for Council.
Consistent with the objectives set out in Section 4 of the Act, the amendment:
Provides for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use and development of the land;
Balances the need for the future growth of Covenant College in the context of the identified future urban development proposed for the area; and
Uses appropriate planning provisions for consistent and orderly consideration of future development applications across the entire school site, both existing and proposed.
The proposal accords with the objectives of Planning in Victoria as set out in the Act as it will provide for re-zoning and subdivision of land to achieve an orderly, well planned outcome consistent with the requirements of the Act.
In particular, the amendment is supported by the following policies of the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme:
Clause 11.01-1R Settlement - Geelong G21. Specifically, to: “Provide for long term growth options that build on existing infrastructure, including two further investigation areas north and west of Geelong.”
Clause 11.09 Geelong. The amendment supports the objective to build and support diversity, knowledge and innovation by supporting the future growth and expansion of Covenant College and protecting its future in this location.
Clause 19.02 Community infrastructure. The amendment supports the policy by planning for long term growth in an area where future demand is likely and where existing facilities can be better utilised. Specifically 19.02-2S Education facilities, which includes a Strategy: “Consider demographic trends, existing and future demand requirements and the integration of facilities into communities in planning for the location of education and early childhood facilities.”
The proposed amendment supports the Planned Sustainable Development strategic priority of the Council Plan 2018-22.
No Council Officers involved in the preparation of this report have any direct or indirect interest, in accordance with Section 80C of the Local Government Act.
The land is designated as Bushfire Prone; however it is not subject to a Bushfire Management Overlay.
The site is located within the future Western Growth Area. The land is remote from the proposed extent of the intended rural interface of the growth area upon completion of build-out.
The land also abuts already developed land occupied by the applicant for the amendment, and is proposed to be consolidated with, developed and managed in the same manner and for the same purpose as that land.
Given the above considerations, Council officers are of the view that the proposed re-zoning does not form an unacceptable risk.
No environmental implications arise from the proposed re-zoning and subdivision, other than the issue of potential soil contamination raised by the EPA, which has been considered.
Any future development of the rezoned land will be required to obtain all planning and building permits, consistent with the provisions of the zone and schedule and the Building Act 1993.
The amendment is sought to rezone the land to facilitate the long term expansion and growth of Covenant College. A planning permit for subdivision is required so as to enable the rezoning, as it is not possible under the Victoria Planning Provisions to rezone land such that a single parcel would be in two zones.
The application has been made with the knowledge and support of the owner of the land that is to be rezoned and subdivided.
The impetus for the application at this time relates to the requirement of a Federal Government grant that the land to be purchased with grant monies be zoned in a manner that allows for it to be used and developed for educational purposes, consistent with the basis of the grant. In order to be eligible to receive the grant it is necessary for the school to be able to provide certainty in relation to planning use rights.
The proposed rezoning and subdivision will result in a good planning outcome, in that it is consistent with the identified long term needs of Covenant College and will ensure that the required land is available and appropriately zoned for that purpose.
There will be no adverse impacts on the balance of the lot, which will remain in the farming zone, which will retain a frontage of 81.60 metres to Creamery Road, as identified on the Plan of Subdivision at Attachment 6.
It is proposed to rezone the site to SUZ15, recently introduced by Amendment C286, which permits Private Education Centre as an as-of-right use.
The Table of Uses within the Schedule includes the uses of ‘education centre’, ‘library’, ‘place of worship’ and ‘hall’ in Section 1 – permit not required subject to the condition that it must form part of, or be ancillary to the education centre or religious institution. Other uses such as ‘accommodation’, ‘place of assembly’, ‘office’ and ‘outdoor recreation facility’ are Section 2 – permit required uses.
All buildings and works will require planning permission in the new schedule. This will provide Council with the ability to consider any impacts of development, which may subsequently be proposed on nearby properties.
Following exhibition of the amendment, a submission was received from the EPA, which gave in-principle support to the re-zoning, while recommending that Council request further information from the applicant, to better enable Council to consider whether the site complied with Ministerial Direction No 1, in relation to the potentially contaminated land.
Consistent with the recommendation of the EPA, Council requested and obtained from the applicant an environmental assessment of the land to be re-zoned, prepared by suitably qualified consultants. Consistent with and based on the conclusions contained in that report, Council officers are satisfied that the site is suitable for the sensitive use proposed to be allowed by the amendment.
Source: |
Community Life - Healthy Communities |
Acting Director: |
Robyn Stevens |
Portfolio: |
Community Health and Safety |
To endorse the City of Greater Geelong’s response to an application for 43 additional electronic gaming machines in the municipality.
To increase their allocation of electronic gaming machines (EGMs), commonly referred to as pokies, gaming venues must apply for approval from the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (VCGLR).
The Polish Community Association in Geelong Inc. (Applicant) has applied to the VCGLR to increase their number of EGMs from 35 to 78 at White Eagle House in Breakwater. The net losses from EGMs recorded at White Eagle House in the 2017-18 financial year amounted to $1,693,681, which averages to $48,391 per EGM.
The City can submit a response within 60 calendar days of notification by the VCGLR (received 13 December, 2018) either supporting or objecting to the application. A response must be lodged by 11 February 2019.
The City has an Electronic Gaming Policy (Attachment 3) adopted in 2017, which provides guidance on responding to applications to increase EGMs.
The City has assessed the application, including the Social and Economic Impact Assessment (SEIA). The City concludes there will be net community detriment should the application be approved.
Since 2011, the City has on occasion utilised both a barrister and an expert consultant to attend hearings for EGM applications. This has been where associated harm from gambling was thought to be more significant due to the locality profile. The circumstances of this application calls for both legal representation at the hearing and the support of an independent expert witness. This places the City in stronger position to not only manage its case in what is essentially a legal environment, where rules of evidence cross-examination apply and it will place the City in the best position to implement Council’s policy and planning requirements.
Councillor Mason moved, Councillor Mansfield seconded -
That Council:
Endorse the proposed response to the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (VCGLR), not to support an increase to the number of electronic gaming machines at the Polish Community Association in Geelong Inc. White Eagle House, and that this response be submitted to the VCGLR by 11 February, 2019.
Endorse a budget allocation of up to $30,000 from the underlying surplus to employ both legal counsel and an independent expert to represent the City’s case at the VCGLR.
Carried.
There is a financial cost to the City to prepare and argue the proposed response at the VCGLR. This requires engaging legal counsel and an independent expert consultant to speak on behalf of the City and cross examine the applicant at the Tribunal. Barrister’s fees for preparation for the hearing are estimated at $7,000 and the appearance fees are estimated at $8,000 (two-day hearing). In addition to counsel’s fees, an amount of up to $15,000 is required to engage an independent expert to analyse data, prepare a report and appear at the hearing. There is no budget currently allocated for this expense. Total estimated project cost is $30,000.
The City has/will engage and consult residents of the City of Greater Geelong via:
‘Have your say’ engagement on Geelong Australia website;
face to face survey at Bellarine Village and Newcomb Central shopping centres;
written and verbal communication with affected organisations within the 2.5 km radius catchment for the venue;
official media release; and
social media information via City of Greater Geelong Twitter and Facebook.
The burden of the potential for problem gambling should not be disproportionately held by communities experiencing disadvantage. Council’s Electronic Gaming Policy argues against the introduction of EGMs in areas where density is above that of the municipality as a whole, as is the case in this application.
Council has an Electronic Gaming Policy, adopted in 2017, which provides guidance in responding to applications from gaming venues seeking to increase their allocation of EGMs. The policy has been developed within the legislative frameworks and policy contexts of the State of Victoria, which requires Council to facilitate the implementation of ongoing licensing and management of gaming as a legal activity, in addition to promoting health and wellbeing within the municipality.
This report aligns with the Council Plan 2018-2022 strategic priority area 1 – Improved Health and Safety of Our Community.
No direct or indirect officer conflict of interest exists.
Council has a stated role in reducing harm in the community by applying its adopted policies. The guiding policy in this case is the Electronic Gaming Policy (2017).
There are no environmental implications for the recommendation.
When considering this application, there are concerns that its approval would result in an increase in the density of EGMs in suburbs (including Whittington and Breakwater) already experiencing relative disadvantage. The current density of machines in a 2.5 km catchment around the venue is 20 machines per 1000 adult versus 6.5 for the municipality. The City experiences the 5th highest number of losses from EGMs in Victoria. The total number of losses from EGMs in the Greater Geelong region for the 2017/18 financial year was $118.8M. Of this, approximately 20% is attributed to the area where the proposed additional EGMs would be located.
The applicant’s Social and Economic Impact Assessment (SEIA) proposes a number of benefits will arise from their application including: “a new bistro, function room, playground, new kitchen and bar facilities, community rooms, and player and referee soccer changing rooms, along with the substantial investment for the community in an all-weather, synthetic soccer pitch. These works over the next few years would establish the White Eagle House and its associated facilities among the best in the Geelong region, benefitting not only venue patrons, but the broader soccer community, local schools and other groups.” The applicant’s SEIA was considered in the City’s assessment, however the application only provides limited detail regarding the plans for additional community facilities or the financial capacity to deliver on the community facilities listed.
Since 2011, the City has on occasion utilised both a barrister and an independent expert to attend hearings for EGM applications. This has been where associated harm from gambling was thought to be more significant due to the locality profile. The circumstances of this application calls for both legal representation at the hearing and the support of expert evidence because, consistent with Council’s current policy and planning requirements:
EGMs are sought to be placed in a low Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) index area; and
additional EGMs are to be placed at a venue immediately adjacent to another EGM venue, in this case Buckley’s Entertainment Centre.
The use of an independent expert strengthens the City’s submission as the SEIA, by its nature, is a data-heavy document and an expert can speak to the detail of the assessment directly to the Commission. This provides the opportunity for the Commissioner to gain a more robust understanding of Council’s position and enter into direct dialogue with the independent expert on the content of the assessment and Council’s position regarding the application.
The City must lodge its submission with the VCGLR by 11 February 2019.
Thirteen cases were heard by the VCGLR during 2018. The VCGLR can only approve an application if it finds there will be no net detriment to the community. It is difficult to identify definitive reasons for success in a hearing as each case, and the associated arguments for and against, is particular to the specific venue catchment. The VCGLR must assess each case individually. In 2018 four cases opposed by local government led to a rejection by the Commission. The reasons outlined by the Commission in rejecting those applicants included increased potential for problem gambling and associated harms, the level of social disadvantage, the concentration of EGMs and the level of community opposition to the EGM increase.
Source: |
Governance & Legal Services - Governance |
Executive Manager: |
Rebecca Leonard |
Portfolio: |
Leadership and Governance |
For Council to adopt the proposed Delegations Policy.
There are many Acts and Regulations which confer a responsibility on councils to take action or determine matters. Because of this, it is not practical for Council alone to exercise the many statutory powers, duties and functions bestowed on the Council. As a result, Council delegates authority to others under a set of delegation instruments.
The proposed Delegations Policy (Attachment 2) establishes a framework for managing Council delegated authority so that those delegated authorities continue to be exercised for the efficient and effective delivery of services to the community.
The proposed policy will govern the management of any instruments of delegation established by the Council, the Chief Executive Officer and the Municipal Building Surveyor under the Local Government Act 1989 and any other Acts.
The proposed policy will provide guidance to Council officers regarding:
how delegations are to be made;
what is excluded and any conditions and limitations required;
staff and special committee delegates;
matters that should be referred to Council;
issues around the exercise of delegations;
consideration of delegated powers, duties and functions when making a decision or recommending a decision be made;
standards to apply to the review of delegations;
monitoring the effectiveness of Council’s delegations framework; and
advice, training and record keeping related to delegations.
The proposed policy is based on recognised good practice and Council’s current delegation settings. It will strengthen the City’s governance framework and facilitate efficient administration of functions. It also satisfies a recommendation from the internal audit of the City’s delegations conducted in 2018.
Councillor Grzybek moved, Councillor Murrihy seconded -
That Council adopts the proposed Delegations Policy at Attachment 2.
Councillor Mason left the meeting room at 8:26pm
Carried.
There are no financial implications related to the subject of this report.
No public consultation is required or necessary for the Council to establish the standards and specifications related to delegating its powers.
There are no social equity issues arising from the subject of this report.
The proposed policy is consistent with provisions related to the delegation of powers, duties and functions of the Local Government Act 1989 and other Acts. It provides the foundation for an effective delegations framework for the City.
There are no implications regarding the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities related to the subject of this report.
The recommendation furthers the Council Plan 2018-22 strategic priority of organisational leadership, strategy and governance by supporting the key priority of making our processes more effective and efficient.
No Council officers or contractors who have provided advice in relation to this report have declared a conflict of interest regarding the matter under consideration.
The proposed policy establishes standards and specifications that mitigate risk associated with the administration and application of delegated powers, duties and functions.
There are no environmental implications identified for the subject of this report.
Councillor Harwood declared a Conflict of Interest by Close Association in Agenda Item 4 – Tender T1900015 – Provision of Grinding and Decontamination Services in that he is a friend and former business partner with one of the Directors and left prior to discussion at 8:27pm.
Source: |
Finance & Strategy – Property and Procurement |
Director: |
Michael Dugina |
Portfolio: |
Finance |
To award the contract C1900015 for the Provision of Grinding and Decontamination Services of green organics waste at the City’s Green Organics Processing Facility in Anakie to Vegetation Management and Greenwaste Recycling Services Pty Ltd trading as Green Care Mulching, ABN: 92 135 762 211.
The City currently undertakes grinding and decontamination of green organics at its Moolap site, which will be transferred to its new Green Organics Processing Facility in Anakie. For this to occur, the City issued a tender for the services of an experienced and capable contractor to undertake the decontamination of green organic waste collected from residential properties and the subsequent grinding of these green organics at its Green Organics Processing Facility located in Anakie.
Procurement Services undertook a tender process seeking a service provider for the grinding and decontamination services.
The submissions were evaluated in accordance with the processes detailed in the City’s ‘Procurement and Contracts Manual’.
Based on the overall service quality and value to Council the evaluation panel recommend the above named tenderer to be appointed for these services.
All respondents met the mandatory criteria, and the submissions were assessed accordingly.
Subject to Council awarding the contract, the services will commence 1 February 2019 for a 3-year term with the option to extend for a further 2 twelve month periods at the sole discretion of the City. The contract shall operate on a schedule of rates.
The estimated value of the contract over the term of the contract (plus extension options) is $7,075,000.00 (excluding GST).
Councillor Murnane moved, Councillor Murrihy seconded -
That Council:
Award Contract C1900015 for the Provision of Grinding and Decontamination Services of green organics waste at the City’s Green Organics Processing Facility in Anakie to Greenwaste Recycling Services Pty Ltd trading as Green Care Mulching (ABN: 92 135 762 211):
at the tendered Schedule of Rates;
for an initial contract term of 3 years;
with 2 possible extensions of 12 months to a maximum 5-year term, exercisable at the City’s discretion; and
Note the estimated contract cost for the maximum term is $7,075,000 (excluding GST); and
Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to sign all the relevant contract documents to give effect to contract C1900015 for the Provision of Grinding and Decontamination Services of green organics waste at the City’s Green Organics Processing Facility in Anakie.
The Mayor vacated the Chair at 8:27pm.
Councillor Murrihy assumed the Chair at 8:27pm.
Councillor Mason re-entered the meeting room at 8:28pm.
Councillor Nelson left the meeting room at 8:28pm.
Councillor Nelson re-entered the meeting room at 8:30pm.
Carried.
The estimated annual cost of this contract is provided for in the budget.
No public consultation is required or necessary for the Council to establish this contract.
It is expected that the provision of the grinding and decontamination services as a by-product of the green organics waste processing will create positive outcomes for the community by utilising the product in the regions parks and gardens and potentially generating income for the City.
This tender was publicly advertised in accordance with the requirements of section 186 of the Local Government Act 1989 and the tender process has been conducted in accordance with Council’s Procurement Policy.
The provision of grinding and decontamination services forms part of the City’s broader strategic priorities in delivering effective environmental management by redirecting all green waste to the Green Organics Facility for processing, helping to meet a target of 60 per cent of garbage, recyclables and green organics collected from kerbsides diverted from landfill.
No officers or contractors involved in the preparation of this report have a direct or indirect interest in matters to which this report relates.
The tender evaluation process involved the assessment of Work, Health and Safety policies, procedures and risk assessment documents. Any other risks associated with the acceptance of this tender will be managed through the contract conditions.
Any environmental implications associated with this contract will arise from the execution of the works. It is considered that these are the responsibility of the Contractor and will be managed through the contract documentation.
Contract C1900015 for the Provision of Grinding and Decontamination Services of green organics waste at the City’s Green Organics Processing Facility in Anakie.
The City issued a tender for the services of an experienced and capable contractor to undertake the decontamination of green organic waste collected from residential properties and the subsequent grinding of these green organics at its Green Organics Processing Facility located in Anakie.
Table 1 Invitations to Tender
Medium |
Date Advertised |
The Geelong Advertiser |
13 October 2018 |
eProcure |
13 October 2018 |
Geelong Australia Website |
13 October 2018 |
The tender evaluation panel met to review the tenders, members of the panel are as follows in Table 2.
Table 2 Tender Evaluation Panel
Position Title |
Panel role |
Coordinator Procurement |
Chair |
Team Leader - Green Organics Processing Operations and Development |
Member |
Coordinator Waste Management |
Member |
Manager Environment & Waste Services |
Member |
Team Leader - Waste Service Delivery |
Member |
Operations Leader Green Waste Services |
Member |
Tenderers had to comply with the following mandatory criteria:
OH&S system – if tenderers system does not meet a minimum standard determined by the Principal, the tenderer will not be considered for the Contract
Tenderer must have a heat and UV radiation exposure management procedure, and if not, must be willing to abide by the City of Greater Geelong Heat and UV Radiation Exposure and Outdoor Clothing Procedures (Long/Long).
Tenderer was required to attend a mandatory site briefing at the Green Organics Processing Facility.
Tenderer was required to have a stand-by grinder that can be engaged on-site within 8 hours of breakdown/maintenance at all times.
Both tenderers met the mandatory criteria.
Table 3 Tender Submissions Received
Tender |
Conforming tender |
|
A |
Vegetation Management and Greenwaste Recycling Services Pty Ltd trading as Green Care Mulching (ABN 92 135 762 211) |
Yes |
B |
Tender B |
Yes |
The tender submission responses were scored and rated individually against all the separate criteria above. Panel members undertook a rigorous exercise of due diligence by assessing the various tenderer submissions, undertaking pricing assumptions against the schedules provided and analysing further written clarifications on aspects of tendered bids.
All tenderers were then assessed on a value for money basis.
The Evaluation Panel used the following assessment criteria (in order of weighting) to assess the submissions:
Table 4 Comparative Criteria Weighting
Comparative Criteria |
Weighting % |
Capability and experience in processing kerbside green organics over past three years |
25% |
Proposed plant and equipment levels, condition and maintenance/servicing programs |
25% |
Proposed staffing levels |
10% |
Economic Contribution to the Geelong Region |
10% |
GROW and G21 initiatives (mandatory) |
5% |
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders inclusion (mandatory) |
5% |
Recycled Content and Environment (mandatory) |
5% |
Clever and Creative (Innovation) (mandatory) |
5% |
Quality Management Policy and Systems |
5% |
All tender submissions satisfied the mandatory criteria and were deemed conforming.
All tenderers obtained an acceptable evaluation score and were deemed to have demonstrated the necessary capability, staffing and resources to deliver the services in accordance with the specification.
The tender submitted by Vegetation Management and Greenwaste Recycling Services Pty Ltd trading as Green Care Mulching provided the best value for money solution.
At the conclusion of the Evaluation Panel’s assessment the submissions were ranked in the following order as shown in Table 5.
Table 5 Tender Evaluation Scores
Tender |
Score |
|
A |
Vegetation Management and Greenwaste Recycling Services Pty Ltd trading as Green Care Mulching |
67.11 |
B |
Tender B |
64.09 |
There was no post-tender contact with tenderers.
Process probity was managed by the Procurement Department.
Councillor Harwood re-entered the meeting room at 8:33pm
Source: |
City Services - Engineering Services |
Director: |
Guy Wilson-Browne |
Portfolio: |
Social and Infrastructure Planning |
For Council to consider revoking its designation of 12 December 2006 of flood affected land Warralily Estate, Stage 78B as liable to flooding pursuant to regulation 153 of the Building Regulations 2018.
Council has a statutory obligation under the Building Regulations 2018 to designate land as liable to flooding where it reasonably knows it to be prone to flooding. Conversely, there is an obligation to remove the encumbrance of designation from land that is no longer considered to be flood-prone.
The current designated flood mapping (Attachment 2) was designated by Council at its meeting of 12 December 2006, under the provisions of the Building Regulations 2018.
This revocation will result in another stage of new lots in Warralily Estate fronting 612 Torquay Road, Armstrong Creek being free of their flood prone status, paving the way for owners to build homes on their land.
The flood mapping is subject to a revision due to the subdivision and development at 612 Torquay Road, Armstrong Creek. Prior to subdivision the parent lot was considered to be liable to flooding. This development site, which is also known as Warralily Estate, Stage 78B, achieves flood immunity for newly created lots for flood events up to and including the 100-year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) event due to approved internal earthworks.
The decision by Council engineers that the flood prone status can be removed includes assessment of internal drainage, road construction and earthworks to contain potential floodwaters from the 100 year ARI event within road and drainage reserves
(Attachment 3).
It should be noted that designation is separate to the creation of flood overlays within the Planning Scheme, which generally follows designation. In the case of this development, the planning scheme amendment to create post-development flood zones or overlays is proposed after the design of the proposed precincts.
Councillor Harwood resumed the Chair at 8:33pm.
Councillor Murnane moved, Councillor Nelson second -
That Council revoke the Council designation of 12 December 2006 of flood affected land Warralily Estate, Stage 78B as liable to flooding pursuant to regulation 153 of the Building Regulations 2018.
Carried.
No impact to budget.
A revocation of designation does not warrant public consultation as it constitutes the removal of an encumbrance on land.
Relevant Council databases and flood maps will be revised and updates sent to the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority and Building Control Commission.
Council have a responsibility to the community to provide the best possible information on areas that are flood prone. The removal of flood prone designation allows owners to build on their land without a special permit from the City, and without raising the floor level of their home. It also reduces the cost of property insurance.
The City has various statutory responsibilities for drainage management and flood management (prevention, response and recovery) as set out in the Local Government Act 1989, Local Government Regulations 1990, Planning and Environment Act 1987, Building Regulations 2018, Water Act 1989, Subdivision Act 1988 and Emergency Management Act 1986.
The works have resulted in the lots being protected from flooding during a major storm event that has a one per cent probability of occurring in any one year, and occurs on average once in 100 years. This is the required standard for new subdivisions.
The recommendations of this report are consistent with Council Plan, in relation to planned sustainable development.
There are no officer direct or indirect interests with respect to this report.
Council also has some risk exposure with any failure to disclose the flood-prone status of a property in a Land Information Certificate.
The revocation of the designation is the final step in minimising Council’s risk.
The revocation of flood-prone areas designation and designation of revised flood data through the design of this stage is considered unlikely to result in any known adverse environmental impacts.
Source: |
City Services – Engineering Services |
Director: |
Guy Wilson- Browne |
Portfolio: |
Social and Infrastructure Planning |
For Council to consider revoking its designation of 12 December 2006 of flood affected land Charlemont, Stage 5 as liable to flooding pursuant to regulation 153 of the Building Regulations 2018.
Council has a statutory obligation under the Building Regulations 2018 to designate land as liable to flooding where it reasonably knows it to be prone to flooding. Conversely, there is an obligation to remove the encumbrance of designation from land that is no longer considered to be flood-prone.
The current designated flood mapping (Attachment 2) was designated by Council at its meeting of 12 December 2006, under the provisions of the Building Regulations 2018.
This revocation will result in another stage of new lots in Charlemont fronting 150 – 230 Horseshoe Bend Road, Charlemont being free of their flood prone status, paving the way for owners to build homes on their land.
The flood mapping is subject to a revision due to the subdivision and development at 150 – 230 Horseshoe Bend Road, Charlemont. Prior to subdivision the parent lot was considered to be liable to flooding. This development site, which is also known as Charlemont, Stage 5, achieves flood immunity for newly created lots for flood events up to and including the 100-year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) event due to approved internal earthworks.
The decision by Council engineers that the flood prone status can be removed includes assessment of internal drainage, road construction and earthworks to contain potential floodwaters from the 100-year ARI event within road and drainage reserves
(Attachment 3).
It should be noted that designation is separate to the creation of flood overlays within the Planning Scheme, which generally follows designation. In the case of this development, the planning scheme amendment to create post-development flood zones or overlays is proposed after the design of the proposed precincts.
Councillor Murnane moved, Councillor Nelson seconded -
That Council revoke the Council designation of 12 December 2006 of flood affected land Charlemont, Stage 5 as liable to flooding pursuant to regulation 153 of the Building Regulations 2018.
Carried.
No impact to budget.
A revocation of designation does not warrant public consultation as it constitutes the removal of an encumbrance on land.
Relevant Council databases and flood maps will be revised and updates sent to the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority and Building Control Commission.
Council have a responsibility to the community to provide the best possible information on areas that are flood prone. The removal of flood prone designation allows owners to build on their land without a special permit from the City, and without raising the floor level of their home. It also reduces the cost of property insurance.
The City has various statutory responsibilities for drainage management and flood management (prevention, response and recovery) as set out in the Local Government Act 1989, Local Government Regulations 1990, Planning and Environment Act 1987, Building Regulations 2018, Water Act 1989, Subdivision Act 1988 and Emergency Management Act 1986.
The works have resulted in the lots being protected from flooding during a major storm event that has a one per cent probability of occurring in any one year, and occurs on average once in 100 years. This is the required standard for new subdivisions.
The recommendations of this report are consistent with Council Plan, in relation to planned sustainable development.
There are no officer direct or indirect interests with respect to this report.
Council also has some risk exposure with any failure to disclose the flood-prone status of a property in a Land Information Certificate.
The revocation of the designation is the final step in minimising Council’s risk.
The revocation of flood-prone areas designation and designation of revised flood data through the design of this stage is considered unlikely to result in any known adverse environmental impacts.
Source: |
Planning and Development - Strategic Implementation |
Director: |
Gareth Smith |
Portfolio: |
Sustainable Development |
Councillor Asher moved, Councillor Grzybek seconded -
That in accordance with Section 89 (2) (e) of the Local Government Act 1989, this proposed development be considered at the conclusion of all other business at which time the meeting be closed to members of the public.
Carried.
Contents | Previous Page: Section A - Procedural Matters | Next Page: Section C - Assembly of Councillors
