Agenda - Hume City Council

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF 

THE HUME CITY COUNCIL 

MONDAY, 12 SEPTEMBER 2011 

7:00 PM 

COUNCIL CHAMBER, HUME GLOBAL LEARNING CENTRE, 

BROADMEADOWS 

OUR VISION: 

Hume City Council will be recognised as a leader in achieving 

social, environmental and economic outcomes with a common goal 

of connecting our proud community and celebrating the diversity of 

Hume.

HUME CITY COUNCIL 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Notice of an 

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE HUME CITY COUNCIL 

to be held on Monday, 12 September 2011 

at 7:00 PM 

at the Council Chamber, Hume Global Learning Centre, Broadmeadows 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

To: a: Council 

Cr Helen Patsikatheodorou 

Cr Ros Spence 

Cr Adem Atmaca 

Cr Vic Dougall 

Cr Drew Jessop 

Cr Jack Ogilvie 

Cr Geoff Porter 

Cr Ann Potter 

Cr Burhan Yigit 

Mayor 

Deputy Mayor 

b: Officers Mr Domenic Isola 

Mr Daryl Whitfort 

Mr John Monaghan 

Ms Margarita Caddick 

Mr Kelvin Walsh 

Ms Kylie Ezzy 

Chief Executive Officer 

Director City Governance and Information 

Acting Director City Infrastructure 

Director City Communities 

Director City Sustainability 

Director Organisation and Community 

Learning 

ORDER OF BUSINESS 

1. PRAYER 

Almighty God, we humbly beseech Thee to vouchsafe Thy blessing upon this Council. Direct 

and prosper its deliberations to the advancement of Thy glory and the true welfare of the 

people of the Hume City. 

Amen 

2. APOLOGIES 

3. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS: 

Councillors' attention is drawn to the provisions of the Local Government Act 1989 in relation 

to the disclosure of conflicts of interests. Councillors are required to disclose any conflict of 

interest immediately before consideration or discussion of the relevant item. Councillors are 

then required to leave the Chamber during discussion and not vote on the relevant item. 

Hume City Council PAGE 1

NOTICE OF MEETING 

12 SEPTEMBER 2011 

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF COUNCIL 

4. ASSEMBLIES OF COUNCIL 

In accordance with section 80A(2) of the Local Government Act 1989, Council is required to 

report, as soon as practicable, to an Ordinary Meeting of Council, a record of any assemblies 

of Councillors held. 

There are no record of assemblies to report on this section of the Agenda. 

Council held Assembly of Council known as Strategy and Policy Briefing on 15 August 2011. 

The documents associated with this briefing have been determined by the Chief Executive 

Officer as confidential, under sections 77(2) and 89(2) of the Act. The record of this 

assembly has accordingly been reported to Council in the Confidential Section of the Council 

Agenda. 

5. CONFIRMATION OF COUNCIL MINUTES 

5.1 Minutes of Meeting of the Hume City Council held on 8 August and 29 August 2011, 

including Confidential Minutes. 

RECOMMENDATION: 

THAT the Minutes of the Meeting of the Hume City Council held on 8 August and 

29 August 2011 including Confidential Minutes, as circulated, be confirmed. 

6. RECEIPT OF COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY COMMITTEE MINUTES AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL TO BE ADOPTED: 

6.1 Section 86 Committees 

Minutes of the Annual General Meeting of the Campbellfield Community Centre 

Committee of Management held on 21 July 2011 

Minutes of the Meeting of the Gladstone Park Community Centre Committee of 

Management held on 17 July 2011 

Minutes of the Annual General Meeting of the Tullamarine Community Hall 

Committee of Management held on 25 July 2011 

The following are recommendations and actions submitted by Section 86 Committees 

which manage community facilities: 

6.2 Campbellfield Community Centre Committee of Management General Meeting 

held on 21 July 2011 

6.2.1 Committee Resolutions: 

(a) 

That Council approves the nomination of Graeme Balsillie to become a 

member of the Campbellfield Community Centre Committee of 

Management. 





(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

That Graeme Balsillie be appointed as Secretary of the Campbellfield 

Community Centre Committee of Management. 

That Victor Dougall be appointed as Chairperson of the Campbellfield 

Community Centre Committee of Management. 

That the Annual Statement of Accounts for the 12 months ending 30 June 

2011, be received and adopted, and that the statement be forwarded to the 

Hume City Council for their records. 

(e) That the Committee reimburses Rosaleen Stagnitta $80.00 for mobile 

phone calls incurred as the Treasurer between December 2010 and 21 July 

2011. 

6.2.2 Officers Comments: 

The Officers have noted the following requests, queries and advice contained in 

the minutes of the meeting: 

 

 

 

 

Who pays for the electricity at the Centre Car Park, BBQ and Mobile 

Library? 

Committee have suggested that the carpet in the meeting room be replaced 

due to flood damage. 

The floor in the main hall is scheduled to be resealed in September (School 

holiday period). 

Hume Dance Program Coordinator to be requested to return keys. 

The advice in respect to reseal of the main hall is noted, and the queries and 

requests will be actioned by Officers and the Committee advised of the 

outcomes. 

6.3 Gladstone Park Community Centre Committee of Management Meeting held on 

17 July 2011. 

6.3.1 Committee Resolutions: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

That the Annual Statement of Accounts for the 12 months ending 30 June 

2011, be received and adopted and that a copy of that statement be sent to 

Council for their records. 

That $15,000.00 be transferred into a new term deposit to mature in 

October, when existing term deposits mature. 

That Council accept the quote to rekey the centre at the approximate cost 

of $2,500.00. The cost to be paid from the Committee of Management 

funds. 

That Council accept the Committee’s sponsorship of the Billy Cart 

Derby/Fun Day Run, as per previous years, to the value of $1,000.00. 





6.4 Tullamarine Community Hall Committee of Management General Meeting held on 

25 July 2011. 

6.4.1 Committee Resolutions 

(a) 

(b) 

That Financial Statement for year ending 30 June 2011, be received and 

adopted by the Committee, and to be forwarded to Council with minutes. 

That $13,000.00 be transferred from the Committee’s Business Account to 

a Investment Account 

6.4.2 Officers Comments 

Officers have noted the following requests contained in the minutes of the 

meeting: 

 

 

Hand Dryers 

Officers Recommendations: 

 

Replace rectangles as required 

Trolley as needed 

These requests will be actioned by Officers, and the Committee advised of the 

outcomes. 

6.1 That Council notes the minutes of the Section 86 Committee and adopts the following 

recommendations. 

6.2 Campbellfield Community Centre Committee of Management General Meeting 

held on 21 July 2011. 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

That Council approves the nomination of Graeme Balsillie to become a 

member of the Campbellfield Community Centre Committee of 

Management (application form has been signed). 

That Council endorse the appointment of Graeme Balsillie as Secretary of 

the Campbellfield Community Centre Committee of Management 

That Council endorse the appointment of Victor Dougall as Chairperson of 

the Campbellfield Community Centre Committee of Management. 

(d) That Council receives and notes the Campbellfield Community Centre 

Committee of Management Annual Statement of Accounts for the 12 

months ending 30 June 2011. 

(e) That the Committee reimburses Rosaleen Stagnitta $80.00 for mobile 

phone calls incurred as the Treasurer between December 2010 and 21 July 

2011. 





6.3 Gladstone Park Community Centre Committee of Management General Meeting 

held on 17 July 2011. 

(a) 

That Council receives and notes the Gladstone Park Community Centre 


months ending 30 June 2011. 

(b) That Council notes that $15,000.00 to be transferred into a new term 

deposit to mature in October when existing term deposits mature. 

(c) 

(d) 

That Council approves the quote to rekey the centre at the approximate 

cost of $2,500.00, to be paid from the Committee of Management funds. 

That Council approve the Committee sponsoring the Billy Cart Derby and 

Fun Run, as per previous years to the value of $1,000.00. 

6.4 Tullamarine Community Hall Committee of Management General Meeting held 

on 25 July 2011. 

(a) 

(b) 

That Council receives and notes the Tullamarine Community Hall 


months ending 30 June 2011 

That Council notes that $13,000.00 has been transferred from the 

Committee’s Business Account to the Investment Account. 

6.5 Advisory Committees 

Audit Committee Meeting of the Hume City Council held on 18 August 2011. 


THAT the Minutes be noted and recommendations listed above be adopted. 

7. PRESENTATION OF AWARDS 

7.1 Resident of the Month – Mr Jemal Hasan 

8. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 

Answers will be provided to questions lodged by members of the public by noon on the day 

of the Council meeting pursuant to Council’s Governance Local Law 2009. 

9. NOTICES OF MOTION 





10. OFFICERS REPORTS 

The Mayor will ask the Councillors and gallery at the commencement of this section, which 

reports they wish to speak to. These reports will then be discussed in the order they appear 

on the notice paper. Reports not called will be dealt with in a block resolution at the end. 

Item No Title 

COUNCIL LEADERSHIP 

Page 

LE331 6 Cook Place, Westmeadows -- Development Of A Double Storey Dwelling To 

The Rear Of The Existing Dwelling ........................................................................ 8 

LE332 Section 173 Agreement - 28 Rokewood Crescent, Meadow Heights................ 26 

LE333 Building Control Services Delegation Report - June 2011 ................................ 28 

LE334 Proposal To Name Park - 'Napoli Park'................................................................ 40 

LE335 Clean Energy Future - Implications For Hume City Council And The 

Community ............................................................................................................. 44 

LE336 2010/2011 Grants And Advocacy Update ............................................................ 55 

PROSPERITY OF THE CITY 

PC46 M80 Legacy Works Offer....................................................................................... 62 

PC47 Coolaroo Local Area Traffic Management Study................................................ 70 

PC48 Roxburgh Park East Local Area Traffic Management Study ............................. 85 

PC49 Craigieburn Road, Craigieburn - Illegal Parking............................................... 100 

COMMUNITY WELLBEING 

CW271 Harricks Crescent Reserve Basketball Tower .................................................. 103 

CW272 Quarterly Food Sampling Report April-June 2011............................................ 108 

APPEARANCE OF THE CITY AND ENVIRONMENT 

AE44 

Hume Planning Scheme Amendment C122 - Application Of The Land Subject 

To Inundation Overlay And The Special Building Overlay - For Adoption..... 114 

11. PETITIONS AND JOINT LETTERS 

12. DEPUTATIONS 

13. URGENT BUSINESS 

14. DELEGATES REPORTS 





15. GENERAL BUSINESS 

16. CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 

The Meeting may be closed to members of the public to consider confidential matters. 


THAT the Council close the meeting to the public pursuant to Section 89(2) of the 

Local Government Act 1989 to discuss any matter which the Council or special 

committee considers would prejudice the Council or any person. 

17. CLOSURE OF MEETING 

DOMENIC ISOLA 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

7 September 2011 


REPORTS – COUNCIL LEADERSHIP 



COUNCIL PLAN THEME – COUNCIL LEADERSHIP 

REPORT NO: 

REPORT TITLE: 

SOURCE: 

DIVISION: 

FILE NO: 

POLICY: 

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE: 

LE331 

6 Cook Place, Westmeadows -- Development of a 

double storey dwelling to the rear of the existing 

dwelling 

Henry Dong, Town Planner 

City Sustainability 

P15178 

Hume Planning Scheme 

Accountable Leadership 

Application No: 

P15178 

Proposal: 

Development of a double storey dwelling to the rear of 

an existing dwelling 

Location: 

6 Cook Place, Westmeadows 

Zoning: Residential 1 

Applicant: 

ZDA Design 

Date Received: 11 March 2011 

1. SUMMARY OF REPORT: 

An application has been received for the development of a double storey dwelling at the rear 

of an existing dwelling at No. 6 Cook Place, Westmeadows. The application was advertised 

with six objections received. The proposal complies with all relevant requirements of the 

State and Local Planning Policy Framework, ResCode and the provisions of the Residential 

1 Zone. Approval is recommended. 

2. RECOMMENDATION: 

That Council, having considered the objections, resolves to issue a Notice of Decision 

to Grant a Planning Permit for the development of a double storey dwelling at the rear 

of an existing dwelling at No. 6 Cook Place, Westmeadows, subject to the following 

conditions: 

1. A4 Amended Plan required. 

(a) 

Correct north-east elevation of the existing dwelling. 





REPORT NO: LE331 (cont.) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

Habitable room windows along the north-east elevation of the existing 

dwelling must have a window sill height of 1.4 metres above the finished 

floor level. A 1 metre wide landscape buffer must be provided between 

these habitable room windows and the shared accessway. 

Garage façade with sectional panel lifting door for the proposed double 

carport of the new dwelling. 

External storage shed with a minimum capacity of 6 cubic metres for 

both existing and proposed dwelling. 

2. Preparation of Landscape Plan 

3. G1 Landscaping completion and maintenance. 

4. A2 No layout alteration 

5. No new works 

The following conditions (6-9) are required by Council’s Traffic and Civil Design 

Department: 

6. No structure is permitted within the turning area, this includes entry steps, 

verandah posts and landscaping. 

7. Stormwater from all paved area must be retained within the property and 

drained to the site’s underground stormwater system, including pavement 

over the easement area. 

8. Any cut or fill must not interfere with the natural overland stormwater flow. 

9. No polluted and / or sediment laden runoff is to be discharged directly or 

indirectly into Council’s drains or watercourses during construction. 

10. C2 Expiry - Development completion (i) 

Notes: 

Any modifications to existing vehicle crossings requires an application for a ‘Consent 

to Dig in the Road Reserve’ permit for a vehicle crossing to be submitted to Council 

for approval. A copy of the Council endorsed plan showing all vehicle crossing details 

is to be attached to the application. 

Prior to any works being carried out within the Road Reserve (nature strip) an 

application/permit for “Non Utility Minor Works within the Municipal Road Reserve” is 

required to be obtained from Council. 

An approval is required from Council and other responsible authorities, for the garage 

to be built over the easement. 

A separate underground drainage system is to be designed to cater for unit 2, the 

drainage must include draining all concrete driveways and connect to the legal point 

of discharge for the site. 






The internal stormwater drainage design must be approved by a Relevant Building 

Surveyor under the Building Regulation 2006, Reg. 610. 

A stormwater discharge permit is required from Council. 

3. PLANNING CONTROLS: 

3.1 The subject site is located within a Residential 1 Zone. Pursuant to Clause 32.01-4 of 

the Hume Planning Scheme, a Planning Permit is required to construct two or more 

dwellings on a lot. A development must meet the requirements of Clause 55 (ResCode) 

of the Hume Planning Scheme. 

3.2 The purpose of the Residential 1 Zone is: 

‘To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy 

Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies. 

To provide for residential development at a range of densities with a variety of 

dwellings to meet the housing needs of all households. 

To encourage residential development that respects the neighbourhood character. 

In appropriate locations, to allow educational, recreational, religious, community and a 

limited range of other non-residential uses to serve local community needs’. 

3.3 Clause 55 ResCode applies to an application for two or more dwellings on a lot in a 

Residential 1 Zone. ResCode’s main focus is to respect neighbourhood character, 

protect amenity and promote more sustainable development. 

3.4 Clause 65 of the Hume Planning Scheme sets out decision guidelines which the 

Responsible Authority must consider when deciding on an application. Council is 

required to consider both the State and Local Planning Policy Framework including the 

Municipal Strategic Statement. 

3.5 As it relates to the proposal, the following aspects of the State Planning Policy 

Framework (SPPF) are relevant. 

3.6 Clause 11.02-1: Supply of urban land has the objective: 

‘To ensure a sufficient supply of land is available for residential, commercial, retail, 

industrial, recreational, institutional and other community uses’. 

One of the listed strategies for this Clause is that 

Planning for urban growth should consider opportunities for the consolidation, 

redevelopment and intensification of existing urban areas. 

3.7 Clause 11.04: Metropolitan Melbourne (11.04-1 City structure) has the objective 

‘To facilitate the development of a multi-centred metropolitan structure’. 






One of the listed strategies for this Clause is to 

‘Facilitate targeted redevelopment to increase levels of housing and employment in 

established areas close to where people reside’. 

3.8 Clause 15.01-2: Urban design principles has the objective 

‘To achieve architectural and urban design outcomes that contribute positively to local 

urban character and enhance the public realm while minimising detrimental impact on 

neighbouring properties’. 

3.9 Clause 16.01-2: Location of residential development has the objective 

‘To locate new housing in or close to activity centres and employment corridors and at 

other strategic redevelopment sites that offer good access to services and transport’. 

Some of the listed strategies for this Clause are to 

 

 

 

‘Encourage higher density housing development on sites that are well located in 

relation to activity centres, employment corridors and public transport. 

Ensure an adequate supply of redevelopment opportunities within the 

established urban area to reduce the pressure for fringe development. 

Identify opportunities for increased residential densities to help consolidate 

urban areas’. 

3.10 Clause 16.01-4: Housing diversity has the objective: 

‘To provide for a range of housing types to meet increasingly diverse needs’. 

Some of the listed strategies for this Clause are to 

 

 

Ensure housing stock matches changing demand by widening housing choice, 

particularly in the middle and outer suburbs. 

Encourage the development of well-designed medium-density housing which: 

o 

o 

o 

o 

Respects the neighbourhood character. 

Improves housing choice. 

Makes better use of existing infrastructure. 

Improves energy efficiency of housing. 

 

 

Support opportunities for a wide range of income groups to choose housing in 

well serviced locations. 

Ensure planning for growth areas provides for a mix of housing types and 

higher housing densities in and around activity centres. 

3.11 The subject site is located within Greenvale, Attwood and Westmeadows 

neighbourhood, the relevant objective for this neighbourhood is to continue to plan for 

Greenvale, Attwood and Westmeadows as high quality urban environments with 






convenient access to a range of social and physical infrastructure and services that are 

linked by attractive open space networks and streetscapes. 

3.12 Clause 22.15 of the Hume Planning Scheme relates to Westmeadows. This site is 

located within Precinct 2. This precinct is described as below: 

‘This area of Westmeadows is centred on a village located in the Moonee Ponds Creek 

Valley. The proximity of the Creek Valley gives the area a distinct semi-rural quality. 

The mix of building styles, front setbacks and building spacing is unified by the wide 

nature strips that sometimes extend uninterrupted to the kerb, and the established 

garden settings of the dwellings. The gardens often contain pockets of mature trees 

and other substantial vegetation, and adjacent to the creek corridor native trees 

complement the creek environs. 

The buildings are generally low scale, although the hilly terrain in some streets has 

encouraged two storey dwellings that usually fit into the landscape. A lack of front 

fencing and low front fences in other areas, adds to the garden dominated vistas along 

the streetscapes’. 

3.13 The preferred neighbourhood character of this precinct is as follows: 

 

 

The garden dominated streetscapes and cohesiveness of the area will be 

maintained and enhanced. 

It is policy that where a permit is required to develop or subdivide land in this 

precinct, the following preferred Neighbourhood Character objectives and 

design responses will be taken into account when considering any application. 

o 

o 

o 

o 

To encourage consideration of the landscape setting of new dwellings by 

retaining existing large trees and understorey wherever possible and 

preparing a landscape plan to accompany all new dwelling proposals that 

utilises appropriate native vegetation. 

To minimise excavation and site erosion by encouraging buildings and 

other development to follow the topography of the site or minimise their 

impact on the natural slope of the site and by retaining existing significant 

vegetation, especially on steeply sloping sites. 

To reflect the existing rhythm of dwelling spacing. 

To ensure that new buildings do not dominate the streetscape and wider 

treed landscaping setting by encouraging that designs of new buildings and 

extensions are such that they do not to exceed the predominant tree 

canopy height.’ 

3.14 The proposal satisfactorily complies with the above Neighbourhood Character 

objectives. The proposed dwelling generally follows the natural topography of the site, 

and by placing the proposed dwelling at the rear of the existing dwelling will ensure that 

the dwelling will not dominate the streetscape and the existing rhythm of the dwelling 

spacing is maintained. 






4. ADVERTISING: 

The application was advertised to adjoining property owners and occupiers by mail and a 

notice was erected on the site for a period of 14 days. Six (6) objections were received at the 

end of the advertising period. 

5. REFERRALS: 

No external referrals were triggered under Section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act 

1987 or Clause 66 of the Hume Planning Scheme. The application was referred internally to 

Council’s Traffic and Civil Design Department who have no objection subject to conditions. 

6. DISCUSSION: 

Site and surrounds 

6.1 The site is situated along the west side of Cook Place and comprises an irregular 

shaped block land with a frontage width of approximately 12 metres. The site has a 

total site area of approximately 737 square metres. 

6.2 The site gradually falls from the rear to the front by a maximum of 3.2 metres, and has 

abuttal to three separate allotments along the north, west and south boundary. The 

allotment that abuts the rear western property boundary is a Council reserve. A 2.43 

metre wide easement extends along the width of the rear west boundary. 

6.3 The land is currently occupied by a single storey detached dwelling which will be 

retained as part of the development. 

6.4 Land surrounding the subject site is zoned Residential 1 and the streetscape is 

characterised by predominantly single storey dwellings with variety of front setbacks. 

Construction materials vary from weatherboard to brick/brick veneer dwellings with tiled 

roof, from 1980s and 1990s. 

6.5 Contextually, the site is well located with respect to public infrastructure, being located 

in close proximity to reserves, road networks and bus routes. 

The Proposal 

6.6 The proposal involves the retention of the existing dwelling on site, and construction of 

a double storey dwelling in the rear portion of the land. The proposed development will 

be constructed in a linear layout with the existing dwelling (Dwelling 1) having a direct 

street frontage to Cook Place and the proposed dwelling (Dwelling 2) having a frontage 

to the shared accessway running along the northern property boundary. 

6.7 The existing dwelling will be kept as a three bedroom dwelling, therefore a single 

garage with a tandem parking space will be provided for this dwelling. 






6.8 The proposed dwelling will comprise an open living, meals/kitchen/lounge area, and a 

bedroom with ensuite, a laundry and toilet on the ground floor. Upstairs, it contains two 

bedrooms, a toilet and a bathroom. The dwelling will be provided with a double carport. 

6.9 Both existing and proposed dwelling will each be provided with a minimum of 40 

square metres of secluded private open space either at the rear or on the side of the 

dwelling that will be accessible via a sliding door from the meals/lounge area. 

6.10 The proposed dwelling presents a contemporary design comprising modern porch 

entrance, square and rectangular shaped windows and pitched roof with eaves. The 

dwelling is well articulated and utilises a combination of brick/brick veneer and render 

as construction materials that compliment the tiled roofing. 

Planning Assessment: 

6.11 In considering this application, regard has been given to the State and Local Planning 

Policy Framework, the provisions of the Hume Planning Scheme, in particular Clause 

55 and the individual merits of the application. On this basis, the following assessment 

is provided. 

Clause 55.02 – Neighbourhood Character and Infrastructure (incorporating 

Standard B1-B5) 

6.12 Neighbourhood character objectives seek to ensure that the design for any new 

proposal respects the existing neighbourhood character and/or contributes to a 

preferred neighbourhood character. The proposed development responds to and is 

sympathetic to the features of the site and the surrounding area. 

6.13 The area is characterised by modest single storey dwellings that are well set back from 

their respective frontages. Dwellings are typically double fronted, have pitched roofs 

with eaves, front porches and large windows. Building materials include brick and 

weatherboard. 

6.14 The proposed dwellings draw on the design elements typically found in the area and 

present as well articulated dwellings with contemporary design elements such as 

modern porches, pitched roofs with eaves, large windows and a mixture of brick and 

render construction. 

6.15 The double storey form is recessed from the ground floor footprint reducing its 

dominance and promoting an articulated form. The general proportion and symmetry of 

the dwellings fit well within this street context. 

Clause 55.03 – Site layout and Building Massing (Incorporating Standard B6-B16) 

6.16 The existing front setback of approximately 8 metres will be retained as part of the 

development. This is considered to be satisfactory. 

6.17 The proposed development has sufficient drainage, sewerage, electricity, gas and 

water discharge points and other services for residential occupation and it is not 

envisaged that there will be any capacity overload caused by the proposed 

development. 






6.18 The proposed building height of approximately 6.5 metres to the underside of the 

dwelling’s eaves is considered to be satisfactory with respect to Standard B7 of the 

ResCode. 

6.19 Site coverage is approximately 42.5% and permeable area is approximately 26% of the 

overall land area. This is well within the requirements of Standards B8 and B9 of 

ResCode. 

6.20 The proposed development is designed to take advantage of natural light to the living 

area of the proposed dwelling to minimize reliance on artificial lighting as it has direct 

access to the northern sunlight. 

6.21 The proposed development attempts to ensure that the layout of the development is 

such that it provides for the safety and security of residents and property. This has 

been achieved through the provision of an entrance to the dwelling that is not obscured 

from the internal accessway. The development is also designed to provide adequate 

lighting, visibility and surveillance of car parks and the internal access way. 

6.22 The development will be provided with a shared accessway along the northern property 

boundary. The accessway has been provided with a minimum width of 3 metres and 

internal radius of at least 4 metres at change of direction so that the vehicles are able 

to exit the site in a forward motion. A 3 metre wide crossover is also provided, which is 

considered to be satisfactory. 

6.23 The existing dwelling (three bedrooms) will be provided with two car parking spaces 

with one space under cover and another in tandem, while the proposed dwelling (also 

three bedroom) will be provided with a double vehicle carport. Overall the parking 

provision for the proposed development satisfies the relevant requirement contained 

within ResCode. 

Clause 55.04 – Amenity Impact (Incorporating Standard B17-B24) 

6.24 In this development, the garage wall of the existing dwelling is proposed to be 

constructed along the southern property boundary. The height and distance of this wall 

on the boundary satisfies the requirements of Standards B17 and B18. 

6.25 The layout and setback provided by the proposed development ensures that daylight is 

available to all existing habitable room windows and that the access to daylight on 

adjoining dwellings is not encumbered by the development. 

6.26 The shadow diagram submitted with the application has shown that the amount of 

overshadowing will not unreasonably affect the adjoining or surrounding properties. 

6.27 First floor windows along the east, north and south elevations are proposed to be 

highlight windows that are 1.7 metres above the finished floor level, to minimize the 

potential of overlooking into adjoining properties’ private open space. This is 

considered to be satisfactory. First floor windows along the west elevation provide an 

outlook to a reserve, therefore do not have to be altered. 






6.28 The proposed window treatments along the east, north and south elevation will also 

prevent internal overlooking (overlooking from one dwelling into the private open space 

of another dwelling within the development itself). 

Clause 55.05 – On Site Amenity and Facility (Incorporating Standard B25-B30) 

6.29 Both existing and proposed dwellings are suitable for person with limited mobility. They 

have limited steps to gain access and can be easily fitted with ramps or other features 

to assist in access. 

6.30 Both existing and proposed dwellings have each been allocated secluded private open 

space with a minimum area of 40 square metres and a minimum width of 3 metres 

either on the side or at the rear of the dwelling. 

6.31 The secluded private open space of the proposed dwelling is north facing to allow 

maximum solar access into this area. The existing dwelling’s secluded private open 

space is south facing, however, a ‘Solar access to open space’ template shows that the 

southern boundary of the private open space for the existing dwelling is set back in 

accordance with Standard B29 to allow sufficient solar access into the secluded private 

open space of this dwelling. 

Clause 55.06 – Detailed Design (Incorporating Standard B31-B34) 

6.32 The established neighbourhood character of the area can be largely defined by the 

modest post war style architecture. This is not to say that new, more contemporary 

type development, including double storey components cannot be considered for the 

precinct. Any new development however must be sympathetic to the existing built form 

and propose a design that draws the positive from the existing neighbourhood. If 

double storey dwellings must be introduced, this should be done in a way that is 

transitional in built form and not at odds with the existing neighbourhood. 

6.33 The proposed dwelling has been designed to incorporate traditional design elements 

such as pitched roofs and external brickwork in an attempt to integrate within the 

established streetscape theme. The articulated façade and recessed upper floor of the 

proposed two storey dwelling further serves to provide a transition and integrate the 

development within the scale of the existing built environment. 

7. SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS: 

7.1 Ground of objections and officer’s response now follow. 

Traffic issue with respect to congestion, safety, parking and reduction of on street 

parking 






7.2 The parking provision of the proposed development complies with all relevant 

requirements of the Hume Planning Scheme. In addition, Council’s traffic engineers 

have raised no concerns with the additional traffic that will be generated by this 

development. It is considered that the roads within the area are of a standard that will 

adequately cater for any increase in traffic. Furthermore, the development is proposing 

to utilize the existing driveway and the crossover for the new dwelling at the rear, 

therefore there will be no reduction in on-street parking along this street. 

Site Coverage / permeability/neighbourhood character 

7.3 The 42.5% site coverage proposed for this development is well within the 60% limit 

allowed by ResCode. In addition, the proposed 26% site permeability is also above the 

minimum of 20% required by ResCode. Meanwhile, there are no restrictions on the 

Title to suggest that double storey dwellings cannot be developed on the land. 

Furthermore, double storey dwellings are part of the urban fabric of Melbourne’s 

suburbs. In this instance, the first floor forms are recessed from the ground floor 

providing good articulation and assist in reducing the dominance of the development. 

Overshadowing 

7.4 Shadow diagrams submitted show that the majority of the shadows will be contained 

within the subject site and overshadowing into the adjoining properties is minimal. The 

private open space of the adjoining properties will receive a sufficient amount of direct 

sunlight so as to comply with Standard B21 of ResCode. This ground therefore cannot 

be substantiated. 

Buildings on the neighboring properties are not accurately depicted / overlooking / loss 

of privacy 

7.5 While it may be true that the patio/sliding door on the adjoining property are not 

accurately depicted on the site context plan, the claim that the proposed development 

will cause overlooking into this outdoor area and through the sliding door is not valid. 

The first floor windows along the north, east and south elevation of the proposed 

dwelling are proposed to be highlight windows that are1.7 metres above the finished 

floor level. This is considered to be an acceptable way to reduce the potential of 

overlooking into adjoining properties’ private open space. The windows along the west 

elevation of the proposed dwelling provide an outlook to a reserve. 

Noise 

7.6 It is inevitable that the proposed development will generate some noise in the area, 

however, no evidence was presented to show how any increase in noise would be 

unreasonable having regard to the land’s location within an urban area. It is well 

documented in VCAT decision Potts v Glen Eira CC [2003] VCAT 1129 (1 September 

2003) that the potential for the generation of noise is not a reason to refuse a 

development proposal, and the type of the noise such as children play, party music are 

just part of urban life and only when such noise becomes a nuisance, then there will be 

relevant laws appropriate to deal with that sort of problem. The decision states that: 






“It is possible to have neighbours who indulge in frequent loud parties, but that can 

occur in relation to detached houses, just as well as in relation to medium density 

townhouses. The prospect of finding oneself in close proximity to neighbours who 

create noise nuisances of that sort is one of the risks one takes in living in an urban 

area. Of course, if the noise generation amounts to a nuisance there are other laws 

appropriate to deal with that sort of problem……...Children playing, people talking, 

motor mowers operating and the like are all part of the ordinary incidents of life in an 

urban situation. They are part of the give and take of urban life that neighbours are 

obliged to accept (unless the problems get to the stage of being nuisances against 

which the law provides protection)." 

The development did not address the requirement of Standard B15 of ResCode in 

relation to the habitable room windows adjacent to the shared accessway. 

7.7 This concern is valid. Standard B15 requires that habitable room windows adjacent to 

the shared accessway must have a window sill height of 1.4 metres above the finished 

floor level and a 1 metre wide landscape buffer between the windows and the shared 

accessway. 

7.8 Habitable room windows along the north east elevation of the existing dwelling that are 

currently adjacent to the shared accessway, did not adequately address the 

requirement of the Standard B15. A permit condition is included requiring amended 

plans to be submitted to show compliance with this Standard. 

Difficulties with rubbish collection 

7.9 The development plan was forwarded to Council’s waste management department who 

have raised no concerns in relation to rubbish/recycling collection as the result of the 

proposed development 

Slope of the site will increase the height of the boundary wall 

7.10 The height of the boundary wall is clearly indicated on the development plan and is well 

within the limit allowed within the ResCode. 

Lack of infrastructure to support the medium density development 

7.11 This claim can not be substantiated. The subject site is well located with a bus route 

along Johnstone Street that is within the walking distance and Broadmeadows Town 

Centre is less than 1.5km to the east of the site. It is also evident that there are a 

number of sites within the neighbourhood that have been successfully developed with 

medium density development. 

The proposal does not meet Standard B2 of ResCode. 

7.12 This claim is not accurate. Standard B2 of the ResCode requires that an application 

must be accompanied by a written statement to the satisfaction of the responsible 

authority that describes how the development is consistent with State and Local 

Planning Policy Framework, including MSS and local planning policies. The applicant 

has submitted a written report in accordance with the requirement of this Standard. 






8. CONCLUSION: 

The proposal complies with the requirements and standards set out under Clause 55 of the 

Hume Planning Scheme, and the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks including the 

Municipal Strategic Statement. In essence, the proposed double storey development in the 

context of predominantly detached single storey dwellings provides an alternative housing 

choice to people in different stages of their life and affordability levels. Approval is therefore 

recommended. 






Hume City Council PAGE 20 

LOCATION MAP 

P15178 – 6 Cook Place Westmeadows 

The development of a double storey dwelling to the rear of the existing dwelling 

RIPPLEBROOK 

JOHNSTONE STREET 

CAPRI COURT 

WESTFIELD BOULEVARD 

TREET 

ELIZABETH STREET 


EYRE STREET 

COOK PLACE 

CAMPBELL STREET 

ENDEAVOUR CRESCENT 

RALEIGH STREET 

GWILT STREET 

EYRE STREET 


ELIZABETH STR 


CAMPBELL STRE 

WESTFIELD BOULEVARD 

BROADMEADOWS VALLEY TRAIL 

RIPPLEBROOK DRIVE 

TYABB COURT 

HASTINGS CRESCENT 

ROSEBUD CRESC 

MOONEE PONDS CREEK TRAIL 

BROADMEADOWS VALLEY TRAIL 

CLARKE DRI 

LORRAINE CRE 

KEYES PLA 

CLARKE DRIVE 




BROADMEADOWS ROAD 

HENDRICKS CRESC 

JOHNSTONE STRE 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

14 

14 

14 

14 

14 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

1 

3 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

4 

6 

7 

8 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

3 

5 

7 

9 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

26 

26 

26 

26 

26 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

36 

36 

36 

36 

36 

38 

38 

38 

38 

38 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

6 

8 

7 

4 

26 

26 

26 

26 

26 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

126 

126 

126 

126 

126 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

29 

29 

29 

29 

29 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

122 

122 

122 

122 

122 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

20 

20 

20 

20 

20 

3 

23 

23 

23 

23 

23 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

5 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

19 

19 

19 

19 

19 

138 

138 

138 

138 

138 

140 

140 

140 

140 

140 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

20 

20 

20 

20 

20 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

26 

26 

26 

26 

26 

2 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

36 

36 

36 

36 

36 

38 

38 

38 

38 

38 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

1 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

46 

46 

46 

46 

46 

146 

146 

146 

146 

146 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

14 

14 

14 

14 

14 

8 

6 

4 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

142 

142 

142 

142 

142 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

119 

119 

119 

119 

119 

117 

117 

117 

117 

117 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

118 

118 

118 

118 

118 

115 

115 

115 

115 

115 

116 

116 

116 

116 

116 

113 

113 

113 

113 

113 

23 

23 

23 

23 

23 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

19 

19 

19 

19 

19 17 

17 

17 

17 

17 

26 

26 

26 

26 

26 

3 

62 

62 

62 

62 

62 

0 

0 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

0 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

0 0 

66 

66 

66 

66 

66 

68 

68 

68 

68 

68 

29 

29 

29 

29 

29 

70 

70 

70 

70 

70 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

72 

72 

72 

72 

72 

125 

125 

125 

125 

125 123 

123 

123 

123 

123 121 

121 

121 

121 

121 

127 

127 

127 

127 

127 

129 

129 

129 

129 

129 

131 

131 

131 

131 

131 

124 

124 

124 

124 

124 

128 

128 

128 

128 

128 

130 

130 

130 

130 

130 

132 

132 

132 

132 

132 

134 

134 

134 

134 

134 

136 

136 

136 

136 

136 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

0 

3 

5 

3 

3 1 

2 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

39 

39 

39 

39 

39 

41 

41 

41 

41 

41 

43 

43 

43 

43 

43 30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

157 

157 

157 

157 

157 

50 

50 

50 

50 

50 

161 

161 

161 

161 

161 

170 

170 

170 

170 

170 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

20 

20 

20 

20 

20 

22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

17 

17 

17 

17 

17 19 

19 

19 

19 

19 21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

3 

3 

23 

23 

23 

23 

23 

1 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

4 

6 

8 

29 

29 

29 

29 

29 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

84 

84 

84 

84 

84 

82 

82 

82 

82 

82 

78 

78 

78 

78 

78 

76 

76 

76 

76 

76 

55 

55 

55 

55 

55 

2 

74 

74 

74 

74 

74 

4 

72 

72 

72 

72 

72 70 

70 

70 

70 

70 

1 

3 

49 

49 

49 

49 

49 

64 

64 

64 

64 

64 

4 

2 

62 

62 

62 

62 

62 

60 

60 

60 

60 

60 

58 

58 

58 

58 

58 

56 

56 

56 

56 

56 

54 

54 

54 

54 

54 

52 

52 

52 

52 

52 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

14 

14 

14 

14 

14 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

8 

177 

177 

177 

177 

177 

5 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 0 0 

185 

185 

185 

185 

185 

0 0 

185 

185 

185 

185 

185 

00 0 0 

0 

0 

68 

68 

68 

68 

68 66 

66 

66 

66 

66 

22 

6 

8 

300 

300 

300 

300 

300 

88 

88 

88 

88 

88 

1 

86 

86 

86 

86 

86 

80 

80 

80 

80 

80 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

7 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

20 

20 

20 

20 

20 

6 

139 

139 

139 

139 

139 

161 

161 

161 

161 

161 

37 

37 

37 

37 

37 

45 

45 

45 

45 

45 42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

39 

39 

39 

39 

39 

38 

38 

38 

38 

38 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

48 

48 

48 

48 

48 

50 

50 

50 

50 

50 

52 

52 

52 

52 

52 

46 

46 

46 

46 

46 

41 

41 

41 

41 

41 

48 

48 

48 

48 

48 

43 

43 

43 

43 

43 50 

50 

50 

50 

50 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

36 

36 

36 

36 

36 

38 

38 

38 

38 

38 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

42 

42 

42 

42 

42 

44 

44 

44 

44 

44 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

29 

29 

29 

29 

29 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

40 

40 

40 

40 

40 

22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

26 

26 

26 

26 

26 

207 

207 

207 

207 

207 

204 

204 

204 

204 

204 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

205 

205 

205 

205 

205 

4 

201 

201 

201 

201 

201 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

23 

23 

23 

23 

23 

202 

202 

202 

202 

202 200 

200 

200 

200 

200 1 185 

185 

185 

185 

185 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

26 

26 

26 

26 

26 

47 

47 

47 

47 

47 

46 

46 

46 

46 

46 

51 

51 

51 

51 

51 

49 

49 

49 

49 

49 

54 

54 

54 

54 

54 

56 

56 

56 

56 

56 

43 

43 

43 

43 

43 

45 

45 

45 

45 

45 

48 

48 

48 

48 

48 

47 

47 

47 

47 

47 

195 

195 

195 

195 

195 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

185 

185 

185 

185 

185 

192 

192 

192 

192 

192 

190 

190 

190 

190 

190 

9 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

188 

188 

188 

188 

188 

186 

186 

186 

186 

186 

4 

11 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

3 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

5 

8 

9 

7 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

9 

12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

7 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

14 

14 

14 

14 

14 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

5 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

36 

36 

36 

36 

36 

38 

38 

38 

38 

38 

41 

41 

41 

41 

41 

19 

19 

19 

19 

19 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

23 

23 

23 

23 

23 

25 

25 

25 

25 

25 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

39 

39 

39 

39 

39 

38 

38 

38 

38 

38 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

37 

37 

37 

37 

37 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

36 

36 

36 

36 

36 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

26 

26 

26 

26 

26 

1 

3 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 22 

22 

22 

22 

22 

14 

14 

14 

14 

14 

16 

16 

16 

16 

16 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

21 

21 

21 

21 

21 

35 

35 

35 

35 

35 

20 

20 

20 

20 

20 

48 

48 

48 

48 

48 

50 

50 

50 

50 

50 

0 

18 

18 

18 

18 

18 

50 

50 

50 

50 

50 

36 

36 

36 

36 

36 36 

36 

36 

36 

36 0 5 

7 

0 12 

12 

12 

12 

12 

2 

6 

4 

2 

11 

11 

11 

11 

11 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

26 

26 

26 

26 

26 

27 

27 

27 

27 

27 

29 

29 

29 

29 

29 

31 

31 

31 

31 

31 

33 

33 

33 

33 

33 

28 

28 

28 

28 

28 

30 

30 

30 

30 

30 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

32 

32 

32 

32 

32 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 

34 0 

37 

37 

37 

37 

37 36 

36 

36 

36 

36 

Subject Site: 6 Cook Place Westmeadows 

 

N





























REPORT NO: 

REPORT TITLE: 

SOURCE: 

DIVISION: 

FILE NO: 

POLICY: 


LE332 

Section 173 Agreement - 28 Rokewood Crescent, 

Meadow Heights 

Michelle Hutchings, Planning Officer Subdivisions 


P14717 

Hume Planning Scheme 


Application No: 

P14717 

Proposal: 

Section 173 Agreement 

Location: 

28 Rokewood Crescent, Meadow Heights 

Zoning: 

R1Z 

Applicant: 

Bassam Mourad 

Date Received: 15 August 2011 


Planning Permit P14717 was approved on 10 th November 2010 for a 2 lot subdivision on the 

subject site. Condition 6 of the Planning Permit requires the development to be either 

substantially completed or that the applicant enter into a Section 173 Agreement to ensure 

development of subdivided allotments is in accordance with the approved development 

permit. As the development has not been completed the applicant has submitted a Section 

173 agreement which is considered suitable for signing and sealing. 


That Council resolve to sign and seal the Section 173 Agreement submitted in 

accordance with Condition 6 of Planning Permit P14717. 

3. LEGISLATIVE POWERS: 

Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. 







4.1 Planning Permit P13490 was issued on 1 st September 2009 allowing the development 

of a double storey dwelling to the rear of an existing dwelling on the subject site. The 

development has not been completed. Subsequent to the development permit, a 

further Planning Permit P14717 was issued on 10 th November 2010 for a 2 lot 

subdivision of the land. 

4.2 Condition 6 of Planning Permit P14717 requires a Section 173 Agreement be entered 

into to ensure that the development is constructed as approved by the development 

permit. The agreement will then be registered on title prior to a Statement of 

Compliance for the subdivision. 

4.3 The submitted agreement meets the requirements of Condition 6 of Planning Permit 

P14717 and it is recommended that Council sign and seal the agreement. 


The Section 173 Agreement has been submitted in accordance with the Planning Permit 

condition requirement and it is considered suitable for signing and sealing by Council. 





REPORT NO: 

REPORT TITLE: 

SOURCE: 

DIVISION: 

LE333 

Building Control Services Delegation Report - June 

2011 

Peter Jolly, Municipal Building Surveyor 

City Infrastructure 

FILE NO: 90.01.0001 

POLICY: - 




1.1 Council has discretionary powers under the Building Act 1993 ‘Act’ and the Building 

Regulations 2006 ‘regulations’ to approve building proposals that do not comply with 

the deemed to satisfy ‘Rescode’ provisions of the regulations. 

1.2 Council also has discretionary powers to approve other siting matters such as 

constructing buildings over easements, on unsewered land, on flood prone land and on 

designated land. 

1.3 Places of Public Entertainment are required to comply with requirements for 

Occupancy Permits. 

1.4 The siting and erection of Prescribed Temporary Structures require approval as set out 

in the Act and the regulations. 

1.5 This report provides Council with a summary of the 89 approvals granted during the 

period 1 st April 2011 and 30 th June 2011. 


2.1 That this report be received and noted. 


3.1 Building Act 1993 

3.2 Building Regulations 2006 







4.1 Council is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Building Act 1993 

and the Building Regulations 2006 within the municipal district. The legislation gives 

discretionary powers to Council to approve building proposals that do not meet the 

deemed to satisfy provisions in the regulations. Such applications are processed and 

decided under delegation from Council. 

4.2 Part 4 of the regulations (which mirrors Rescode in the Planning Scheme) controls the 

siting and design of single dwellings and associated outbuildings on allotments of area 

greater than 300m 2 . A person may apply to Council for approval of a building design 

that does not comply with the standard (deemed to satisfy) siting provisions. The 

legislation refers to such approval as being the Report and Consent of Council. Such 

approval must be granted to facilitate the issue of a Building Permit. 

4.3 It should be noted that Building Regulations ‘Rescode’ siting requirements do not apply 

to multi dwelling developments or single dwellings on allotments with a site area less 

than 300m 2 ; and do not override Planning Permit siting requirements. For example, 

the minimum street setback applying to a dual occupancy development is determined 

by ‘Rescode’ under the Planning scheme and administered through the relevant 

Planning Permit. The Building Regulations do not apply. 

4.4 The Municipal Building Surveyor has delegation authority from Council to decide such 

applications. The powers are exercised in accordance with the Planning Minister’s 

Guideline MG/12 and Council’s instrument of delegation. Part 4 of the regulations 

controls 23 separate building siting and design matters as follows: 

4.4.1 Regulation 408 - Maximum street setback 

4.4.2 Regulation 409 - Minimum street setback 

4.4.3 Regulation 410 - Building height 

4.4.4 Regulation 411 - Site coverage 

4.4.5 Regulation 412 - Permeability 

4.4.6 Regulation 413 - Car parking 

4.4.7 Regulation 414 - Side and rear setbacks 

4.4.8 Regulation 415 - Walls on boundaries 

4.4.9 Regulation 416 - Daylight to existing habitable room 

4.4.10 Regulation 417 - Solar access to existing north-facing windows 

4.4.11 Regulation 418 - Overshadowing of recreational private open space 

4.4.12 Regulation 419 - Overlooking 

4.4.13 Regulation 420 - Daylight to habitable room windows 

4.4.14 Regulation 421 - Private open space 

4.4.15 Regulation 422 - Siting of Class 10a buildings 

4.4.16 Regulation 424 - Front fence height 

4.4.17 Regulation 425 - Fence setbacks from side and rear boundaries 

4.4.18 Regulation 426 - Fences on or within 150mm of a side or rear boundary 

4.4.19 Regulation 427 - Fences on street alignments 

4.4.20 Regulation 428 - Fences and daylight to windows in existing dwellings 






4.4.21 Regulation 429 - Fences and solar access to existing north-facing habitable 

room windows 

4.4.22 Regulation 430 - Fences and overshadowing of recreational private open 

space 

4.4.23 Regulation 431 - Masts, poles etc 

4.5 Council also has powers to approve (give Report and Consent) the construction of 

buildings in other circumstances. Such applications are decided under delegation by 

the Municipal Building Surveyor in consultation with other relevant departments. Such 

approval must be granted to facilitate the issue of a Building Permit. The relevant 

regulatory provisions are: 

4.5.1 Regulation 310(1) prohibits the construction of a building over an easement 

unless the Report and Consent of the service authority has been granted. 

Council is the service authority where and easement is vested in the Council. 

Council has adopted the Policy No. CP2006/05/72 to guide the administration 

of such applications. 

4.5.2 Regulation 801 prohibits the construction of a building on land that does not 

have connection to sewerage unless the Report and Consent of Council has 

been granted. 

4.5.3 Regulation 802 prohibits the construction of buildings on land designated as 

being flood prone unless the Report and Consent of Council has been 

granted. 

4.5.4 Regulation 806 prohibits the construction of buildings on land designated 

under Part 10 of the Water Act 1989 unless the report and Consent of Council 

has been granted. 

4.6 Places of Public Entertainment (POPE) are subject to requirements in the legislation for 

Occupancy Permits. Events involving the gathering of a large number of people, such 

as Concerts, Festivals, Fairs, Carnivals and Shows, are covered by the requirement for 

an Occupancy Permit, whether held on public or privately owned land. 

4.7 Section 57 of the Act requires that the Municipal Building Surveyor approve the siting 

and erection of any Prescribed Temporary Structure on any land within the municipal 

district. This requirement applies to structures such as circus tents, large marquees, 

concert stages and the like, whether they are associated with a POPE or a private 

event. 

4.8 Council has adopted the policy No. CP2006/03/65 “Building Control Policy for Places of 

Public Entertainment and Prescribed Temporary Structures” which guides Council’s 

Building Surveyors is the assessment and approval of such applications. The purpose 

of the policy is to ensure that permits and approvals are granted taking into account 

public safety and amenity. 

4.9 89 various matters of the types previously described were approved during the period 

1 st April 2011 and 30 th June 2011 as shown below: 






Reference Approval 

Date 

Site Address 

BRC20100242 25/05/2011 42 MITCHELLS LANE 

SUNBURY VIC 3429 

BRC20100274 15/04/2011 9 HEVERSHAM GR 

GREENVALE VIC 3059 

BRC20100305 8/04/2011 19 LONGMIRE CT 


BRC20100407 13/04/2011 11 FRASERBURGH CRES 


BRC20110004 6/05/2011 3 KENT WAY 

TULLAMARINE VIC 3043 

BRC20110016 12/04/2011 34 KERRISDALE PL 


BRC20110018 7/04/2011 35 STATION ST 


BRC20110053 8/04/2011 41 WASHINGTON ST 

DALLAS VIC 3047 

BRC20110054 8/04/2011 41 WASHINGTON ST 


BRC20110055 27/04/2011 6 RAU CT 

BROADMEADOWS VIC 3047 

BRC20110057 6/04/2011 25 DOMAIN WAY 

CRAIGIEBURN VIC 3064 

BRC20110059 20/05/2011 10 GATHRAY CT 

ROXBURGH PARK VIC 3064 

BRC20110060 12/04/2011 10 POWELL ST 


BRC20110064 15/04/2011 135 HUNTINGTON DR 


Application Approval 

Description 

Regulation 310(1), Dwelling 

Eaves constructed over 

Easement. 

Regulation 409, to allow a 

Dwelling to be setback 

2000mm from the front street 

alignment in lieu of 5300mm. 


Garage wall located on the 

north eastern allotment 

boundary to have an average 

wall height of 3400mm in lieu 

of 3000mm. 

Regulation 310(1), Retaining 

wall constructed over 

Easement. 


Dwelling Addition to be 

setback 3000mm from the 

front street alignment in lieu of 

4000mm. 

Regulation 310(1), Shed 

constructed over Easement 


substation to be constructed 

on land that is in an area 

liable to flooding. 



eastern allotment boundary to 

have an average wall height 

of 3470mm in lieu of 

3000mm. 






Dwelling Addition with a 

height less than 3600mm to 

be set back 485mm from the 

southern side boundary in lieu 

of 1000mm. 

Regulation 310(1), Site Cut 

over easement. 

Regulation 310(1), Carport 

and Shed constructed over 

Easement. 






garage adjacent the northern 

allotment boundary to have a 






Reference 

Approval 

Date 

Site Address 


Description 

maximum average height of 

3288mm in lieu of 3000mm. 

BRC20110066 12/04/2011 11 GARDENIA CL 


BRC20110068 11/05/2011 1/15 KAROONDA CT 

MEADOW HEIGHTS VIC 

3048 

BRC20110069 11/05/2011 1/15 KAROONDA CT 


3048 

BRC20110073 6/05/2011 19 GOSFORD CRES 


BRC20110075 24/06/2011 4 KINGSMERE CL 

GLADSTONE PARK VIC 

3043 

BRC20110076 1/04/2011 13 MONTROSE CT 


BRC20110077 5/04/2011 12 FLYNN CRES 

COOLAROO VIC 3048 

BRC20110078 29/04/2011 14 COBBLESTONE DR 

ATTWOOD VIC 3049 

BRC20110081 7/04/2011 SHOPPING CENTRE 

1099-1169 PASCOE VALE RD 


BRC20110085 26/05/2011 8 BLACKWOOD PL 


BRC20110088 6/06/2011 3 BRECON NOOK 


BRC20110091 6/04/2011 75 DERBY ST 


BRC20110093 11/04/2011 26 VAUGHAN ST 


Creekwood Village Estate 

Guidelines, to allow a garage 

to abut the eastern lot 

boundary in lieu of being 

setback 2000mm. 


Carport to be setback zero 

mm from the western side 

boundary. 


combined length of walls 

adjacent the western side 

boundary to be 20260mm in 

lieu of 15652mm. 

Regulation 310(1), Garage 

and Storage Shed 

constructed over Easement. 


dependent persons unit to be 



5700mm. 

Regulation 310(1), Fence 

constructed over an 

Easement 



Easement. 



adjacent the southern side 



Regulation 310(1), Multi level 

Carpark constructed over 

Easement. 








adjacent the northern side 




and Store constructed over 

Easement. 









Date 

Site Address 

BRC20110094 13/04/2011 148 NEWBURY BVD 


BRC20110095 30/06/2011 45 CLIFTON RD 


BRC20110096 18/05/2011 SHOPPING CENTRE 



BRC20110097 6/04/2011 46 ATHOL AVE 


BRC20110101 14/04/2011 12 VENTNOR CRES 

COOLAROO VIC 3048 

BRC20110102 15/04/2011 1 STANHOPE ST 


BRC20110105 3/05/2011 61 CRADLE MOUNTAIN DR 


BRC20110106 18/05/2011 IBCS1 



BRC20110107 12/04/2011 2 ALVIE CT 

WESTMEADOWS VIC 3049 

BRC20110108 28/04/2011 82 THE OLD STOCK RUN 


BRC20110109 27/04/2011 6 RIVERVIEW TCE 




BRC20110111 3/05/2011 13 CABLE CCT 


BRC20110113 12/04/2011 19 BLAIR ST 



Description 

Regulation 310(1), 

Foundations fill over 

easement 


pergola to be constructed to a 

height of 3960mm at a side 

setback from the northern 

boundary of 1000mm in lieu 

of a height of 3600mm 


Carpark building to be 

constructed on designated 

land. 


Garage adjacent the northern 


maximum height of 3850mm 

in lieu of 3600mm, and a 





Easement. 



easement. 

Regulation 310(1), Verandah 



Carpark building to be 


land. 


and Shed over an Easement. 


Verandah to be setback 

150mm from the side street 






Regulation 414, to allow the 

Garage wall on the north – 

western boundary have a 

tapered reduced side setback 

of 150mm to 450mm in lieu of 

1000mm. 













Reference 

Approval 

Date 

Site Address 


Description 

Easement 

BRC20110114 8/04/2011 34 BURNISTON AVE 


BRC20110120 27/04/2011 30 ADDERLEY DR 


BRC20110122 15/04/2011 24 SHAWLANDS DR 


BRC20110123 13/04/2011 15 CROUCH CT 


BRC20110124 6/06/2011 4 LOCKHART AVE 


BRC20110126 18/05/2011 IBCS1 



BRC20110127 3/05/2011 27 ACLAND ST 


BRC20110128 10/05/2011 7 ROEBUCK WAY 


BRC20110129 1/06/2011 73 THE OLD STOCK RUN 


BRC20110131 29/04/2011 9 BAMBURY CT 

CAMPBELLFIELD VIC 3061 

BRC20110134 10/05/2011 3 LEURA CT 


3043 

Regulation 420, to allow 

reduced light levels to the 

study where the screen room 

on the western side of the 

dwelling boundary restricts 

natural light entry to this 

habitable room window. 


stairway exceeding 800mm in 

height to be set back 2100mm 

from the front street alignment 

in lieu of 7000mm. 


Verandah and deck to abut 

the eastern side boundary in 

lieu of a setback of 500mm. 


carport within 1000mm of the 

western allotment boundary 

have a maximum average 

height of 3100mm in lieu of 

3000mm 


front fence to be constructed 

to a height of 2000mm in lieu 

of 1500mm. 

Regulation 806, to allow an 

Office building to be 


land. 




boundary to be19650mm in 

lieu of 15500mm 

Regulation 310(1), Retaining 

Wall constructed over an 

Easement. 



Easement. 



adjacent the southern side 




dwelling addition to be 



9000mm 







Date 

Site Address 

BRC20110135 10/05/2011 3 LEURA CT 


3043 

BRC20110137 22/06/2011 44 MORWELL CR 


BRC20110139 6/05/2011 38 THREADNEEDLE ST 


BRC20110140 31/05/2011 40 MORWELL CR 


BRC20110141 23/05/2011 79 DIANNE AVE 


BRC20110142 15/06/2011 4 STRACHEN CT 


BRC20110143 24/05/2011 34 CABLE CCT 


BRC20110145 10/05/2011 29 HIGGINS AVE 


BRC20110146 29/04/2011 9 BAMBURY CT 


BRC20110147 27/05/2011 409 CAMP RD 


BRC20110148 12/05/2011 9 HEALEY ST 


BRC20110149 23/05/2011 13 GLENCAIRN DR 


BRC20110150 13/05/2011 13 GLENCAIRN DR 


BRC20110151 21/06/2011 29-35 DIMBOOLA RD 



Description 




of 1500mm 


and Carport constructed over 

Easement 


garage to be sited askew of 

the side boundary at a 

distance of between 200mm 

and 1000mm. 


dwelling to be setback 





Regulation 414, to allow an 

outbuilding to be sited askew 

of the side boundary at a 

distance of between 150mm 

and 1000mm in lieu of 

1000mm. 


dwelling to be setback 









carport adjacent the southern 




Regulation 310(1), Carport 







of 1500mm. 


fence within 9000mm of the 

intersection of street 

alignments to be constructed 


of 1000mm. 


school to be constructed on 

land liable to flooding. 







Date 

Site Address 

BRC20110152 23/05/2011 26 PEARL DR 


BRC20110153 11/05/2011 47 TUSMORE RISE 


BRC20110156 25/05/2011 9 COLCHESTER CCT 


BRC20110157 23/05/2011 15 DOMAIN WAY 


BRC20110158 22/06/2011 3 BIRCH CT 


BRC20110159 24/05/2011 1 BARMAH GRANGE 


BRC20110160 23/05/2011 19 EMU PDE 

JACANA VIC 3047 

BRC20110161 23/05/2011 15 WINSTER CT 


BRC20110164 12/05/2011 121 GOLF VIEW DR 


BRC20110165 31/05/2011 40 MORWELL CR 


BRC20110167 23/05/2011 34 CABLE CCT 


BRC20110168 31/05/2011 23 MALLARD CCT 


BRC20110169 10/06/2011 63 HANSON RD 


BRC20110170 23/05/2011 86 DIANNE AVE 


BRC20110171 31/05/2011 36 RUBICON ST 


BRC20110172 6/06/2011 27 BRUSHWOOD CCT 



Description 



easement. 






Regulation 310(1), Verandah, 

Carport, and Cubby House 


Regulation 310(1), Site cut 

over easement. 


Eaves constructed over 

Easement. 


Carport to be setback 400mm 

from the eastern side 

boundary. 




Garage adjacent the eastern 









garage to be abut the 

northern side boundary. 


Site Cut over easement. 


Dwelling with a wall height of 

4845mm to be setback 

1560mm from the north side 

allotment boundary in lieu of 

1690mm. 

Regulation 310(1), 

Construction of a Shed over 

an Easement. 




stairway exceeding 800mm in 

height to be setback 5250mm 

from the front street alignment 

in lieu of 8000mm. 









Date 

Site Address 

BRC20110173 3/06/2011 15 BELLBRAE CT 


3048 

BRC20110175 16/06/2011 10 BRODIE CT 


3048 

BRC20110176 15/06/2011 8 SAN MARCO RD 


BRC20110177 27/05/2011 274 CAMP RD 


BRC20110178 26/05/2011 41 WARANGA CRES 


BRC20110179 24/05/2011 12 PETERBOROUGH CT 


BRC20110182 16/06/2011 105 MCPHERSON BVD 


BRC20110183 30/06/2011 2 MOTHERWELL AVE 


BRC20110185 15/06/2011 10 NEWHAVEN RD 


BRC20110186 27/05/2011 112 ANDERSON RD 


BRC20110187 27/05/2011 112 ANDERSON RD 


BRC20110188 6/06/2011 131 BRIDGEWATER RD 


BRC20110190 28/06/2011 22 WARANGA CRES 


BRC20110191 27/05/2011 10 CORRINGA WAY 



Description 




alignment in lieu of 9000mm 









and Storage Shed 

constructed over easement. 


Carport to be setback 





along the southern boundary 

to be 16300mm. 


Dwelling Addition (Sunroom) 


southern side boundary to be 

constructed to a height of 



Carport on a corner allotment 

to be setback zero mm from 

the side street alignment in 


Regulation 310(1), Sheds 



shed with a wall height of 

4200mm to be setback 

200mm from the northern side 

boundary in lieu of 1180mm. 


Shed to be constructed to a 

height of 4900mm. 








Garage adjacent the eastern 










Date 

Site Address 

BRC20110192 15/06/2011 20 BINGIN PL 


BRC20110193 6/06/2011 268 MITCHELLS LANE 


BRC20110194 23/06/2011 13 WESTBURY PKWY 


BRC20110196 24/06/2011 28 SHADFORTH ST 


BRC20110197 16/06/2011 113 BELLEVIEW DR 


BRC20110198 6/06/2011 115 BELLEVIEW DR 


BRC20110199 23/06/2011 1 ZAMBEZI CT 


BRC20110201 23/06/2011 26 KENNY ST 


BRC20110202 23/06/2011 18 PENFOLD ST 


BRC20110203 24/06/2011 124 LANGTON ST 

JACANA VIC 3047 

BRC20110204 7/06/2011 39 ELSTERNWICK WAY 


BRC20110205 7/06/2011 39 ELSTERNWICK WAY 


BRC20110206 27/06/2011 22 STANHOPE ST 




BRC20110211 27/06/2011 22-24 TRETHOWAN ST 



Description 




Stadium extension to be 

constructed on allotment that 

is in an area liable to flooding. 



southern allotment boundary 

to have a maximum average 

wall height of 3298mm in lieu 

of 3000mm. 



Modify the Stage 40 Jacksons 

Hill Estate Guidelines, to 

allow a Dwelling to be sited 

3000mm from the southern 


4000mm. 

Consent to modify Jacksons 

Hill Estate Guidelines, to 

allow a Dwelling to be sited 

3000mm from the northern 


4000mm. 


constructed over easement. 



Easement. 

Regulation 310(1), Filling over 

an Easement 




Stairway to be setback zero 

mm from the front street 


Regulation 424 to allow a 



of 1500mm. 




Garage wall on the south 

eastern boundary have a 

tapered reduced side setback 

of 150mm to 450mm in lieu of 

1000mm 

Regulation 310(1), Water tank 

and Retaining Wall 


Easement. 







Date 

Site Address 

BRC20110214 28/06/2011 40 MORWELL CR 


BRC20110218 30/06/2011 56 HANSON RD 


BRC20110222 29/06/2011 19 ALLERTON WAY 


BRC20110223 29/06/2011 19 ALLERTON WAY 



Description 


Dwelling to be sited 1940mm 

from the south side allotment 

boundary in lieu of 2260mm 

where on the adjoining 

property, and within 3000mm 

of the common boundary, 

there are north facing 

habitable room windows 

facing the proposed building. 



Easement. 


Garage adjacent the southern 



3191mm in lieu of 3000mm 

Regulation 420, to allow 

reduced daylight to habitable 

room windows facing the 

northern side boundary where 

the distance from the edge of 

the eaves gutter to the side 

boundary is 700mm in lieu of 

1000mm. 


5.1 Council has various discretionary powers under building legislation to approve building 

siting and design proposals to facilitate the issue of a Building Permit. These powers 

are exercised by Council officers under delegation. Policy and procedures have been 

put in place to ensure that permits and approvals for Places of Public Entertainment 

and Prescribed Temporary Structures take into account public safety and amenity. 

This report provides Council with a summary of the approvals granted within the 3 

month period to 30 th June 2011. 





REPORT NO: 

REPORT TITLE: 

SOURCE: 

DIVISION: 

FILE NO: 

POLICY: 


LE334 

Proposal to name park - 'Napoli Park' 

Geoff Ferguson, Coordinator Corporate Support 

City Governance and Information 

HCC11/295 

Place Names Policy 



A proposal has been received from Victoria C4 Pty Ltd to name the local park located in the 

new subdivision known as ‘Providence’, located at 1040 – 1090 Mickleham Road Greenvale, 

‘Napoli Park’ (please refer to attached map). 


That Council commences the process to name the local park in the Providence 

subdivision, Greenvale ‘Napoli Park’ and invites comments from the community. 

3. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: 

3.1 Expenditure associated with the naming proposal will include administration costs and 

the erection of a sign at the park. 

3.2 Both the costs of the administration and any signage will be funded from Council’s 

operational budget. 


The procedure to apply names to parks is prescribed in the Geographic Place Names Act 

1998. 






5. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: 

5.1 In accordance with the Guidelines for Geographic Place Names 2010, Victoria and 

Hume City Council’s Place Names Policy, Council is required to consult with the 

community. The extent of consultation is dependent on the significance of the feature 

to be named. 

5.2 Currently there is no one residing in the subdivision, however there are residences 

under construction. 

5.3 The consultation will involve a mailout to the current land owners in the Providence 

subdivision, information on Council’s website and public notices in local newspapers 

advising of Council’s proposal and seeking comment. 


Background 

6.1 In April, 2011 Council received a proposal from Victoria C4 Pty Ltd to name the local 

park in the Providence subdivision, Providence Park. 

6.2 The park is located on Napoli Circuit, Firenze Road and Montenegro Road. 

6.3 This proposal was not supported by Council as it did not comply with the Guidelines for 

Geographic Names 2010 (Victoria). (Refer to Council Report LE290, 27 June 2011) 

6.4 The proposer was advised of Council’s decision and invited to submit an alternative 

name for the local park taking into consideration the Guidelines for Geographic Names 

2010 (Victoria), Principle 2 (C). 

6.5 A new proposal to name the local park ‘Napoli Park’ now has been received. 

Requirements 

6.6 The Guidelines for Geographic Place Names key principles that need to be addressed 

for the naming of a feature (park) are: 

Ensuring public safety 

Geographic names and boundaries must not risk 

public safety for emergency response, or cause 

confusion for transport, communication and mail 

services. 

Linking the name to the place 

• Place names should be relevant to the local 

area 

• When a feature is of greater than local 

significance the name should be relevant to 

the wider community 

Locational names 

• The recorded names of neighbourhoods, 

estates and subdivisions should not be 

applied to a feature. The reason for this 

approach is that if many features are named 

Comment 

‘Napoli’ is a unique street name within 

Greenvale. This name will not cause any 

confusion or risk to public safety. 

Comment 

The proposed name of ‘Napoli Park’ links with 

street name surrounding the park, Napoli 

Circuit. 

Comment 

The guidelines clearly state that it is not 

recommended to name features after estates 

or subdivisions. 






after a local estate or neighbourhood rather 

than the official locality, there can be public 

confusion about the official addresses in the 

area. 

• For example, an unnamed reserve located 

within an estate known as Blue Water Lakes 

within the locality should not have the name 

‘Blue Water Lakes Reserve’ applied. Instead, 

the name ‘Smithurst Reserve’ should be 

proposed or this is already in use another 

name should be chosen (perhaps one that 

commemorates a local historical event or 

figure). 

This resubmitted proposal links with the street 

name surrounding the park rather than the 

estate or subdivision name as previously 

proposed. 

Evaluation 

6.7 Internal consultation has been undertaken with Council’s Strategic Planning 

Department and Subdivisions Department. Both departments have advised that they 

have no issue with the proposed naming of the park. 


Council should determine to commence the process to name the park in the Providence 

subdivision, Greenvale ‘Napoli Park’ and invite comments from the community. 










REPORT NO: 

REPORT TITLE: 

SOURCE: 

DIVISION: 

FILE NO: 

LE335 

Clean Energy Future - Implications for Hume City 

Council and the Community 

Hugh Tunnecliff, Environment Officer (Greenhouse) 


HCC05/765-02 

POLICY: - 


Appearance of the City and Environment 


1.1 The Federal Government recently announced the Clean Energy Future plan to cut 

pollution and drive investment in clean energy technology. 

1.2 This report outlines the details of the Clean Energy Future plan and the implications for 

Council, residents and the business community. 


That Council notes the potential implications of the Clean Energy Future plan for 

Council, Hume residents and the business community, in particular the increased 

costs for electricity and gas, and the new liability for landfill emissions. 


3.1 Council Operations 

Council is expected to be liable under the proposed Clean Energy Future plan for its 

landfill emissions. This liability, combined with other rises in Council’s operating costs, 

is projected to cost Council $881,197 per annum (refer to Table 1). 

3.2 Business Costs 

Only the 300 biggest polluting companies and 200 largest landfill operators will be 

required to pay $23/tonne for their emissions. Other businesses will experience rises in 

operating costs associated with utility bills and materials (such as steel). Funding and 

assistance are available to assist businesses to adapt to a low carbon economy. 






3.3 Hume Residents 

The federal government expects the introduction of a carbon price to increase the cost 

of living by 0.7% in 2012-13. On average, households can expect to see a cost 

increase of $9.90 per week, to be balanced by assistance (through tax reform) of 

$10.10 per week for Australians with low and middle incomes. Those with high incomes 

(over $80,000) will receive only minimal assistance. 


4.1 The National Greenhouse Energy Reporting Scheme Act (2007) introduced a national 

framework for the reporting and dissemination of information about greenhouse gas 

emissions, greenhouse gas projects, and energy use and production of corporations. 

Currently Council is not required to report under the NGERs Act. 

4.2 NGERs will provide the carbon accounting mechanism for the Clean Energy Future 

plan. Under the Clean Energy Future plan, Council will become liable to report under 

the NGERs Act. 


5.1 The Clean Energy Future Plan 

5.1.1 The Clean Energy Future plan was announced by the Federal Government on 

10 July 2011 to reduce Australia’s emissions level in response to human 

induced climate change. It is a plan to put a fixed price on carbon emissions 

for the next three years to transition Australia to a low carbon economy. After 

this time the price will be set by the market and the number of permits issued 

by the Government capped to achieve periodic emission targets. 

5.1.2 The Clean Energy Future plan establishes a tax on the 300 biggest polluters 

and 200 largest landfill operators in Australia. It provides a plan for investment 

in green energy production within Australia and provides assistance for those 

industries expected to be exposed under the Clean Energy Future plan. 

Future tax and welfare reform will compensate those most at risk from 

expected rise of living costs. 

5.1.3 The Clean Energy Future plan is scheduled to come into effect from July 1 

2012 and is expected to save 159 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions 

by 2020, the equivalent of removing 45 million cars from the road. 

5.1.4 As yet, the Clean Energy Future plan has not been introduced to parliament 

and as such, all information in this report has been sourced from information 

provided by the Federal Government’s Department of Climate Change and 

Energy Efficiency. 






5.2 Who will pay for the Clean Energy Future plan? 

The carbon price will be paid for by the top 300 polluters and 200 landfill operators, and 

will cover electricity generation, some business transport, waste, industrial processes 

and fugitive emissions 1 . These polluters either operate a landfill or have been 

mandatorily reporting under the NGERs 2 framework for the past 2 years. 

Entities which are expected to be liable under the Clean Energy Future plan (“500 

Companies”) are outlined in ss20, 23 & 33 of the Clean Energy Future Plan bill. 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

s20 outlines liability of direct emitters of Greenhouse Gas emitters. 

These emitters have been reporting under the NGERs 3 framework for 

the past 4 years. There are approximately 300 of these organisations in 

Australia. See attached Appendix 1 for a list of these 300 organisations. 

s23 outlines liability for those with operational control of landfill facilities. 

Previously, local governments were exempt under NGERs for these 

actions but the operation of the act has been extended to include local 

governments. Such organisations would include Veiola Environmental 

Services and local governments. There is anticipated to be 

approximately 200 of these organisations now liable under the Clean 

Energy Future Plan bill. 

s33 outlines liability for Natural Gas retailers, such as Origin Energy. 

This is not applicable to Council. 

5.3 How the tax will be collected 

Liable entities will need to buy and surrender a permit for every tonne of pollution they 

produce. Carbon units will be issued by and surrendered to the Carbon regulator, a 

body established under the Clean Energy Future Plan Act 2011. 

Council will need to establish a registry with the regulator to purchase and surrender 

permits. From July 1 2012 to July 1 2015, the costs will be fixed, and permits are 

available upon application (s100 of the Clean Energy Future Plan bill). 

After July 1 2015, permits will be available resulting from an auction conducted by the 

regulator (s99a of the Clean Energy Future Plan bill). 

Permits will be available until February 1 the year following the period being counted, 

i.e. permits can be purchased until February 1 2014 for the July 2012 – June 2013 

financial year. 

5.4 What are Australia’s future targets? 

The Federal Government is committed to reducing Australia’s carbon pollution by 5% 

of 2000 levels by 2020 and by 80% of 2000 levels by 2050. This is expected to be 

predominantly achieved through transforming Australia’s energy supply by investing in 

1 

2 

3 

Fugitive emissions are deliberate but not fully controlled emissions that typically result from leaks, 

including those from pump seals, pipe flanges and valve stems. 

National Greenhouse Emissions Reporting Act (2007) 

National Greenhouse Energy Reporting scheme (2007) 






renewable technologies. Australia has a Renewable Energy Target of 20% of all 

electricity generation by 2020. 

5.5 Implications for Hume City Council 

5.5.1 Reporting Requirements 

Councils that own or operate landfills where the emissions total more than 

25,000 CO 2 -e, (including old and new waste, and net of mitigation measures 

such as flaring or energy generation) will be captured under the Clean Energy 

Future plan and be required to report on their entire corporate emissions 

inventory. Despite being only financially liable for the landfill component of 

corporate emissions, Council will need to have the entire emissions inventory 

audited by an independent third party for mandatory reporting under the NGERs 

Act. 

5.5.2 Street Lighting Costs 

Council’s street lighting energy costs currently total $771,119 annually. Street 

lighting energy costs have been projected to rise by 10% 4 (to $848,230.90 

annually), but due to the street lighting contract being subject to strategic 

purchasing, 5 the impact of the Clean Energy Future plan on Council may be 

marginally reduced. 

5.5.3 Building Operation Costs 

Council currently pays utility bills for approximately 120 sites, totalling $1.76 

million annually 6 . This is divided across electricity, gas and water. The Clean 

Energy Future plan will affect each of these differently. 

(a) Electricity in Council facilities currently costs $990,639 per annum 7 and is 

expected to rise by 10% 8 as a result of the Clean Energy Future plan. This 

will see Council’s electricity costs in buildings rise to $1.09 million annually. 

Costs may increase in future years due to other influences such as 

regulated infrastructure costs and demand requirements. 

(b) Gas in Council facilities currently costs $240,251 per annum 9 and is 

expected to rise by 9% as a result of the Clean Energy Future plan. This 

will see Council’s gas costs in buildings rise to $261,873 per annum. Costs 

may increase in future years due to other influences such as regulated 

infrastructure costs and demand requirements. 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Electricity Price and Electricity Market reform, Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, 2011 

Strategic purchasing is a state wide bulk purchasing program for contracts which state and local 

government entities elect to participate in. 

2010/11 financial year 


Electricity Price and Electricity Market reform, Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, 2011. 

Note: Electricity prices typically rise by 7%pa without the Clean Energy Future plan. 







(c) Water currently costs Council $527,714 annually. 10 Water costs will incur a 

negligible rise due to the Clean Energy Future plan. Water currently costs 

$1.49 per kilolitre (1,000 litres) but is expected to rise steadily over the 

coming years to cover regulated infrastructure costs (such as the 

desalination plant). The costs of water are regulated by the Essential 

Service Commission, with the next review due in 2013. 

5.5.4 Fleet Costs 

Transport fuels are not currently subject to the price on carbon. The 

Government intends to apply a carbon price to heavy on-road vehicles from July 

1 2014, but this measure was not agreed to by all members of the Multi Party 

Climate Change Committee. 

Council currently spends $1.37 million 11 on fuel costs per year. This expenditure 

is not expected to change due to the Clean Energy Future plan, but will be 

subject to other pressures including, but not limited to: 

(a) supply and demand relationship; 

(b) political unrest in oil rich Countries; and 

(c) financial conditions in Countries which consume large amounts of oil. 

5.5.5 Building Materials 

Costs of building materials are expected to rise as part of the Clean Energy 

Future plan due to the energy intensive nature of manufacturing these products. 

These rises will likely filter down to industry (developers and builders) and 

consumers (homeowners, Council). 

5.5.6 Landfill Operation 

Exposure to the Clean Energy Future plan for landfills is yet to be finalised. 

Currently, Hume’s Sunbury landfill (Gullies B & C) emits 29,206 tonnes CO 2 -e 

per year 12 , triggering the established liability trigger of 25,000 tonnes under the 

NGERs Act 13 . 

For emissions created after July 1 2012, Council will be required to pay 

$23/tonne of CO 2 -e emitted. Should Council emit 29,713 tonnes 14 (as it is 

projected to), the financial liability will be $683,399. 15 

It should be noted that landfills which have emission levels of between 10,000 

and 25,000 tonnes will be liable entities (i.e. required to pay the $23/tonne 

carbon price) should they be within a prescribed distance of a larger landfill. 

This distance has yet to be determined. 

10 2010/11 financial year 

11 2010/11 financial year 

12 2010 calendar year 

13 Under the Clean Energy Future Plan, the NGERs Act will be extended to cover Government facilities. 

Government facilities were previously exempt under the NGERs Act. 

14 Golders’ Associates, Assessment of Emissions 2009 

15 29,713 (emission tonnes) x 23 (dollars per tonne) = $683,399 (cost of 29,713 emission tonnes) 






Operation Current Cost Future Cost Cost Increase 

Landfill $0 $683,399 $683,399 

Street lighting $771,119 $848,231 $77,112 

Electricity $990,639 $1,089,703 $99,064 

Gas $240,251 $261,873 $21,622 

Total $2,002,009 $2,883,206 $881,197 

Table 1 – Financial implications, Council Operations 

Implications - Council Operations 

$5,000 

$4,000 

Operation Cost 

($,000) 

$3,000 

$2,000 

$1,000 

2010/11 

With Carbon Price 

$0 

Building 

Operations 

Street lighting 

Landfill 

(without EPA 

levy) 

Overall 

Operation 

Figure 1 – Implications, Council Operations 

5.5.7 Assistance for Local Government 

$330 million has been allocated to local government and community 

organisations through the Low Carbon Communities program. This program will 

fund energy efficiency upgrades and retrofits to Council and community use 

buildings, facilities and lighting. Improving energy efficiency of Council 

infrastructure will reduce operating costs and reduce the exposure to the carbon 

price for Council and community organisations. Council will prepare funding 

submissions for energy efficiency programs when the Low Carbon Communities 

funding becomes available. 

5.5.8 Potential Exemptions/Cost Reductions 

The only exemption Council can possibly pursue is to reduce landfill emissions 

to below 10,000 tonnes CO 2 -e per year. 

Council would need to reduce the Sunbury landfill emissions to under 25,000 

tonnes (currently 29,206 tonnes) CO 2 -e per year to avoid direct liability. Landfills 

which emit between 10,000 and 25,000 tonnes CO 2 -e per year are still liable 

should they fall within a yet to be prescribed radius of a directly liable landfill. 






This distance is speculated to be 40km, and should this distance eventuate, 

Council would be subject to a 10,000 tonne CO 2 -e per year trigger. 

The City Waste Department are investigating solutions to reduce Council’s 

emissions total at Sunbury landfill. Such solutions may include: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

Flaring of methane into the atmosphere 

Methane capture and re-use 

Cogeneration plant fuel 

Flaring methane is commonly the cheapest and most effective of the solutions 

listed above, while methane capture and plant fuel for a cogeneration plant 

would provide an income source to Council but would conversely require large 

initial establishment costs. 

It is currently unknown to what level the above solutions would reduce Council’s 

landfill emissions. 

5.6 Implications for Hume residents 

5.6.1 Tax Reform 

The Federal Government has projected living costs to rise $9.90 per week per 

household while receiving average assistance of $10.10 per week. These 

assistance payments will be made through reform to the tax system (see Table 

2). 

(a) Taxpayers with an annual income of $25,000 will receive a tax cut of $503 

per annum. 

(b) Taxpayers with ‘mid range’ annual incomes of between $30,000 and 

$65,000 will receive a tax cut of $303 per annum. 

(c) Taxpayers with an annual income of between $80,000 and $150,000 will 

receive a tax cut of $3 per annum 

(d) Taxpayers with an annual income of $150,000 and above will receive no 

assistance from the proposed tax reforms 

(e) From July 1 2012, the tax free threshold will increase to $18,200, up from 

the current $6,000. When combined with the low income tax offset, 

taxpayers will not pay any net tax until they earn $20,542. 






Income 

From 1 July 

2012 

Tax Cuts 16 

From 1 July 2015 

Total 

$20,000 

$25,000 

$30,000 

$35,000 

$40,000 

$45,000 

$50,000 

$55,000 

$60,000 

$65,000 

$70,000 

$75,000 

$80,000 

$150,000 

$600 

$503 

$303 

$303 

$303 

$303 

$303 

$303 

$303 

$303 

$253 

$128 

$3 

$0 

-- 

$83 

$83 

$83 

$83 

$83 

$83 

$83 

$83 

$83 

$63 

$38 

$13 

$0 

$600 

$586 

$386 

$386 

$386 

$386 

$386 

$386 

$386 

$386 

$316 

$166 

$16 

$0 

5.6.2 Pensioners 

Table 2 – Clean Energy Future plan related tax cuts 

Pensioners will receive an amount of assistance equivalent to a 1.7% increase 

in the maximum rate of the pension. This equates to an increase of $338 for 

singles, and $255 for each eligible member of a couple per year. This increase 

will be included as part of a pensioner’s regular payment cycle from 20 March 

2013. There are currently 16,390 residents in Hume over the age of 65, 

constituting 9.6% of the total population (some of whom may be eligible for this 

payment). 

Pensioners will receive a one off lump sum payment of up to $250 for a single 

and $190 for each eligible member of a couple in May - June 2012 to help meet 

additional costs for the nine months from July 1 2012 to 20 March 2013, when 

increases to their payment cycles will begin. 

5.6.3 Students 

Student allowances such as Youth Allowance, Austudy and Abstudy will be 

increased by an amount equivalent to 1.7% of the maximum rate. This is an 

annual increase of up to $177 for a single student, increasing further should the 

student have dependent children. This will be paid as a tax free, lump sum 

advance in May - June 2012 and then absorbed into regular payments. 

16 

Personal Income Tax cuts compared to 2011-12. Does not include Medicare Levy or the impact of the 

temporary flood and cyclone reconstruction levy ending in 2011-12. 






5.6.4 Job Seekers 

Job seekers will be assisted with an increase in payments equivalent to a 1.7% 

increase in the maximum rate of the Newstart allowance, up to $218 for singles 

and $195 for each member of a couple. This will be paid as a tax free, lump 

sum advance paid late in May - June 2012 and then absorbed into regular 

payments. For the quarter ending March 2011, unemployment rates were as 

follows in the Hume municipality - Broadmeadows SLA – 15.2%; Craigieburn 

SLA – 8.4%; Sunbury SLA – 4.4% 17 . 

5.6.5 Low Income Households 

Low income households may not receive enough assistance through tax cuts or 

additional Government payments to offset the expected cost impact under the 

Clean Energy Future plan. These families will be able to apply for an annual tax 

exempt Low Income Supplement of $300. The following income limits apply to 

eligibility: 

(a) $30,000 for singles without a dependent child 

(b) $45,000 for couples without a dependent child 

(c) $60,000 for singles with a dependent child 

(d) $60,000 for couples with a dependent child 

5.7 Implications for Hume Businesses 

More than 10,000 businesses invest $7.5 billion in Hume City annually 18 . Predominant 

sectors within the Hume business community include the automotive, aviation, 

manufacturing and transport and storage sectors. Businesses will experience the same 

rising costs (mainly increased energy prices) that residents will experience under the 

Clean Energy Future plan, but are not subject to the tax reform households are being 

provided. Some sectors (such as small business and the steel sector) have assistance 

funding available. 

5.7.1 Regulation of Price Rises 

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has 

responsibility for ensuring that businesses do not use the introduction of the 

Clean Energy Future plan as an excuse to increase prices or margins beyond 

an amount that is legitimately attributable to the plan. This will be similar to the 

role given to the ACCC at the introduction of the goods and services tax (the 

GST) more than 10 years ago, when the ACCC was given specific powers to 

prevent price exploitation. 

17 Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (13 July 2011) 

18 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010 






5.7.2 Manufacturing Industry 

Manufacturing contributed $2 billion to the Hume economy in the 2009/10 

financial year, representing 26.7% of the total value added to the economy 19 . 

Manufacturing also employs 28.6% of the workforce in Hume 20 . The level of 

financial impact will depend upon the nature of their business and consumption 

of energy. Very large manufacturing businesses reporting under the NGERs Act 

will be financially liable for their entire emissions inventory (i.e. to pay $23/tonne 

of CO 2 -e emitted ). 

5.7.3 Steel and Fabricated Metals Industry 

The Metals manufacturing industry employs fewer than 3% of the Hume 

workforce and contributes $245 million to the Hume economy 21 . The level of 

financial impact (through increased energy costs) is expected to be high due to 

the energy intensive nature of their operations. Due to the steel industry facing 

pressures beyond a carbon price 22 , the Federal Government has allocated $300 

million over the first four years of the Clean Energy Future plan to provide 

transitional support for innovation, investment and production. 

5.7.4 Transport and Storage Industry 

The transport and storage industry employs 18.1% of the workforce in Hume 

and contributes $1.84 billion to the local economy 23 . The inclusion of transport 

fuels was not agreed upon by the Multi Party Committee on Climate Change 

and as a result all facets of the impact on transport fuels are not yet finalised. 

The ‘on road’ transport sector is expected to be effected by the Clean Energy 

Future plan from 1 July 2014. Prior to this, ‘on road’ transport will not be 

affected. 

5.7.5 Aviation Industry 

The aviation industry employs 4,699 24 people directly in the Hume municipality. 

Aviation fuel does not receive fuel tax credits, and as a result, domestic aviation 

fuel excise will increase by an amount equivalent to the carbon price annually. 

From July 1 2015, the excise will be increased every 6 months based on the 

average carbon price for the previous 6 months. International aviation fuel is not 

subject to the carbon price. The current excise rate for aviation fuel is 3.556 

cents/litre. This would increase to 10.16 cents/litre by 2014/15. 

5.7.6 Small to Medium Businesses 

Small to medium businesses are expected to experience some indirect cost 

impacts, such as higher electricity prices as a result of the Clean Energy Future 

plan. Their level of financial impact will depend upon the nature of their 


20 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006. 


22 Pressures include high exchange rates, increases in raw material costs and lower growth rates in the 

Australian construction industry 








business and consumption of energy. Small to medium businesses will receive 

$280 million in funding over the next four years. 


6.1 The Clean Energy Future plan will tax Australia’s carbon intensive industries in the lead 

up to the introduction of a ‘cap and trade’ system, to be introduced on 1 July 2015. The 

funds collected by the Government will be used to fund tax reform, investment in clean 

energy production and funding for industries vulnerable to a price on carbon. 

6.2 Hume City Council will be most heavily exposed through the landfill operations and 

through Council’s extensive operational costs for electricity provision in buildings and 

street lights. 

6.3 The majority of Hume residents will be compensated for the expected ‘rise of living’ 

costs through tax reform. Those who earn over $60,000 will receive less financial 

assistance than the expected rise of living costs. Those who earn over $80,000 will 

receive only minimal assistance. 

6.4 Some Hume businesses 25 that trigger liability under the NGERs Act will be forced to 

pay the full cost of the carbon price for their emissions ($23/tonne). These businesses 

are the 500 biggest polluters in Australia with around 85 operating solely in Victoria. 

6.5 The introduction of the Clean Energy Future plan is expected to create opportunities for 

growth in the green industry and carbon offset sectors. Council will investigate these 

opportunities further when more details are released on the Clean Energy Future plan. 

APPENDIX 1 

See attached list of the 300 organisations already reporting under NGERs legislation. This list is 

based on emissions in the 2009-10 financial year and is published by the Greenhouse Energy and 

Data Officer (GEDO) under s16, subsection (3) of the NGERs Act. Approximately 200 landfill 

operators are expected to be liable under the proposed Clean Energy Future legislation but have 

yet to be formally identified. 

25 Organisations which report under NGERs are not publicly known. 


2009–10 GREENHOUSE AND 

ENERGY INFORMATION BY 

REGISTERED CORPORATION 

Information reported to the GEDO as at 6 May 2011 

This table should be read in conjunction with the explanatory notes that follow the table. 

Greenhouse gas emissions totals are listed as tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (t CO2- 

e); energy consumption totals are listed as gigajoules (GJ). All data is “as reported” by the 

controlling corporations. 

Registered Corporations 

Total 

scope 1 

greenhouse 

gas 

emissions 

(t CO 2 -e) 

Total 

scope 2 

greenhouse 

gas 

emissions 

(t CO 2 -e) 

Total energy 

consumption 

(GJ) 

A J Bush & Sons Pty Ltd 109,012 19,114 1,133,354 

A.A. Scott Pty Ltd 129,552 6,234 1,886,589 

A.C.N. 098 904 262 Pty Ltd 124,893 0 1,794,184 

A.C.N. 137 191 023 Pty Ltd 81,012 69,537 1,733,594 

AAPC Limited 17,716 174,845 1,012,140 

ACTEW Corporation Ltd 1 58,762 160,241 760,868 

Adelaide Brighton Ltd 3,095,806 291,221 20,892,346 

Aditya Birla Minerals Ltd 83,786 26,550 1,650,346 

AGL Energy Limited 1 1,435,808 53,594 36,061,683 

Air Liquide Australia Limited 4,014 291,482 1,348,329 

Alcan Gove Pty Limited 1,987,588 7,808 29,230,557 

Alcoa Australian Holdings Pty Ltd 1 6,757,567 9,804,728 148,367,174


Total 

scope 1 

greenhouse 

gas 

emissions 

(t CO 2 -e) 

Total 

scope 2 

greenhouse 

gas 

emissions 

(t CO 2 -e) 

Total energy 

consumption 

(GJ) 

ALDI Stores (A Limited Partnership) 37,750 135,237 855,288 

Alinta Energy Limited 7,863,143 145,715 100,083,644 

Amalgamated Holdings Limited 370 145,731 757,974 

Amcor Limited 510,377 511,524 9,966,094 

AMP Limited 7,360 173,098 737,234 

Anglo American Australia Limited 4,059,269 590,957 10,959,630 

AngloGold Ashanti Australia Limited 148,797 316 2,911,075 

Apache Energy Limited 864,379 937 158,747,704 

APT Pipelines Limited 305,076 92,951 3,248,069 

Arnotts Biscuits Holdings Pty Ltd 28,982 61,980 781,497 

Arrow Energy Ltd 394,246 40,304 3,740,091 

Asciano Limited 1,023,720 108,494 15,100,720 

Aurora Energy Pty Ltd 502,846 92,372 11,159,694 

Auscan Holdings Pty Ltd 144,361 60 1,981,701 

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd 7,126 160,043 654,413 

Australian Postal Corporation 88,275 221,724 2,141,555 

Axia Energy Australia Pty Ltd 488,958 0 9,652,581 

AZSA Holdings Pty Limited 6,117,764 526,177 9,864,248 

Baiada Pty Limited 134,785 170,264 2,197,475


Total 

scope 1 

greenhouse 

gas 

emissions 

(t CO 2 -e) 

Total 

scope 2 

greenhouse 

gas 

emissions 

(t CO 2 -e) 

Total energy 

consumption 

(GJ) 

Barrick (Australia Pacific Holdings) Pty Ltd 190,018 244,699 4,704,787 

Barrick (PD) Australia Limited 161,427 104,433 3,448,488 

Bega Cheese Limited 41,346 94,877 1,349,124 

BGC (Australia) Pty Ltd 95,994 65,119 2,147,615 

BHP Billiton Aluminium Australia Pty Ltd 2,313,184 350,985 37,414,742 

BHP Billiton Energy Coal Australia Pty Ltd 873,293 56,018 3,466,128 

BHP Billiton Limited 5,150,942 1,819,255 39,290,140 

BHP Billiton Nickel Operations Pty Ltd 132,110 3,222 1,643,685 

Big Ben Holdings Pty. Limited 216,370 29,608 903,323 

Billiton Manganese Australia Pty Ltd 522,231 174,541 8,218,336 

BlueScope Steel Limited 10,791,351 1,424,605 129,555,224 

BM Alliance Coal Operations Pty Ltd 2,469,229 1,067,608 20,250,981 

BOC Limited 28,381 640,598 2,733,282 

Boeing Australia Holdings Proprietary Limited 34,464 54,788 692,761 

Boral Limited 2 2,328,307 546,048 

BP Regional Australasia Holdings Pty Ltd 1,472,407 477,610 28,725,886 

Bradken Limited 29,817 89,723 944,418 

Brickworks Ltd 293,363 127,345 6,322,368 

Brisbane City Council 1 222,603 76,827 2,721,895


Total 

scope 1 

greenhouse 

gas 

emissions 

(t CO 2 -e) 

Total 

scope 2 

greenhouse 

gas 

emissions 

(t CO 2 -e) 

Total energy 

consumption 

(GJ) 

Building Supplies Group Holding Pty Ltd 91,697 320,198 9,322,717 

Burrup Fertilisers Pty Ltd 1,538,899 0 30,037,216 

Byrns Smith Unit Trust 84,113 7,813 1,225,589 

C S Energy Limited 16,824,919 98,818 198,800,018 

Cadbury Australia Limited 35,438 56,598 780,491 

Cairnton Holdings Limited 141,365 96,015 1,130,632 

Caledon Coal Pty Limited 181,627 14,531 101,383 

Caltex Australia Limited 1,817,628 312,073 448,489,860 

Cargill Australia Limited 59,891 47,464 846,475 

Cement Australia Holdings Pty Ltd 2,744,673 262,268 13,581,930 

Centennial Coal Company Limited 1,985,142 239,621 1,552,207 

Centro Properties Limited 2,890 151,880 622,973 

CEVA Pty Ltd 67,562 21,260 1,051,066 

CH2M Hill Australia Pty Ltd 264,388 220 5,151,556 

CHEDHA Holdings Pty Limited 19,247 1,326,616 4,178,109 

Chevron Australia Holdings Pty Ltd 330,061 4,171 3,644,792 

CITIC Pacific Mining Management Pty Ltd 166,879 423 2,537,087 

Coalpac Pty Ltd 91,025 2,041 316,563 

Coca-Cola Amatil Limited 54,639 130,757 1,482,864


Total 

scope 1 

greenhouse 

gas 

emissions 

(t CO 2 -e) 

Total 

scope 2 

greenhouse 

gas 

emissions 

(t CO 2 -e) 

Total energy 

consumption 

(GJ) 

Comgen Australia Pty Ltd 379,888 9,226 1,024,030 

Commonwealth Bank of Australia 25,054 407,569 1,898,167 

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research 

16,381 114,763 692,589 

Organisation 1 

Competitive Foods Australia Pty Ltd 13,690 128,497 746,553 

Conoco Phillips Australia Gas Holdings Pty Ltd 1,574,820 2,718 192,255,357 

Coogee Chemicals Pty Ltd 32,215 119,496 3,111,996 

Country Energy 59,018 871,881 4,118,209 

Crane Group Limited 15,697 98,938 657,891 

Cristal Australia Pty Ltd 49,250 53,441 905,772 

Crown Limited 31,357 144,129 1,056,976 

CSR Limited 631,392 431,932 52,212,722 

D.M. & M.T. Nolan Pty. Ltd 144,713 3,863 2,336,873 

David Jones Limited 4,850 104,448 419,571 

DBNGP (WA) Transmission Pty Limited 355,676 1,792 6,339,440 

Delta Electricity 20,453,113 233,034 233,568,391 

Devereaux Holdings Pty Ltd 166,162 13,822 1,500,211 

Dexus Holdings Pty Limited 7,871 133,822 612,409 

Donaldson Coal Pty Limited 94,128 12,246 269,470 

Doral Mineral Industries Limited 18,481 69,791 588,016


Total 

scope 1 

greenhouse 

gas 

emissions 

(t CO 2 -e) 

Total 

scope 2 

greenhouse 

gas 

emissions 

(t CO 2 -e) 

Total energy 

consumption 

(GJ) 

Downer EDI Limited 209,004 45,462 10,139,177 

Ecogen Holdings Pty Ltd 434,502 29,698 8,649,319 

ElectraNet Pty Ltd 1,568 240,720 1,137,091 

Electricity Generation Corporation T/A Verve 

Energy 

8,418,390 6,014 107,524,921 

Electricity Networks Corporation 1 22,164 897,453 4,126,013 

Energex Limited 143,827 1,315,254 8,478,472 

Energy Developments Limited 1,045,811 2,806 23,655,245 

EnergyAustralia 1 29,755 1,247,933 5,451,397 

Enhance Place Pty. Limited 417,219 37 5,796,093 

Envestra Limited 607,017 42 197 

Envirogen Pty Ltd 129,409 32 2,300,038 

Eraring Energy 12,067,677 49,594 135,012,143 

Ergon Energy Corporation Limited 97,581 831,799 4,771,533 

ERM Kwinana Holding Pty Ltd 788,365 634 15,415,954 

ETSA Utilities 12,797 533,794 2,651,255 

Exxonmobil Australia Pty Ltd 2,578,735 260,236 630,356,337 

Fairfax Media Limited 7,197 89,997 459,563 

Farstad Shipping (Indian Pacific) Pty Ltd 166,623 0 2,383,732 

Felix Resources Limited 162,530 22,113 1,248,912


Total 

scope 1 

greenhouse 

gas 

emissions 

(t CO 2 -e) 

Total 

scope 2 

greenhouse 

gas 

emissions 

(t CO 2 -e) 

Total energy 

consumption 

(GJ) 

Fletcher Building (Australia) Pty Ltd 81,844 247,926 3,546,260 

Food Investments P/L 99,765 196,079 2,391,438 

Ford Motor Company of Australia Limited 33,842 201,248 1,219,581 

Fortescue Metals Group Ltd 444,705 39,714 6,663,106 

Foster's Group Limited 78,223 155,676 1,683,584 

Frequency Infrastructure Australia Holdings Pty 

Ltd 

1,907 162,098 672,042 

Fulton Hogan Australia Pty/Ltd 75,988 16,541 7,391,231 

General Motors Australia Ltd 32,354 118,459 1,129,461 

Gladstone Ports Corporation Limited 33,056 71,682 771,459 

Global Switch Australia Pty Limited 0 101,422 410,245 

Gold Fields Australia Pty Ltd 97,570 195,533 2,329,395 

Goldfields Power Pty Ltd 204,732 0 3,967,626 

Goodman Fielder Limited 75,569 93,240 1,573,545 

GPT Management Holdings Ltd 17,331 161,585 808,969 

Graincorp Limited 51,269 133,760 1,341,051 

Grange Resources Limited 196,376 53,398 4,065,160 

Great Energy Alliance Corporation Pty Ltd 19,797,636 231,396 219,375,235 

Gujarat NRE Coking Coal Limited 786,245 48,504 231,934 

Hanson Australia (Holdings) Proprietary Limited 169,774 61,916 2,078,250


Total 

scope 1 

greenhouse 

gas 

emissions 

(t CO 2 -e) 

Total 

scope 2 

greenhouse 

gas 

emissions 

(t CO 2 -e) 

Total energy 

consumption 

(GJ) 

Harvey Norman Holdings Limited 26,095 153,927 939,392 

HCPH Holdings Pty Limited 90,112 39,599 6,342,631 

Healthscope Limited 11,372 99,888 606,950 

Heinz Watties Pty Ltd 44,410 45,597 795,146 

Holcim Participations (Australia) Pty Ltd. 186,702 81,108 3,106,125 

Holiday Inns Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd 14,159 97,427 662,076 

Honan Holdings Pty Ltd 342,065 220,495 5,291,062 

HRL Limited 2,474,092 179,180 32,129,829 

Hunter Water Corporation 34,802 66,134 359,668 

Hydro Aluminium Kurri Kurri Pty Ltd 366,598 2,509,193 13,756,568 

IBM A/NZ Holdings Pty Limited 1,192 98,735 378,567 

ICC Holdings Pty Limited 168,832 2,021 2,816,398 

Idemitsu Australia Resources Pty Ltd 439,876 110,259 3,411,644 

Iluka Resources Limited 633,799 243,839 8,745,443 

Incitec Pivot Limited 1 987,302 173,768 24,070,980 

Inghams Enterprises Pty Limited 71,831 213,800 1,934,116 

Integral Energy Australia 19,848 672,021 2,894,718 

International Energy Services Pty Ltd 150,235 2,296 2,160,575 

International Power (Australia) Holdings Pty Ltd 17,247,970 312,865 199,368,414


Total 

scope 1 

greenhouse 

gas 

emissions 

(t CO 2 -e) 

Total 

scope 2 

greenhouse 

gas 

emissions 

(t CO 2 -e) 

Total energy 

consumption 

(GJ) 

IPMG Pty Limited 15,743 83,737 618,859 

Isaac Plains Coal Management Pty Ltd 101,766 11,550 865,389 

ISPT Pty Ltd 5,120 94,023 442,162 

James Hardie Austgroup Pty Ltd 23,219 69,268 707,892 

JBS Holdco Australia Pty Ltd 184,613 159,812 2,249,435 

Jellinbah Group Pty Ltd 193,485 7,908 1,718,503 

Jet Systems Pty Ltd 120,739 2,008 1,815,974 

John Swire & Sons Pty Ltd 14,758 85,651 535,470 

Kagara Ltd 41,442 48,708 789,798 

Kalgoorlie Consolidated Gold Mines Pty Ltd 227,996 319,917 4,681,820 

Kimberly Clark Pacific Holdings Pty Ltd 119,544 250,559 4,754,826 

Koppers Australia Pty Ltd 148,904 35,116 4,234,529 

Leighton Holdings Limited 684,758 243,487 7,811,131 

Lend Lease Corporation Limited 23,731 118,689 813,650 

LGL Australian Holdings Pty Ltd 18,686 97,564 641,954 

Linfox Pty Ltd 215,728 48,982 3,281,256 

Lion Nathan National Foods Pty Ltd 103,998 287,951 3,136,840 

Loy Yang Holdings Pty Ltd 10,186,782 20,296 116,129,307 

LyondellBasell Australia (Holdings) Pty Ltd 8,056 136,989 16,875,871


Total 

scope 1 

greenhouse 

gas 

emissions 

(t CO 2 -e) 

Total 

scope 2 

greenhouse 

gas 

emissions 

(t CO 2 -e) 

Total energy 

consumption 

(GJ) 

Macarthur Coal Limited 302,491 60,606 2,515,673 

Macquarie Generation 23,408,791 175,836 262,206,181 

Macquarie Group Limited 5,961 92,386 460,470 

Mars Australia Pty Ltd 32,153 96,577 934,209 

McCain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd 34,088 79,793 1,235,769 

McDonald's Australia Ltd 2,871 128,991 530,434 

Melbourne Water Corporation 1 189,503 230,532 1,728,167 

Metro Trains Melbourne Pty Ltd 3,693 281,611 885,083 

Metropolitan Health Service 24,488 126,659 984,181 

Millennium Inorganic Chemicals Limited 127,010 77,869 2,434,168 

Minara Resources Limited 568,356 263 9,903,265 

Mirvac Limited 12,450 234,257 1,106,351 

Mitchell Corp Australia Pty Ltd 100,362 1,007 1,578,920 

MMG Management Pty Ltd 162,728 276,572 4,104,082 

MML Holdings Pty Ltd 22,267 88,530 745,788 

Monash University 17,968 120,910 700,780 

Mount Gibson Iron Limited 110,923 730 1,594,218 

Multinet Group Holdings Pty Limited 274,966 2,705 28,423 

Murray Goulburn Co-operative Co. Limited 145,795 491,733 5,111,806


Total 

scope 1 

greenhouse 

gas 

emissions 

(t CO 2 -e) 

Total 

scope 2 

greenhouse 

gas 

emissions 

(t CO 2 -e) 

Total energy 

consumption 

(GJ) 

Myer Holdings Limited 2,662 223,650 898,301 

National Australia Bank Limited 9,602 148,666 663,118 

Nestle Australia Ltd 39,547 168,670 1,841,239 

New Hope Corporation Limited 309,466 38,462 1,956,968 

New Zealand Milk (Australasia) Pty Ltd 175,808 190,754 3,489,607 

Newcrest Mining Limited 662,673 668,764 16,999,481 

Newmont Australia Holdings Pty Ltd 359,963 500,443 7,651,526 

News Australia Holdings Pty Limited 6,193 121,911 574,243 

Nippon Meat Packers Australia Pty Ltd 56,124 57,133 781,448 

Norske Skog Industries Australia Limited 263,300 794,292 8,570,512 

Northgate Australian Ventures Corporation Pty Ltd 29,682 198,473 1,052,081 

Norton Gold Fields Limited 33,352 70,987 795,637 

NRG Victoria 1 Pty Ltd 7,034,972 56,572 77,407,252 

Nyrstar Australia Pty Ltd 387,923 467,344 9,292,468 

OneSteel Limited 2,583,496 1,302,775 42,986,108 

Orica Limited 2,113,590 435,106 18,413,538 

Origin Energy Limited 1,873,394 52,965 130,471,364 

Owens-Illinois (Australia) Pty Ltd 509,925 314,745 8,354,398 

OZ Minerals Limited 97,274 181,875 2,248,569


Total 

scope 1 

greenhouse 

gas 

emissions 

(t CO 2 -e) 

Total 

scope 2 

greenhouse 

gas 

emissions 

(t CO 2 -e) 

Total energy 

consumption 

(GJ) 

OzGen Holdings Australia Pty Ltd 10,173,421 38,468 113,493,236 

Paper Australia Pty Ltd 415,035 224,058 15,046,741 

PaperlinX Limited 146,503 42,803 3,346,556 

Parmalat Australia Ltd 22,513 80,877 691,924 

Peabody Energy Australia Pty Ltd 2,575,759 155,264 3,548,750 

Pechiney Consolidated Australia Pty Limited 983,247 6,899,753 37,273,659 

Penrice Soda Holdings Limited 302,675 219,418 4,085,377 

Perilya Limited 9,436 110,275 551,355 

PMP Limited 20,448 94,283 702,265 

Port Waratah Coal Services Limited 989 121,696 505,568 

Power and Water Corporation 1,127,228 130,516 21,491,276 

Pratt Consolidated Holdings Pty. Ltd. 353,221 1,021,007 17,692,231 

Prime Infrastructure Holdings Limited 131,761 3,929 189,974 

Prosafe Production Services (Australia) Pty Ltd 478,201 0 1,149,211 

PTTEP Australia Perth Pty Ltd 144,106 453 915,430 

Public Transport Authority of Western Australia 9,263 98,856 559,047 

Qantas Airways Limited 3,956,061 224,024 57,806,437 

Qenos Holdings Pty Ltd 839,465 351,664 39,473,326 

QIC Limited 2,582 108,532 447,175


Total 

scope 1 

greenhouse 

gas 

emissions 

(t CO 2 -e) 

Total 

scope 2 

greenhouse 

gas 

emissions 

(t CO 2 -e) 

Total energy 

consumption 

(GJ) 

QMAG Limited 219,541 74,343 1,456,570 

QR Limited 703,556 723,609 12,999,230 

Queensland Alumina Limited 3,556,459 726,522 47,784,970 

Queensland Electricity Transmission Corporation 

Limited 

8,341 1,688,473 6,869,586 

Queensland Nickel Pty Ltd 1,248,685 43,692 17,211,129 

Queensland Nitrates Pty Ltd 713,007 49,471 3,305,209 

Rail Corporation New South Wales 86,273 638,463 3,817,961 

Ramsay Health Care Limited 14,945 151,385 867,738 

Resolute Mining Limited 15,026 105,730 649,819 

Rio Doce Australia Pty Limited 1,235,783 101,102 1,802,666 

Rio Tinto Limited 7,701,301 9,651,903 127,321,860 

Roc Oil Company Limited 139,533 0 762,450 

Salvage Pty Ltd 8,734 173,526 766,046 

Santos Ltd 3,571,231 39,723 35,325,601 

SCA Tissue Australia Pty Limited 50,148 176,444 1,494,014 

Sembsita Australia Pty. Limited 371,394 23,671 918,458 

Shell Australia Limited 1,442,496 493,836 337,883,431 

Silicon Metal Company of Australia Pty Ltd 31,156 319,265 3,140,181 

Silk Logistics Group Holdings Pty Limited 90,481 5 1,300,393


Total 

scope 1 

greenhouse 

gas 

emissions 

(t CO 2 -e) 

Total 

scope 2 

greenhouse 

gas 

emissions 

(t CO 2 -e) 

Total energy 

consumption 

(GJ) 

Simplot Australia (Holdings) Pty Limited 79,440 51,907 1,359,467 

Snowy Hydro Limited 167,917 335,450 17,866,132 

Sonoma Mine Management Pty Ltd 181,711 31,720 1,308,110 

South Australian Water Corporation 57,036 215,746 1,328,719


Total 

scope 1 

greenhouse 

gas 

emissions 

(t CO 2 -e) 

Total 

scope 2 

greenhouse 

gas 

emissions 

(t CO 2 -e) 

Total energy 

consumption 

(GJ) 

Southern Cross Airports Corporation Holdings 

Limited 

4,277 88,658 436,990 

SP Australia Networks (Transmission) Ltd 29,618 1,522,520 4,529,293 

SPI (Australia) Assets Pty Ltd 561,873 282,173 2,958,214 

SPI Electricity & Gas Australia Holdings Pty Ltd 151,296 669,007 2,118,580 

St Barbara Limited 80,318 53,972 1,655,132 

St Vincent's Health Australia Ltd 9,221 116,168 610,381 

Stanwell Corporation Limited 7,445,704 18,101 84,465,134 

State Transit Authority of NSW 142,904 10,775 2,293,569 

Stockland Corporation Ltd 19,099 128,755 775,649 

Sun Metals Holdings Limited 13,337 883,693 3,646,512 

SunWater 2,626 160,734 687,809 

Sydney Water Corporation 139,789 313,368 2,086,852 

Tabcorp Holdings Limited 9,849 141,800 737,235 

Tarong Energy Corporation Limited 8,230,839 135,085 94,325,696 

Tarong North Pty Ltd 394,776 3,849 4,534,247 

Teekay Holdings Australia Pty Ltd 117,088 1,353 1,618,215 

Telstra Corporation Limited 57,243 1,382,642 6,078,979 

Thales Australia Holdings Pty Ltd 45,432 47,210 462,895 

The Maddingley Mine Trust 96,424 383 19,105


Total 

scope 1 

greenhouse 

gas 

emissions 

(t CO 2 -e) 

Total 

scope 2 

greenhouse 

gas 

emissions 

(t CO 2 -e) 

Total energy 

consumption 

(GJ) 

The Trustee for Costa's Unit Trust 33,177 65,637 637,327 

The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q) 14,762 84,251 571,040 

The University of Queensland 3,523 123,686 539,991 

Tiger Airways Australia Pty Limited 206,287 0 3,077,075 

Tiwest Pty Ltd 559,566 243,077 8,691,909 

Toll Holdings Limited 437,525 95,164 6,586,645 

Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Ltd. 42,129 128,132 1,157,858 

TransAlta Energy (Australia) Pty Ltd 692,651 73 13,289,639 

Transfield Services Limited 1,167,022 108,688 19,832,820 

Transfield Worley Power Services Pty Ltd 2,052,048 0 23,228,357 

TransGrid 15,305 2,045,795 8,363,761 

Transpacific Industries Group Ltd 776,057 43,258 2,685,173 

TRUenergy Holdings Pty Ltd 15,612,214 227,828 221,553,056 

TT-Line Company Pty Ltd 152,787 1,462 2,085,306 

Unimin Asia Pacific Pty Ltd 309,140 195,779 3,090,012 

United Energy Distribution Holdings Pty Limited 6,603 603,150 1,868,829 

University of Melbourne 13,402 122,091 614,280 

V/Line Corporation 80,243 11,960 1,185,738 

Valemus Australia Pty Ltd 1 64,212 65,550 1,191,266


Total 

scope 1 

greenhouse 

gas 

emissions 

(t CO 2 -e) 

Total 

scope 2 

greenhouse 

gas 

emissions 

(t CO 2 -e) 

Total energy 

consumption 

(GJ) 

Veolia Transport Australasia Pty Ltd 57,002 204,661 1,521,585 

Virgin Blue Holdings Ltd 1,730,209 14,256 24,913,641 

Vodafone Hutchison Australia Pty Ltd 71 112,072 436,308 

Waste Recycling and Processing Corporation 

(Trading as WSN Environmental Solutions) 

411,580 10,364 331,513 

Water Corporation 125,330 458,603 2,364,091 

Wesfarmers Limited 2,403,609 2,760,935 41,042,209 

Westfield Holdings Limited 9,467 329,538 1,379,053 

Westpac Banking Corporation 7,430 186,869 864,732 

Whitehaven Coal Limited 301,714 9,557 1,337,393 

Woodside Petroleum Ltd. 8,391,652 38,443 1,557,762,307 

Woolworths Ltd 357,961 2,470,480 10,451,985 

Xstrata Holdings Pty Ltd 2,692,486 1,130,619 18,504,353 

Yancoal Australia Pty Limited 252,509 76,285 2,088,207 

Reporting Transfer Certificate Holders 

Oceanic Coal Australia Limited 35,359 263 45,060 

Peabody (Burton Coal) Pty Ltd 134,806 28,834 1,213,192 

Wilpinjong Coal Pty Ltd 494,168 22,135 709,059 

Xstrata Coal Queensland Pty Limited 158,544 43,000 1,136,071

Footnotes 

1. These corporations have voluntarily provided information to the GEDO concerning 

GreenPower renewable energy purchases or voluntarily surrendered Renewable 

Energy Certificates (RECs). This information has been published on the Department 

of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency website – 

www.climatechange.gov.au/reporting. 

2. Greenhouse and energy information has been withheld from publication under the 

provisions of section 25 of the NGER Act.




REPORT NO: 

REPORT TITLE: 

SOURCE: 

DIVISION: 

FILE NO: 

LE336 

2010/2011 Grants and Advocacy Update 

Joel Kimber, Grants Officer 


HCC10/315 

POLICY: - 


Economy 


1.1 This report outlines the total value of grants announced for Hume City Council in the 

2010/2011 financial year. These grants were announced for priority projects and 

services identified in the Hume City Council Plan 2009 – 2013. 

1.2 Council has also been proactive in advocating for projects/services on behalf of the 

Hume community and this report provides a summary of those efforts over the 

2010/2011 financial year. 


That Council notes the report. 


3.1 Many of the grants announced for Council in 2010/2011 have required a financial 

contribution from Council either through allocations in the Council budget, Capital 

Works Program or both. A number of these grants have been reported to Council as a 

demonstration of their strategic alignment to Council’s core business. 

3.2 As a priority, efforts are made to seek funding where there is minimal financial 

contribution from Council or where Council can bring forward projects within the 

Council budget or Capital Works Program and leverage funds where appropriate. 

3.3 Of the grants announced in 2010/2011 (Appendix 1), Council funding of $1.63 million 

was leveraged to secure: 

3.3.1 $4.95 million in grants 






3.3.2 $3.88 million in other financial contributions 26 and; 

3.3.3 $1 million in in-kind contributions. 

3.4 This will result in the delivery of $8.75 million worth of projects/services for the Hume 

community. 


4.1 Grants awarded to Hume City Council are the direct result of the successful 

endeavours of officers and Councillors. This is through: 

4.1.1 The preparation of high quality grant applications by Council officers from 

across the organisation, 

4.1.2 Council undertaking strategic advocacy on behalf of the Hume community, 

4.1.3 A combination of the above. 

4.2 2010/2011 Grants Announced 

4.2.1 Forty-six (46) grants were announced for Hume City Council in the 2010/2011 

financial year totalling $4.95 million. Of the 46 grants announced in 

2010/2011: 

(a) Twenty-seven (27) grants were announced by the Victorian State 

Government totalling $2.94 million. This includes $300,000 

infrastructure funding for the Broadmeadows Community Hub. 

(b) Thirteen (13) grants were announced by the Federal Government 

totalling $1.93 million. This includes $140,000 for the Hume Youth 

Assessment and Referral Team (HYART) project. 

(c) 

Six (6) grants were announced by organisations other than State or 

Federal Government totalling $82,000. This includes $10,000 for the 

coordination of an Indigenous Health and Service Delivery Conference. 

4.2.2 The Supporting Parents Developing Children project is an excellent example 

of how Council has worked in partnership with the Victorian State 

Government, the Federal Government and the Philanthropic sector (Scanlon 

Foundation) to deliver a $2.8 million project for our community which aims to 

build a bridge that will link mothers, their children and the extended family to 

the wider community and to the network of services and programs available in 

southern Hume, Victoria. 

4.3 Comparisons to Grants Announced in 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 

4.3.1 In March 2011, report LE328 outlined the challenges facing Council in 

securing grants in 2011 and beyond. This included the Federal Government’s 

26 $2.71m of these other financial contributions are part of the total grants value detailed in 3.3.1 






commitment to regional Australia and the identification of priority areas across 

the country by both the State and Federal Government due to the devastating 

natural disasters that occurred in late 2010/early 2011. 

4.3.2 In addition, due to the Victorian Government and Australian Government 

elections in late 2010 there were fewer grants for Council to apply for in 

2010/2011. 

4.3.3 As can be evidenced by Appendix 2, grants announced for Council in the 

2010/2011 financial year are less than those in the 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 

financial years. 

4.3.4 This is despite the fact that there were more grants announced for Council in 

2010/2011 (46 grants announced) than there were in 2008/2009 (25 grants 

announced) and 2009/2010 (44 grants announced). 

(a) 

(b) 

The 25 grants announced in 2008/2009 totalling $11.7 million included 

the $9.478 million for the Hume Global Learning Centre Craigieburn 

project, accounting for 81% of the entire grants announced in 

2008/2009. 

The 44 grants announced in 2009/2010 totalling $10.8 million included 

$6.6 million for Broadmeadows Central Activity Area projects, 

accounting for 61% of the entire grants announced in 2009/2010. 

4.3.5 Council’s efforts in securing $4.95 million in the 2010/2011 financial year is a 

great achievement and is testament to the efforts of officers and Councillors 

who have worked strategically to secure these grants in the face of the 

challenges outlined above in 4.3.1 and 4.3.2. 

4.4 2010/2011 Advocacy 

4.4.1 The 2009-2013 Hume City Council Plan provides the strategic direction for 

Councils advocacy efforts. This includes advocating to Government and our 

partners for: 

(a) 

Improved access to human and health services. 

(b) Improved public transport and alternative transport options for the 

community. 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

Improved safety, enhanced traffic flow and relieving traffic congestion 

through road improvements. 

Improved environmental outcomes for the community. 

Funding for community infrastructure. 

The provision of key infrastructure to support job creation in Hume. 






(g) 

The delivery of appropriate outcomes for the Tullamarine Landfill that will 

achieve long-term community and environmental benefits. 

4.4.2 In the 2010/2011 financial year, Council undertook strategic advocacy via the 

following activities: 

(a) 

Regular meetings with the following elected representatives to seek 

support for funding for community infrastructure, community services, 

environmental projects, employment, learning and transport 

infrastructure. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maria Vamvakinou MP, Federal Member for Calwell 

Rob Mitchell MP, Federal Member for McEwen 

The Hon Matthew Guy, MLC, Minister for Planning 

Joanne Duncan MP, Member for Macedon. 

Frank McGuire MP, Member for Broadmeadows 

Liz Beattie MP, Member for Yuroke 

Craig Ondarchie MLC, Member for Northern Metropolitan 

(b) 

(c) 

Meeting with The Hon Martin Dixon, Minister for Education to promote 

Council’s initiatives in life long learning. 

The preparation of a submission to the 2011/2012 Federal Government 

budget process which sought: 

(i) 

(ii) 

That the Australian Government continues to provide Financial 

Assistance Grants, that annual increases are above CPI and to 

investigate the potential to provide additional support for growth 

area Councils. 

That the Australian Government continue to provide funding to 

Local Government through the Roads to Recovery program and 

annually increase the allocation above CPI. 

(iii) That the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program 

(RLCIP), or an alternative community infrastructure program be 

available for Local Government to apply for Australian Government 

funding. 

(iv) That the Australian Government provides funding for Hume City 

Council to cover the up-front costs of changing over all applicable 

street lights to new technology. 

(v) 

That the Australian Government continues to increase funding for 

Home and Community Care services annually above CPI. 






(vi) 

That the Australian Government provides funding for an additional 

82 high care and 46 low care beds to meet the Aged Care 

Planning Ratios by the target date of June 2011 within Hume City. 

(vii) That the Australian Government provides infrastructure funding to 

support the implementation of 15 hours of preschools. 

(viii) That the Australian Government increases the Australian 

Childhood Immunisation Register funding above $6 per encounter 

for Local Government to assist Councils to meet the costs of 

delivering immunisation services to our community. 

4.4.3 Opportunities to apply for grants have arisen aligned to this submission. 

(a) The Regional Development Australian Fund (RDAF) was open for 

applications from April – May 2011 as a replacement of the RLCIP. 

Unfortunately Council was unsuccessful in our submission seeking $2 

million for the Boardman Stadium Redevelopment Project through the 

RDAF. 

(b) The Federal Government have announced the Low Carbon 

Communities program which will provide opportunities for Council to 

seek funding to change over our inefficient street lights. 

4.4.4 Council will be updated on the outcome of these funding applications in the 

future. 


5.1 In summary Council has been proactive in its efforts to improve the delivery of key 

services to ratepayers. Grants received in 2010/2011 have strong links to the Council 

Plan 2009 – 2013 and will inject over $8 million into projects/services in the local 

community. 

5.2 Council’s strategic advocacy efforts will continue to ensure that Hume City Council 

maximises opportunities to secure funding for projects/services for the benefit of the 

local community. These efforts, coupled with grants, are vital to the delivery of 

projects/services as our community continues to grow. 






APPENDIX 1 

27 

27 Of the $3.88 million in other contributions, $2.71 million are also grants accounted for in Grants 

Announced 






APPENDIX 2 

28 

28 The grants announced in 2008/2009 totalling $11.7 million included the $9.478 million for the Hume 

Global Learning Centre Craigieburn project, accounting for 81% of the entire grants announced in 

2008/2009. The grants announced in 2009/2010 totalling $10.8 million included $6.6 million for 

Broadmeadows Central Activity Area projects as part of the $80.3 million that was allocated to the 

precinct. 


REPORTS – PROSPERITY OF THE CITY 



COUNCIL PLAN THEME – PROSPERITY OF THE CITY 

REPORT NO: 

REPORT TITLE: 

SOURCE: 

DIVISION: 

PC46 

M80 Legacy Works Offer 

John Monaghan, Manager Infrastructure Planning 


FILE NO: - 

POLICY: - 


Transport 


The Tulla Sydney Alliance (TSA) is undertaking the design-construction of the additional 

lanes on the M80 (Western Ring Road) from west of Calder Freeway to Sydney Road. The 

TSA has written to Council seeking approval for an extension of their occupancy of Jack 

Roper Reserve and has met with Council officers and proposed legacy works for 

consideration by Council. 


2.1 That Council agree to: 

2.1.1 an extension of the agreement between Council and the Tulla Sydney 

Alliance (TSA) to allow the TSA to gain access to their construction 

compound across Jack Roper Reserve and to use the car park in the 

Reserve until June 2012 and 

2.1.2 batter works and landscaping at John Coutts Reserve by the TSA and 

2.1.3 earth works west of Sunset Boulevard by the TSA 

2.2 That Council write to TSA thanking them and accept their offer of legacy works 

for the Hume Community including: 

2.2.1 improvements to playground equipment at Jack Roper Reserve for 

children with disabilities, 

2.2.2 improved shared path connections, linemarking and signage of shared 

paths from the Tullamarine Freeway to Sydney Road and 





REPORT NO: PC46 (cont.) 

2.2.3 A $75,000 contribution to be used for a community project to be 

determined. 


3.1 The TSA has proposed legacy works including: 

3.1.1 shared path improvement works ($120K). 

3.1.2 an extension to Jack Roper Reserve playground for people with disabilities 

($40K). 

3.1.3 embankment works above Broadmeadows Valley Club ($30K). 

3.1.4 landscaping and park furniture at John Coutts Reserve ($20K). 

3.1.5 additional works to the south of the M80 Project in Moreland City that will also 

benefit Hume residents ($135K). 

3.2 The value of legacy works is $135K for Moreland City and $210K for Hume City. 


4.1 Background 

4.1.1 The TSA continue to design-construct the M80 between west of the Calder 

Freeway and Sydney Road. 

4.1.2 The overall length of the works is 8.4km and requires work on various sections 

of the project simultaneously. 

4.1.3 Council has worked with the TSA to enable them to achieve their work quickly 

and to minimise the impact on the M80 users and the adjoining community. 

4.1.4 Jack Roper Reserve 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

Since January 2010, TSA has been accessing its site compound located 

within the road reserve near Merlynston Creek via Jack Roper Reserve. 

It has also been using 20 allocated car parking spaces within the reserve 

(see attached plans – Attachment 1and 2). 

TSA’s current access agreement with Hume City Council expires in 

September 2011. However, due to the unavailability of suitable site 

compound areas for construction works east of Merlynston Creek, TSA 

would like to continue to use the reserve, under the same conditions, 

until June 2012. 

There have been no public concerns raised in regards the occupancy of 

the reserve since it was approved by Council 15 months ago. 






4.1.5 Moonee Ponds Creek 

(a) 

(b) 

TSA are proposing to shape approximately 75,000m3 of excavated earth 

material from the M80 Project to blend into the landscape whilst 

maintaining residential sightlines on the west side of Sunset Boulevard. 

They have requested that Council approve them placing material on a 

small part of Council land above the entrance road to the 

Broadmeadows Sports Club. The majority of the soil will however be 

contained within the M80 road reserve. All material will be compacted 

and TSA will provide a two year defects liability period for the 

earthworks. 

4.1.6 John Coutts Reserve 

(a) 

(b) 

The new permanent noise walls adjacent to John Coutts Reserve will be 

built within the road reserve boundary. However, a small section of the 

batter will fall within Council land and TSA may require access for 

construction in the reserve for a short period. Discussions will take 

place regarding the longer term occupancy of Council’s land related to 

the encroachment of the batter. 

Given this, and the fact that construction activities have been in very 

close proximity to Gladstone Park residents, TSA are proposing some 

landscaping treatments and park furniture as legacy works within the 

reserve to improve the visual and recreational amenity. 

4.1.7 Shared User Paths 

(a) 

(b) 

To facilitate construction, the TSA has had to temporarily close some 

shared user paths and detour users along alternative routes. They have 

offered to make some improvements to the shared user path network as 

legacy works. 

Currently, many of the paths have less than optimum line-marking and 

distance/directional signage so the TSA has proposed the provision of 

improved signage/linemarking along the shared user paths in the TSA 

section of the M80 upgrade which will include directional signage, 

distance markers at major path junctions and linemarking of centreline 

and edge lines to assist with delineation and safe operation along the 

path network between Tullamarine Freeway and Sydney Road. 

4.1.8 Pascoe Vale Road Gateway Improvement 

(a) 

A further item raised by Council in the early stages of the M80 project 

was the sponsorship of a feature panel at Pascoe Vale Road at the 

merge with the M80 exit ramp. Feature panels are the next stage of the 

Pascoe Vale Gateway Project and the proposal was to display an image 

of Hume in a pixilated panel, similar to the panels displaying zoo animals 

on the Princes Freeway at Werribee Zoo. The estimated cost is 

$250,000. Other gateway treatments will be considered subject to 

available funds. 






(b) 

TSA has advised they do not fund gateway treatments but have offered 

$75K to Council to use on suitable community works in the area. 

4.1.9 Offset Planting 

(a) 

Trees have been removed during the M80 project and the TSA are 

asking for locations where offset planting can be undertaken. 

4.2 Analysis 

4.2.1 Table 1 shows a summary of the Legacy Works proposed by the TSA. 

Table 1 - M80 Legacy Works Summary 

Description Location Benefits Cost 

SUP from Improved safety $120,000 

Sydney Road and functionality of 

to Fullarton the path 

1 Improved signage/ linemarking along 

the Shared Use Path (SUP) in the TSA 

section of the M80 Upgrade. Will 

include directional signage and distance 

markers at major path junctions and 

linemarking of centreline and edge lines 

to assist with delineation and safe 

operation of the path – Hume City 

Council (and Moreland City Council) 

2 Improved pedestrian crossing at Electric 

Street, Glenroy. Existing condition does 

not have a designated crossing at this 

location for SUP users to cross the road 

and enter Jacana Station. Works will 

include linemarking, signage kerb 

ramps and/or raised pavement at 

crossing to create a compliant shared 

path crossing treatment – Moreland City 

Council 

3 Improved pedestrian crossing at 

Widford Street. Existing condition does 

not have a crossing on this busy local 

collector road. Works will include 

linemarking, signage kerb ramps and/or 

raised pavement at crossing to create a 

compliant shared path crossing 

treatment – Moreland City Council 

4 Extension to the Jack Roper Reserve 

playground for people with disabilities. 

Additional interface planting as part of 

the reinstatement works to the area – 

Hume City Council 

5 Flattening of an existing steep 

embankment at the north eastern end of 

Moonee Ponds Creek Reserve. The 

flattening removes a steep batter that 

currently attracts dumping and cannot 

Road 

SUP at Electric Improved safety, 

Street near accessibility and 

Jacana Rail functionality of the 

Station path network 

$35,000 

SUP at As above $60,000 

Widford Street 

east of Jacana 

Jack Roper 

Reserve 

North of M80 

and east of 

Moonee Ponds 

Creek 

Improved amenity 

and community 

asset 

Improved park 

amenity and 

reduced 

maintenance for 

council 

$40,000 

$30,000 






Description Location Benefits Cost 

be maintained. The flatter area will 

provide for passive recreation including 

some furniture and agreed landscape 

plantings – Hume City Council 

6 John Coutts Reserve – provide 

landscaping and furniture at the freeway 

end of the park to improve amenity, 

functionality of the park and assist with 

screening noise wall – Hume City 

Council 

7 SUP realignment east of Merlynston 

Creek to provide a more direct path link 

and formalise current preferred path. 

New link will remove a hazardous 

horseshoe bend in the existing path 

network – Moreland City Council 

John Coutts 

Reserve north 

of the M80 

South of M80 

and east of 

Merlynston 

Creek 

Improved amenity 

and functionality of 

the existing 

parkland 

Improved SUP 

functionality and 

safety 

$20,000 

$40,000 

8 Community Works Within the M80 Improved amenity $75,000 

local area 

9 Offset Planting To be 

determined 

Offset trees 

removed during 

$ 500 


construction 

TOTAL $420,500 

(a) 

(b) 

It is considered that the use of the compound site and carpark within 

Jack Roper Reserve has cause minimal disruption; accordingly it seems 

reasonable to extend the Alliance occupancy till June 2012 given the 

Legacy benefits proposed by TSA. 

The proposed landscaping and the extension to playground equipment 

for children with disabilities will be a welcomed addition to the reserve for 

the community. 

4.2.3 Moonee Ponds Creek 

(a) 

(b) 

In regards the earth works west of Sunset Boulevard, Council officers 

have viewed the area and see the earthworks and landscaping as 

enhancing the area. If approved, the proposal will improve visual and 

recreational amenity of the area, remove the pre-existing steep slope for 

easier maintenance and result in less disruption to residents by reducing 

the amount of earth material requiring transportation and disposal offsite. 

TSA had offered a playground as legacy works in this area however 

Council’s Parks and Open Space and Recreation officers do not believe 

this to be the best use of legacy works at this point in time. 







(a) 

In regards the offer of additional landscaping and park furniture at John 

Coutts Reserve Council staff have visited the site and fully support this 

proposal. 

4.2.5 Shared User Paths 

(a) In regards the shared user path legacy works this proposal aligns 

favourably with Council’s Walking and Cycling Strategy and will be a 

welcomed improvement works. 

4.2.6 Pascoe Vale Road Gateway Improvement 

(a) 

The offer of $75K be used to subsidise the installation of the first feature 

panel along the Pascoe Vale Gateway Project or other treatments which 

would further enhance the southern entrance to the City. 

4.2.7 Offset Planting 

(a) 

Council officers will meet with TSA to discuss suitable locations for offset 

planting. 

4.2.8 Council officers in the relevant areas will work with VicRoads to provide advice 

on the appropriate works and locations to ensure the legacy works are put to 

good effect for the community. 


5.1 TSA’s requests regarding Jack Roper Reserve, John Coutts Reserve and Council land 

on the western side of Sunset Boulevard are considered reasonable given the 

associated offer of legacy works which will benefit the Hume Community. 

5.2 It is therefore considered appropriate that Council write to TSA and agree to the 

requests and thank them for their offer of legacy works for the Hume Community. 






Attachment 1 






Attachment 2 





REPORT NO: 

REPORT TITLE: 

SOURCE: 

DIVISION: 

FILE NO: 

PC47 

Coolaroo Local Area Traffic Management Study 

Emir Ameti, Engineer 


HCC10/380 

POLICY: - 


Transport 


The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval for the Local Area Traffic Management 

Study for the Coolaroo area, bounded by Barry Road, Pascoe Vale Road, Glenelg Street and 

the Upfield Railway Line. 


2.1 That Council: 

2.1.1 adopts the Coolaroo Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) Study. 

2.1.2 carries out works listed in Table 1 in 2011/12. 

2.1.3 refers the balance of works listed in Table 1 to Council’s Capital Works 

Program and VicRoads for funding consideration. 

2.1.4 informs the residents in the study area of the adopted Coolaroo LATM 

Plan. 


3.1 The total estimated cost to install the traffic management devices recommended in 

Table 1, attached to this report, is $500,000. 

3.2 The following projects will be funded in Council’s 2011/2012 Capital Works Program – 

LATM works at an estimated cost of $130,000. There is $310,000 available in the 

2011/12 Capital Works Budget for works related to the two annually approved LATM 

Strategies. 






3.2.1 Almurta Avenue, at Kyabram Street – Installation of traffic splitter island at an 

estimated cost of $14,500. 

3.2.2 Westmere Crescent, near childcare centre and kindergarten – Installation of 

road hump at an estimated cost of $20,000. 

3.2.3 Kyabram Street at Lexton Street – Intersection modification to restrict right 

hand turn from Kyabram Street to Lexton Street at an estimated cost of 

$50,000. 

3.2.4 Centre linemark the following roads with road reflective pavement markers at 

an estimated cost of $11,500; 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

(h) 

(i) 

(j) 

(k) 

Ventnor Crescent 

Thorpdale Avenue 

Longford Crescent 

Childers Crescent 

Exford Street 

Westmere Crescent road bend 

Lexton Street 

Glenelg Street 

Crossley Crescent road bend 

Flynn Crescent road bend 

Pearson Crescent road bend 

3.2.5 Linemark on-road ‘50’ speed limit pavement symbols at the following locations 

at an estimated cost of $500; 

(a) 

(b) 

Kyabram Street, at Barry Road 

Maffra Street, at Barry Road 

3.2.6 Kyabram Street – Line mark parking/cycling and traffic lanes at an estimated 

cost of $21,000. 

3.2.7 Maffra Street – Line mark traffic and parking lanes at an estimated cost of 

$12,500. 

3.3 The following project will be submitted to VicRoads as part of VicRoads Road Safety 

Funding Application at an estimated cost of $350,000. 

3.3.1 Barry Road at Kyabram Street – Widen Barry Road to introduce exclusive 

right turn lane at intersection. 

3.4 The upgrade of the pedestrian link from Barry Road to Glenelg Street will be referred 

for consideration to Council’s Capital Works Program at an estimated cost of $20,000. 

The project includes constructing missing pedestrian paths between Elm Court and 

Thorpdale Avenue and between Pearson Crescent and Flynn Crescent. 







4.1 A questionnaire was distributed to residents, schools, businesses and community 

facilities in the Coolaroo LATM study area in September 2010. The questionnaire 

sought comments on a proposed traffic management plan for the area. 

4.2 Approximately 1,250 questionnaires were issued with 115 responses received, 

representing approximately a 9% return rate. The majority of respondents have 

supported the proposed traffic strategy. 

4.3 Resident responses to the proposed traffic management treatments are shown in Table 

2 attached to this report. 

4.4 Residents were asked if they experienced any other traffic issues within the area; 62% 

said they had concerns. Table 3 summarises the traffic issues responses. 

4.5 Residents were also asked if they experienced any parking issues within the area; 37% 

replied they had concerns. Table 4 summarises the parking issues responses. 

4.6 A public meeting was held in September 2010 at the Progress Community Hall in 

Coolaroo during the LATM consultation period. Seven residents attended the meeting. 

Table 5 is a list of concerns raised by residents at the meeting. 

4.7 Dyson Bus Lines, who provide the only public bus service through Coolaroo, were also 

consulted regarding Council’s proposed traffic treatments. No comments or feedback 

were received. 



5.1.1 As part of the Hume City Council Plan 2009–2013 a commitment was made to 

undertake a LATM study for the area of Coolaroo, bounded by Barry Road, 

Pascoe Vale Road, Glenelg Street and the Upfield Railway Line. 

5.2 Existing conditions 

5.2.1 The Coolaroo area is an established area. It is a mixture of residential and 

industrial properties. 

5.3 Analysis 

5.3.1 The traffic survey results, crash statistics from the VicRoads database 

‘CrashStats’ and a review of past requests from residents were used to derive 

a draft Traffic Management Plan for the area. 

5.3.2 Attachment 1 indicates Traffic Speeds and Volumes for the precinct. 






5.4 Proposed LATM treatments 

5.4.1 A questionnaire with a copy of the draft Traffic Management Plan was sent to 

all residents and business owners in the area. The following proposed 

treatments are considered appropriate to address residents concerns. 

5.4.2 Kyabram Street Heavy Vehicles 

(a) Kyabram Street is a dual carriageway local collector road which 

separates the residential and industrial areas of Coolaroo. 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

A traffic count undertaken in 2008 on the residential side of Kyabram 

Street indicated that the proportion of heavy vehicles using this road is 

13.3%. The percentage of heavy vehicles on the residential side of 

Kyabram Street is high. The typical percentage of heavy vehicles on 

residential roads is between 3-5%. 

Some heavy vehicles enter the residential side of Kyabram Street from 

Barry Road and turn right into Lexton Street to service the industrial 

area. 

An existing ‘Trucks advised to use Maffra Street’ sign is located on 

Kyabram Street at Barry Road to deter heavy vehicles from using the 

residential side of Kyabram Street. 

It is proposed to modify the intersection of Kyabram Street and Lexton 

Street to physically restrict right turns into Lexton Street. This will reduce 

the number of heavy vehicles entering Coolaroo from the residential side 

of Kyabram Street when servicing the industrial area. 

5.4.3 Kyabram Street 

(a) 

(b) 

Traffic surveys show that Kyabram Street has an average weekday 

volume of 4,600 vehicles and an 85 th percentile speed of 65.5km/h in a 

50km/h speed zone. The traffic speeds are very high and justify traffic 

management works. 

The line marking of traffic and parking lanes will visually narrow the road 

and assist with reducing vehicle speeds. The road marking of 50km/h on 

the pavement will remind motorists of the speed limit. 

5.4.4 Westmere Crescent road hump 

(a) 

Traffic surveys show that Westmere Crescent has an average weekday 

volume of 385 vehicles and an 85 th percentile speed of 58km/h in a 

50km/h speed zone. 






(b) 

The traffic volumes are low and do not justify the installation of road 

humps for the whole road length. However, considering there is a 

childcare centre on one side of the road and a kindergarten on the other, 

a road hump to keep the traffic speeds low and assist pedestrians 

crossing of the road is justified. 

5.4.5 Almurta Avenue at Kyabram Street traffic splitter island 

(a) 

(b) 

In the resident questionnaire, residents were asked if they experience 

any other traffic issues within the area. Some returned with residents 

making comments that the turning speeds at the intersection are high. 

Site observations revealed that this behaviour was occurring at the 

intersection. 

A traffic slitter island at Almurta Avenue will reduce turning speeds and 

improve the safety of pedestrians crossing the road. 

5.4.6 Barry Road and Kyabram Street intersection 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

VicRoads manage and fund any infrastructure improvements at the 

Barry Road and Kyabram Street intersection. There are existing traffic 

signals at the intersection, however there is no separate right turn lane 

on Barry Road. 

The crash history for the most recently available 5-year period reveals 

that there have been 5 reported casualty crashes. All the crashes 

involved right turning vehicles or rear end crashes. 

To reduce the number of crashes a funding application will be forwarded 

to VicRoads to introduce a separate right turn lane and an exclusive 

right turn signal phase. 

5.4.7 Maffra Street 

(a) 

(b) 

Traffic surveys show that Maffra Street has an average weekday volume 

of 3,711 vehicles and an 85 th percentile speed of 67km/h in a 50km/h 

speed zone. The traffic speeds are very high and justify traffic 

management works. 

Maffra Street is a wide industrial road and physical traffic treatments are 

not suitable. The line marking of traffic and parking lanes will visually 

narrow the road and assist with reducing vehicle speeds. The road 

marking of 50km/h on the pavement will remind motorists of the speed 

limit. 

5.4.8 Pedestrian Link from Barry Road to Glenelg Street 

(a) 

There is an existing pedestrian link from Barry Road to Glenelg Street 

though Council reserves and streets. Some sections of this link do not 

have a footpath and the construction of a footpath will assist with the 

safe movement of pedestrians. 






5.4.9 Glenelg Street Cycling Path 

(a) 

(b) 

In Council’s 2010-2015 Walking and Cycling Strategy, it was identified in 

the Action Plan to provide cycling facilities on Glenelg Street. As part of 

the Coolaroo LATM this was investigated and it is proposed to construct 

an off-road cycling path on Glenelg Street. 

The project will be referred to Council’s Walking and Cycling Strategy 

Program for future funding consideration 

5.4.10 Attachment 2 shows the Final Local Area Traffic Management Plan. 

5.4.11 Attachment 3 shows the details of the proposed traffic treatments. 


The works recommended in the Coolaroo LATM study report are well supported by the 

residents within the study area. Works not to be carried out in 2011/12 will be referred to 

Council’s Capital Works Program and VicRoads Road Safety and Infrastructure Improvement 

Program for funding consideration. 






TABLE 1 – ESTIMATED COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCE OF TREATMENTS 

ESTIMATED 

NO TREATMENTS LOCATION 

COST ($) 

COUNCIL'S 2011/12 CAPITAL WORKS BUDGET - LATM WORKS 

1 Install traffic splitter island Almurta Avenue at Kyabram Street $14,500 

2 Install road hump 

Westmere Crescent, between Warne 

Street and road bend 

$20,000 

3 

4 

Intersection modification to restrict 

right turns 

Linemark centreline with road 

reflective pavement markers 

Kyabram Street at Lexton Street $50,000 

Ventnor Crescent $1,000 

Thorpdale Avenue $1,000 

Longford Crescent $3,000 

Childers Crescent $1,000 

Exford Street $1,000 

Westmere Crescent road bend $500 

Lexton Street $1,000 

Glenelg Street $1,000 

Crossley Crescent road bends $500 

Flynn Crescent road bend $500 

Pearson Crescent road bend $1,000 

5 

Linemark on road ‘50’ pavement Kyabram Street $250 

symbols Maffra Street $250 

6 

Linemark parking, cycling and traffic 

lanes 

Kyabram Street $20,000 

7 Linemark traffic and parking lanes Maffra Street $12,500 

8 

Enlarge the sign ‘Trucks advised to 

use Maffra Street’ 

Kyabram Street / Barry Road $1,000 

TOTAL - 2011/12 CAPITAL WORKS BUDGET - LATM WORKS $130,000 

9 

COUNCIL'S FUTURE CAPITAL WORKS PROGRAM - TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT WORKS 

Upgrade pedestrian link from Barry 

Road to Glenelg Street 

Council reserves between Elm Court 

and Thorpdale Avenue and between 

Pearson Crescent and Flynn 

Crescent 

$20,000 

TOTAL - CAPITAL WORKS PROGRAM - TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT WORKS $20,000 

VICROAD'S ROAD SAFETY FUNDING APPLICATIONS 

10 

Intersection upgrade to include an 

exclusive right turn lane into Barry Road at Kyabram Street $350,000 

Kyabram Street 

TOTAL - EXTERNAL FUNDING SOURCES $350,000 

TOTAL - COST OF ALL PROJECTS $500,000 






TABLE 2 – RESIDENTS RESPONSE TO TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS 

Resident responses 

Location 

Proposed Treatment In favour Against Undecided 

No. % No. % No. % 

Ventnor Crescent 81 70 5 4 29 25 

Thorpdale Avenue 85 74 3 3 27 23 

Logford Crescent, b/w Barry 

Road and Thorpdale Avenue 

90 78 3 3 22 19 

Childers Crescent, road 

bends 

83 72 6 5 26 23 

Exford Street 84 73 5 4 26 23 

Westmere Crescent, road Linemark centreline 

bend 

with road reflective 

86 75 4 3 25 22 

Lexton Street pavement markers 86 75 4 3 25 22 

Maffra Street 84 73 5 4 26 23 

Genelg Street, b/w Kyabram 

Street and Maffra Street 

83 72 4 3 28 24 

Crossley Crescent, road 

bends 

81 70 6 5 28 24 

Flynn Crescent, road bend 79 69 6 5 30 26 

Pearson Crescent, road bend 

84 73 5 4 26 23 

Almurta Avenue at Kyabram 

Street 

Traffic Splitter Island 93 81 6 5 16 14 

Kyabram Street at Barry 

On road 50km/h 95 83 5 4 15 13 

Road 

pavement symbols 

Maffra Street at Barry Road 

91 79 5 4 19 17 

Westmere Crescent, b/w Road Hump with 

Warne Street and road bend Pedestrian Crossing 

84 73 12 10 19 17 

Intersection 

Kyabram Street at Lexton Modification to restrict 

Street 

right turns into Lexton 

86 75 11 10 18 16 

Street 

Kyabram Street 

Parking/Cycling and 

traffic lane linemarking 

88 77 12 10 15 13 

Barry Road at Kyabram 

Street 

Intersection Upgrade 98 85 2 2 15 13 

Glenelg Street, b/w Kyabram 

Off-road Cycling Path 87 76 9 8 19 17 

Street and Pascoe vale Road 

Council reserves between 

Elm Court and Thorpdale 

Avenue and between 

Pearson Crescent and Flynn 

Crescent 

Upgrade Pedestrian 

Link between Barry 

Road and Glenelg 

Street 

99 86 3 3 13 11 

Note: Residents responses not indicating “in favour” or “against” were considered undecided. 






TABLE 3 – RESIDENTS COMMENTS ON TRAFFIC SAFETY ISSUES 

Location 

Barry Road 

at Longford 

Crescent 

Kyabram 

Street 

Thorpdale 

Avenue 

No. of 

residents 

6 

5 

5 

Barry Road 4 

Longford 

Crescent 

Bushfield 

Crescent 

4 

3 

Comments 

Cars running 

through red light 

Traffic speeds too 

high 


high 


high 


high 


high 

Existing conditions and proposed treatments 

Existing traffic signals. 

Intersection works have been undertaken 

by VicRoads to improve traffic safety. 

This included upgrading the existing traffic 

signals, public lighting, traffic islands and 

line marking. 

Existing bus route (route 540). 

Existing speed limit of 50km/h 

Average weekday volume of 4,595 

vehicles. 

85 th percentile speed of 67km/h. 

Proposal – Linemark bicycle/parking and 

traffic lane to assist in delineating the road 

and reduce traffic speeds. 

Proposal - ‘50’ pavement marking on 

Kyabram Street at Barry Road to alert 

motorists of the speed limit. 


Existing speed limit of 40km/h. 

Average weekday volume of 581 vehicles. 

85th percentile speed of 53.6km/h. 

Proposal - Centre linemark the road to 

assist in delineating traffic and reduce 

traffic speeds. 

Proposal - Arrange for a speed display 

trailer to be set up to alert motorists of their 

travelling speed. 



85 th percentile speed of 66.2km/h. 

The existing speed limit is 60km/h. 

Barry Road is a VicRoads Arterial Road 

and not suitable for traffic calming devices. 




vehicles. 


Existing ‘50’ pavement marking on the 

south end of Longford Crescent. 

Proposal - Centre linemark the road to 

assist in delineating traffic and reduce 



Average weekday volume of 1,378. 


Existing road humps are effective in 

reducing traffic speeds. 

No additional traffic treatments are 

proposed. 






Location 

Almurta 

Avenue 

No. of 

residents 

3 

Exford Street 3 

Glenelg 

Street 

Guildford 

Avenue 

3 

3 

Maffra Street 3 

Comments 


high 


high 


high 


high 


high 




85 th percentile speed of 45.7km/h. This is 

an acceptable traffic speed. 

Existing road humps are effective in 

reducing traffic speeds. 

Proposal - Install a traffic splitter island on 

the east end of Almurta Avenue at Kyabram 

Street to reduce cornering speeds and 

improve pedestrian safety at the 

intersection. 




Proposal - Centre linemark the road which 

will assist in delineating traffic and reducing 





Glenelg Street provides access to abutting 

industrial and residential properties. 

Proposal - Centre linemark the road 

between Kyabram Street and Maffra Street 

to assist in delineating traffic and reduce 







85 th percentile speed of 58km/h. 






vehicles. 


Maffra Street provides access to abutting 

industrial properties 

Physical traffic calming devices are not 

appropriate in industrial areas 

Proposal - Linemark traffic and parking 

lanes which will reduce the width of the 

road and assist in reduce traffic speeds. 









TABLE 4 – RESIDENTS COMMENTS ON PARKING ISSUES 

Location 

Barry Road 

shopping 

precinct 

Bushfield 

Crescent 

Pearson 

Crescent 

No. of 

residents 

6 

5 

3 

Comments 

Parking 

availability 

Parking 

congestion 

during school 

times 

Parking on 

road bend 


Inspections found significant parking 

congestion in the vicinity of the shops 

and surrounding road network. 

 

Council has a proposal to provide 

additional parking on Dunstan Parade. 

Council will continue to manage and 

enforce the existing parking facilities and 

the surrounding road network. 

This issue has previously been 

investigated. 

Parking restrictions were proposed on 

Bushfield Crescent, between Westmere 

Crescent and Orville Street which were 

not supported by adjacent residents. 

No additional parking restrictions are 

proposed. 

An investigation was undertaken. 

Some on-street parking was observed. 

Observations found that traffic speeds 

and volumes on Pearson Crescent were 

appropriate for this type of parking 

arrangement. 

Some on-street parking must be made 

available for abutting residents and their 

visitors. 

Parking restrictions have not been 

proposed. 






TABLE 5 – RESIDENT COMMENTS AT LATM CONSULTATION MEETING 

LOCATION 

Pearson 

Crescent 

Longford 

Crescent at 

Genoa Court 

Barry Road 

and Longford 

Crescent 

Almurta 

Avenue 

Kyabram 

Street 

COMMENTS 

On street parking 

congestion during 

work hours 

Concerns regarding 

existing bollards at 

pedestrian crossing. 


traffic signals 


existing road humps 

Significant heavy 

vehicle volumes on 

the residential side of 

the road 

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROPOSED 

TREATMENTS 

An investigation was undertaken. 

Some on-street parking was observed. 

Observations found that traffic speeds and 

volumes on Pearson Crescent were appropriate 

for this type of parking arrangement. 

Some on-street parking must be made available 

for abutting residents and their visitors. 

Parking restrictions have not been proposed. 

The existing traffic treatment at the intersection 

is a traffic splitter (seagull) island which includes 

bollards in the nature strip. 

An investigation found that the existing 

intersection and bollards were safe and reduced 

traffic speeds in this area. 

No additional intersection works are proposed. 

Intersection works have been undertaken by 

VicRoads to improve traffic safety. 

This included upgrading the existing traffic 

signals, public lighting, traffic islands and line 

marking. 

Flat top road humps are a VicRoads approved 

traffic treatment effective in reducing traffic 

speeds. 

A site survey found that the existing road humps 

meet Australian, VicRoads’ and Council 

standards. 

Traffic counts suggest that heavy vehicles make 

up 13.3% of traffic on the residential side of the 

road 

There is an existing sign on the south end of 

Kyabram Street at Barry Road advising trucks 

 

not to enter 

Proposal - Restrict right turns into Lexton Street 

from Kyabram Street by modifying the 

intersection. 

This will reduce the number of heavy vehicles 

entering Coolaroo from Kyabram Street to 

service the industrial area 






Attachment 1 – Traffic Speeds and Volumes 






Attachment 2 – Final Local Area Traffic Management Plan 






Attachment 3 – Details of Final Traffic Treatments 





REPORT NO: 

REPORT TITLE: 

SOURCE: 

DIVISION: 

FILE NO: 

PC48 

Roxburgh Park East Local Area Traffic Management 

Study 

Jonnie Missos, Team Leader Traffic 


HCC10/392 

POLICY: - 


Transport 


The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval for the Local Area Traffic Management 

Study for the Roxburgh Park East area, bounded by Patullos Lane, Donald Cameron Drive, 

Roxburgh Park Drive, Somerton Road and the Craigieburn Railway Line. 


That Council: 

2.1 adopts the Roxburgh Park East Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) Study. 

2.2 carries out works listed in Table 1 in 2011/12. 

2.3 informs the residents in the study area of the adopted Roxburgh Park East LATM 

Plan. 


3.1 The total estimated cost to install the traffic management devices recommended in 

Table 1, attached to this report, is $180,000. 

3.2 The following projects will be funded in Council’s 2011/2012 Capital Works Program - 

LATM works at an estimated total cost of $180,000. There is $310,000 available in the 

2011/12 Capital Works Budget for works related to the two annually approved LATM 

Strategies. 

3.2.1 Lakeside Drive – Installation of flat top road humps and centre line marking 

with road reflective markers at an estimated cost of $65,000. 






3.2.2 Patullos Lane – Installation of flat top road humps including 50km/h pavement 

marking at an estimated cost of $40,000. 

3.2.3 Southern Cross Drive – Installation of a flat top road hump at the school 

crossing at an estimated cost of $20,000. 

3.2.4 Sommeville Drive – Installation of a flat top road hump at the school crossing 

at an estimated cost of $20,000. 

3.2.5 Murchison Drive – Installation of a traffic splitter island at Sommerville Drive at 

an estimate cost of $12,000. 

3.2.6 David Munroe Drive, Thomas Brunton Parade and Murchison Drive – Line 

marking upgrade of the existing roundabout including amending the turn lanes 

at an estimated cost of $8,000. 

3.2.7 Centre line mark the following roads with road reflective pavement markers at 

an estimated cost of $13,000. 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

Rossiter Avenue 

Stainsby Crescent 

Sommerville Drive 

Murchison Drive – including 50km/h pavement marking 

3.2.8 Roxburgh Park Drive, David Munroe Drive and Thomas Brunton Parade – 

Reduction of speed limit from 70km/h to 60km/h and the installation of the 

signs at an estimated cost of $2,000. 

3.3 The construction of off-road shared walking and cycling paths at an estimated total cost 

of $187,000 will be referred to Council’s Walking and Cycling Strategy Program for 

future funding consideration. 

3.3.1 Patullos Lane - an estimated cost of $40,000 

3.3.2 West side of the Craigieburn Railway Line between Patullos Lane and 

Roxburgh Park Railway Station- an estimated cost of $147,000. 


4.1 A questionnaire was distributed to residents, schools, businesses and community 

facilities in the Roxburgh Park East LATM study area in September 2010. The 

questionnaire sought comments on a proposed traffic management plan for the area. 

4.2 Approximately 1,440 questionnaires where distributed with 186 responses were 

received, representing a 13% return rate. The majority of respondents have supported 

the proposed traffic strategy. 

4.3 Resident responses to the proposed traffic management treatments are shown in Table 

2 attached to this report. 






4.4 Residents were asked if they experienced any other traffic issues within the area; 65% 

residents replied they had concerns. Table 3 summarises the traffic issues responses. 

4.5 Residents were also asked if they experienced any parking issues within the area; 46% 

residents replied they had concerns. Table 4 summarises the parking issues 

responses. 

4.6 A public meeting was held in September 2010 at the Roxburgh Park Youth and 

Recreation Centre during the LATM consultation period. Five residents attended the 

meeting. Table 5 is a list of matters residents raised at the meeting. 

4.7 Dyson Bus Lines and Broadmeadows Bus Lines who provide bus service route 541 

and 544 respectively were consulted with Council’s proposed traffic treatments. No 

comments or feedback were received. 



5.1.1 As part of the Hume City Council Plan 2009 – 2013 a commitment was made 

to undertake a LATM study for the area of Roxburgh Park East, bounded by 

Patullos Lane, Donald Cameron Drive, Roxburgh Park Drive, Somerton Road 

and the Craigieburn Railway Line. 

5.1.2 No previous LATM study has been undertaken in this area. 

5.2 Existing Conditions 

5.2.1 The Roxburgh Park East area is an established residential area. 

5.3 Analysis 

5.3.1 The traffic survey results, crash statistics from the VicRoads database 

‘Crashstats’ and a review of past requests from residents, were used to derive 

a draft Traffic Management Plan for the area. 

5.3.2 Attachment 1 indicates Traffic Speeds and Volumes for the precinct. 

5.4 Proposed LATM Treatments 

5.4.1 A questionnaire with a copy of the proposed Traffic Management Plan was 

sent to all the residents in the area. The following proposed treatments are 

considered appropriate to address residents concerns. 






5.4.2 Roxburgh Park Drive, David Munroe Drive and Thomas Brunton Parade - 

Reduction of speed limit from 70km/h to 60km/h. The following table provides 

statistics regarding these roads. 

Roxburgh 

Park 

Drive 

Donald 

Cameron 

Drive 

Thomas 

Brunton 

Parade 

ROAD 

AVERAGE 

WEEKDAY 

TRAFFIC 

VOLUME – 

veh/day 

TRAFFIC 

SPEED 

85 th %ILE 

– km/h 

NUMBER 

OF 

CRASHES 

2006-2010 

Between Somerton Road and 

Donald Cameron Drive 16,481 73 6 

Between Thomas Brunton 

Parade and Bridgewater Road 

18,806 73 6 

Between Roxburgh Park Drive 

and Thomas Brunton Parade 

4,586 73 5 

Between Donald Cameron Drive 

and David Munroe Drive 21,689 71 7 

(a) The resident responses indicated that approximately 63% were in 

favour, 24% were against and 13% were undecided about the proposal. 

This response indicates that the majority of residents in the area support 

a reduction in the speed limit. 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

There have been 24 recorded casualty crashes on the three Collector 

Roads in the previous 5-year period. Reducing the speed limit will assist 

in reducing the number of casualty crashes. 

Adjacent Collector Roads being David Munroe Drive and Bridgewater 

Road have a 60km/h speed limit. Reducing the speed limit on these 

roads will be consistent with other Collector Roads in the area. 

There are a number of community facilities and schools abutting these 

roads with a number of children and pedestrians in the area. A reduced 

speed limit will provide a safer road environment. 

The speed limit reduction will be subject to VicRoads, Victoria Police and 

Bus Operators approval. 






5.4.3 Lakeside Drive, Patullos Lane, Southern Cross Drive and Sommeville Drive - 

Installation of flat top road humps. The following table provides statistics 

regarding these roads. 

ROAD 

Lakeside 

Drive 

Patullos 

Lane 

Southern 

Cross Drive 

Sommervill 

e Drive 

LOCATION 

Entire 

Length 

Entire 

Length 

At School 

Crossing 

At School 

Crossing 

AVERAGE 

WEEKDAY 

TRAFFIC 

VOLUME – 

veh/day 

TRAFFIC 

SPEED 

85 th %ILE 

– km/h 

SPEED 

LIMIT 

NUMBER 

OF 

CRASHES 

2006-2010 

ESTIMATED 

COST - $ 

1,172 56 50 1 65,000 

1,058 62 50 1 40,000 

2,000 49 40 0 20,000 

507 48 40 0 20,000 

(a) 

(b) 

The recorded traffic speed and volumes on Lakeside Drive and Patullos 

Lane justify traffic management works. Both roads have abutting 

recreational and community facilities where the proposed flat top road 

humps will significantly reduce traffic speeds and provide a safer road 

environment. 

The proposed flat top road humps at the existing school crossings on 

Southern Cross Drive and Sommerville Drive will significantly reduce 

traffic speeds in the vicinity and provide for a safer crossing facility. This 

treatment has been used at other school crossings in the municipality 

with success. 

5.4.4 Murchison Drive – Installation of traffic splitter island at Sommerville Drive. 

(a) Murchison Drive and Sommerville Drive have traffic volumes of 1,437 

and 2,753 veh/day respectively. 

(b) 

At the consultation meeting, residents expressed concern of the large 

amount of vehicles using the intersection and that most cut the corner 

creating a hazard to opposing traffic. Site observations revealed that this 

behaviour was occurring at the intersection. A traffic splitter island at the 

intersection will reduce cornering speeds, improve safety of pedestrians 

and maintain vehicles on the correct side of the road. 

5.4.5 David Munroe Drive, Thomas Brunton Parade and Murchison Drive – 

Roundabout upgrade with line marking changes. 

(a) 

Traffic surveys show that Thomas Brunton Parade and David Munroe 

Drive have average weekday volumes of 21,689 and 23,308 vehicles 

respectively. Murchison Drive has an average weekday volume of 3,715 

vehicles. 






(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

There is a dominant traffic movement where vehicles on David Munroe 

Drive turn left and vehicles on Thomas Brunton Parade turn right as the 

traffic volumes indicate. 

Resident responses and site observations revealed that the current 

turning lanes at the roundabout do not suit the large number of vehicles 

undertaking these turns. It is proposed to upgrade the linemarking to 

introduce two left lanes on David Munroe Drive and two right lanes on 

Thomas Brunton Parade. This will improve capacity at the roundabout 

and provide a safer road environment. 

It was also expressed at the consultation meeting that through vehicles 

entering Murchison Drive do so with high speeds. It is proposed to 

linemark the entry to visually narrow the road. 

5.4.6 Patullos Lane and West side of the Craigieburn Railway Line between Patullos 

Lane and Roxburgh Park Railway Station – Construction of an off-road shared 

walking and cycling path. 

(a) 

In Council’s 2010-2015 Walking and Cycling Strategy, it has identified in 

the Action Plan to construct off-road shared walking and cycling paths 

along Patullos Lane and the west side of the Craigieburn Railway Line 

between Patullos Lane and Roxburgh Park Railway Station. 

5.4.7 Donald Cameron Drive - Indented Bus Bay 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

A number of residents and the local school raised safety concerns with 

the bus stop on the north side of Donald Cameron Drive, just east of 

Thomas Brunton Parade. 

A traffic investigation identified that there are two right turn lanes from 

Thomas Brunton Parade into Donald Cameron Drive. Observations 

showed that when a bus was stopped at this location, it occupies the left 

lane causing a traffic hazard to the right turning vehicles. 

An indented bus bay at this location would allow the bus to park off the 

road carriageway and not interrupt the traffic flow from the two right 

turning lanes from Thomas Brunton Parade. 

Council officers in discussions with the Department of Transport secured 

funding for the construction of the indented bus bay. The bus bay was 

constructed in January 2011. 

5.4.8 Attachment 2 shows the Final Local Area Traffic Management Plan. 

5.4.9 Attachment 3 shows the details of the proposed Traffic Treatments. 






5.5 Further Investigations 

5.5.1 As a result of the comments from the returned questionnaires and the LATM 

information and consultation meeting, additional investigations were 

conducted however did not result in further treatments being added to the draft 

Traffic Management Plan. 

5.5.2 Residents were concerned about the parking congestion on Sommeville Drive 

at Roxburgh Park Primary School. Inspections indicated that there is adequate 

parking available to meet the demand of the school. 

5.5.3 Residents expressed concern that many parents are not abiding by the 

parking restrictions during school times, causing congestion on Sommeville 

Drive and Southern Cross Drive. A request has been forwarded to Council’s 

City Laws department to increase surveillance of the area. 

5.5.4 Residents expressed concern of motorists speeding at the roundabout of 

David Munroe Drive, Thomas Brunton Parade and Murchison Drive. A further 

investigation was conducted and it is proposed as part of the draft Traffic 

Management Plan to modify the existing roundabout to decrease the traffic 

speeds and improve traffic safety. 


The works recommended in the Roxburgh Park East LATM study report are well supported 

by the residents within the study area and will be funded from Council’s 2011/12 Capital 

Works Budget. 






TABLE 1 – ESTIMATED COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCE OF TREATMENTS 

NO TRAFFIC DEVICE LOCATION 

COUNCIL’S 2011/12 CAPITAL WORKS BUDGET – LATM WORKS 

Lakeside Drive between Donald Cameron 

Drive and Donald Cameron Drive 

Patullos Lane between Donald Cameron Drive 

1 Install Flat Top Road Humps and Moir Drive including 50km/h pavement 

marking 

2 

Centre Linemarking with Road 

Reflective Pavement Markers 

ESTIMATED 

COST 

$65,000 

$40,000 

Southern Cross Drive at the school crossing $20,000 

Sommeville Drive at the school crossing $20,000 

Sommeville Drive 

Lakeside Drive 

Murchison Drive including 50km/h pavement 

marking 

Stainsby Crescent 


$13,000 

3 

Intersection Upgrade with 

Linemarking changes 

David Munroe Drive, Thomas Brunton Parade 

and Murchison Drive roundabout 

$8,000 

4 Traffic Splitter Island On Murchison Drive at Sommerville Drive $12,000 

5 Speed Limit Signs 

Roxburgh Park Drive, David Munroe Drive and 

Thomas Brunton Parade. 

$2,000 

TOTAL COST OF ALL PROJECTS $180,000 






TABLE 2 – RESIDENTS RESPONSE TO TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS 

LOCATION 

PROPOSED TREATMENT 

RESIDENT RESPONSES 

IN FAVOUR AGAINST UNDECIDED 

No. % No. % No. % 

Southern Cross Drive 146 78 9 5 31 17 

Sommeville Drive Install Flat Top Road 

139 75 10 5 37 20 

Patullos Lane Humps 

136 73 18 10 32 17 


136 73 20 11 30 16 

Lakeside Drive 146 79 9 5 30 16 

Sommeville Drive Line mark Centre Line with 145 78 8 4 33 18 

Murchison Drive Road Reflective Pavement 146 78 8 4 32 17 

Stainsby Crescent Markers 

145 78 10 5 31 17 


150 81 7 4 29 16 

Donald Cameron 

Drive 

Indented Bus Bay 154 83 4 2 28 15 

Donald Cameron 

119 64 43 23 24 13 

Drive 

Reduce Speed Limit from 

Roxburgh Park Drive 117 63 47 25 22 12 

70km/h to 60km/h 

Thomas Brunton 

113 61 45 24 28 15 

Parade 

Patullos Lane 148 80 8 4 30 16 

Pedestrians and Cycling 

Along West Side of 

Shared Path 150 81 7 4 29 16 

Railway Track 

Murchison Drive Install Traffic Splitter Island 143 78 7 4 34 18 

Thomas Brunton 

Additional Left and Right 

Parade and David 

Turn Lanes 

Munroe Drive 

155 83 5 3 26 14 

Patullos Lane Install 50km/h Pavement 142 76 11 6 33 18 

Murchison Drive 

Symbol 

146 78 8 4 32 17 

Note: Residents responses not indicating “in favour” or “against” were considered undecided. 






TABLE 3 – RESIDENTS COMMENTS ON TRAFFIC SAFETY ISSUES 

LOCATION 

Donald 

Cameron 

Drive 

Stainsby 

Crescent 

Rossiter 

Avenue 

Sommeville 

Drive 

NO. OF 

RESIDENTS 

6 Traffic speeds 

6 

5 

COMMENTS 

Traffic speeds 

Traffic speeds 

3 Traffic speeds 

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND 

PROPOSED TREATMENTS 

Existing bus route. 


vehicles. 

85 th percentile speed 72km/h 

Proposal - Reduce the speed limit from 

70km/h to 60km/h. 

Existing speed limit 50km/h. 

85 th percentile speed 48.2km/h 

Average weekday volume 1,756. 

The traffic data does not meet Council’s 

guidelines for traffic treatments. 

Proposal - Install centre linemarking 

with road reflective pavement markers. 


85 th percentile speeds of 49km/h, 

43.2km/h and 37.8km/h at various 

locations. 

Average weekday volumes 556, 446 

and 1,045 vehicles respectively. 






85 th percentile speed 51.5km/h. 

Average weekday volume 2,753. 










TABLE 4 – RESIDENTS COMMENTS ON PARKING ISSUES 

LOCATION 

NO. OF 

RESIDENTS 

COMMENTS 

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROPOSED 

TREATMENTS 

Roxburgh Park 

Railway Station 

Roxburgh Park 

Primary School 

Good Samaritan 

Catholic School 

12 

4 

4 

Parking problems 

at the railway 

station 

Congestion 

during school 

hours, more 

parking 

requested 

Congestion 

during school 

hours, more 

parking 

requested 

There are 140 existing car parking spaces at 

Roxburgh Park Railway Station. 

Site inspections found significant parking 

demand in the vicinity of the railway station. 

Carparking concerns are being discussed by 

the property owner of Roxburgh Park Shopping 

Centre and the Department of Transport. 

Council will continue to advocate for increased 

parking. 

There are existing on-street car parking 

restrictions during school drop off and pick up 

times on the residential side of Sommeville 

Drive, between Almands Avenue and Claridge 

Avenue. 

Roxburgh Park Primary School has no parking 

 

within the property boundary. 

There are existing indented parking bays on 

Almands Avenue and Sommerville Drive along 

the school side. 

Site inspections revealed most parents are 

parking on the adjacent vacant land accessed 

from Sommerville Drive. 

 

 

 

Council is not responsible to provide parking for 

schools. 

No additional treatments are proposed. 

Proposal - A request will be forwarded to 

Council’s City Laws department to increase 

patrol of the area and prevent illegal stopping in 

restricted areas. 

There are existing on-street car parking 

restrictions during school drop off and pick up 

times on the residential side of Southern Cross 

Drive, between Donald Cameron Drive and 

Volantis Crescent. 

Good Samaritan Catholic School has some 

parking within the property boundary. 

There are existing indented parking bays on 

Southern Cross Drive along the school side. 

Council is not responsible to provide parking for 

schools. 

 

 

No additional treatments are proposed. 

Proposal - A request will be forwarded to 

Council’s City Laws department to increase 

patrol of the area and prevent illegal stopping in 

restricted areas. 






TABLE 5 – RESIDENTS COMMENTS AT LATM CONSULTATION MEETING 

LOCATION COMMENTS EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROPOSED TREATMENTS 


Murchison Drive 

Road Access to 

Roxburgh Park 

Railway Station 

Traffic speeds along the 

road – request flat top 

road humps. 

Residents raised 

concerns about the 

entrance of Murchison 

Drive from David Munroe 

Drive. Need to narrow 

the traffic lane on 

Murchison Drive. 

Residents raised 

concerns about the lack 

of footpath on the access 

road. 

 

 

 

 

 


Average number of heavy vehicles 1,172 per day. 

85 th percentile speed 56km/h 

Proposal – Install flat top road humps with associated 

centre linemarking and road reflective pavement 

markers along the entire length. 

Proposal – Linemark the existing roundabout to assist 

in reducing traffic speeds and improve traffic safety. 

No direct footpaths link the railway station with the 

residential area. 

As part of the Roxburgh Park Shopping Centre 

expansion, it is proposed to provide a designated 

pedestrian path from the existing network to the railway 

station along Thomas Brunton Drive extension road. 

Proposal – Construct a shared walking and cycling path 

along the west side of the Craigieburn Railway Line 

between Patullos Lane and Roxburgh Park Railway 

Station. 






Attachment 1 – Traffic Speeds and Volumes 






Attachment 2 – Final Local Area Traffic Management Plan 






Attachment 3 – Details of the Final Traffic Treatments 





REPORT NO: 

REPORT TITLE: 

SOURCE: 

DIVISION: 

PC49 

Craigieburn Road, Craigieburn - Illegal Parking 

Ton Vu, Traffic Engineer 


FILE NO: 4911 

POLICY: 


_ 

Transport 


This report is in response to a Council resolution (Report No. JES202) to carry out a traffic 

investigation of vehicles parking illegally on the nature strip of Craigieburn Road, outside the 

Craigieburn Plaza Shopping Centre. 


2.1 That Council install bollards on the north nature strip of Craigieburn Road, 

outside the Craigieburn Plaza Shopping Centre to prevent vehicles parking 

illegally. 

2.2 That Council write to the Craigieburn Plaza Shopping Centre and ask if they can 

provide a parking bay for oversize vehicles. 


The estimated cost to install bollards on the north nature strip of Craigieburn Road, outside 

the Craigieburn Plaza Shopping Centre is $6,000 and will be funded from Council’s 2011/12 

Capital Works Budget – Traffic Responsive Road Works allocation. 


Under the Road Safety Road Rules 2009 it is an offence to park or stop on a nature strip. 

Council has the power under the Local Government Act 1989 to install bollards on nature 

strips to physically restrict parking. 








Council resolved at its meeting on Monday 11 April 2011, “That Council officers 

investigate the opportunity to install bollards on the nature strip on northern side of 

Craigieburn Road, outside the Craigieburn Shopping Centre, in order to deter the illegal 

parking of cars and trucks in this area of Craigieburn.” 

5.2 Analysis 

5.2.1 Under the Victorian Road Safety Rules 2009 and Council’s Local Law it is an 

offence to park on the nature strip unless signed otherwise. Enforcement can 

be carried out by Council’s City Laws Department and the Victorian Police. 

5.2.2 A site inspection revealed a number of tyre marks on the north nature strips of 

Craigieburn Road outside the Craigieburn Plaza Shopping Centre as a result 

of vehicles illegally parking. These areas have become uneven, no longer 

have grass, are muddy when wet and are unsightly. 

5.2.3 Observations undertaken during July and August 2011 found some vehicles 

illegally parking on the north side nature strip areas of Craigieburn Road 

outside the Craigieburn Plaza Shopping Centre. Generally, trucks were found 

to park around lunch time and cars parked in the afternoon. 

5.2.4 Large vehicles such as construction and delivery trucks park on the nature 

strip for short visits to the shopping centre. There is no provision for trucks to 

park within the shopping centre car park and there are limited opportunities to 

park along the road frontage of Craigieburn Road outside the shopping centre. 

5.2.5 Passenger vehicles were observed to park on the nature strip while drivers 

were waiting to pick up school children from the adjacent bus stop. During 

these times there was parking available for cars within the shopping centre car 

park. 

5.2.6 It is proposed to install bollards on the north side of Craigieburn Road outside 

the Craigieburn Plaza Shopping Centre to physically restrict vehicles from 

parking on the nature strip and causing damage to the areas. Once the 

bollards have been installed these areas can be rejuvenated with the 

landscaping of new trees and the establishment of grass. 

5.2.7 Attachment 1 shows a Locality Plan of existing and proposed conditions. 


Site inspections indicate that some vehicles, including trucks, park on the north nature strip 

areas of Craigieburn Road, outside the Craigieburn Plaza Shopping Centre. The installation 

of bollards on the nature strip will physically restrict vehicles parking illegally and together 

with landscaping will improve the appearance of these areas. 






Attachment 1 – Locality Plan 


REPORTS – COMMUNITY WELLBEING 



COUNCIL PLAN THEME – COMMUNITY WELLBEING 

REPORT NO: 

REPORT TITLE: 

SOURCE: 

DIVISION: 

CW271 

Harricks Crescent Reserve Basketball Tower 

Nicole Wilson, Sport and Recreation Planning Officer 


FILE NO: 301839 and 180 

POLICY: 


Community Wellbeing 

Arts, Leisure and Recreation 


1.1 This report provides advice to Council on the investigation into the reinstatement of a 

basketball tower at Harricks Crescent Reserve in Attwood, relating to petition PJL 215. 


That Council 

2.1 approves the re-installation of a basketball tower at Harricks Crescent Reserve in 

Attwood. 

2.2 writes to residents who participated in the consultation and those abutting the 

reserve advising of this outcome. 

2.3 writes to the first named signatory of the petition (PJL 215) advising of this 

outcome. 


3.1 The replacement costs of a basketball tower and associated works ($8,000) will be 

funded through the Parks and Open Space Department budget. 

3.2 Regular inspections and maintenance of the basketball tower will be absorbed by the 

existing Parks and Open Space Department maintenance budget. 


The provision of recreation services is a function specified in accordance with The Local 

Government Act 1989. 





REPORT NO: CW271 (cont.) 


5.1 Council received a petition (PJL 215) containing 21 signatures, in favour of a basketball 

ring being reinstated at Harricks Crescent Reserve in Attwood. 

5.2 Council had previously received three items of correspondence regarding the reinstallation 

of a basketball tower, one in favour and two in opposition. 

5.3 As a result of the community interest, an information flier and survey was distributed to 

276 households in the reserve’s catchment area of 500 walkable-metres. Temporary 

signs were also installed at the reserve seeking feedback on the following options. 

5.3.1 Three options were presented (attachment one): 

(a) Reinstate tower in previous location. 

(b) Install tower in new location, nearer existing play equipment. 

(c) Not to install a basketball tower. 

5.4 Thirty-seven completed surveys were returned, with the majority (31) supporting a 

basketball tower being provided at Harricks Crescent Reserve. 



6.1.1 Harricks Crescent Reserve is a neighbourhood open space area located in 

Attwood. The reserve is 0.98 hectare in size. 

6.1.2 The reserve contains two sets of play equipment, seating, a shelter, a large 

grassed area, and a path that runs through the reserve connecting Harricks 

Crescent to Herod Place. 

6.1.3 A basketball tower and concrete key pad had previously been provided at the 

Reserve, but the tower was removed after being damaged. The concrete key 

pad remains. 

6.1.4 The Infrastructure Standards of the Hume City Council Open Space Strategy 

2010-2015 support the provision of a basketball ring as a “might have” 

inclusion in a neighbourhood park. 

6.1.5 2006 Census data shows that twenty-four percent of Attwood residents are 

aged 10-24 years. Population projections indicate that this percentage should 

be relatively consistent for the next five years. 

6.2 Previous community feedback 

6.2.1 Council received a request in late 2010 to reinstate a basketball tower at 

Harricks Crescent Reserve. 






6.2.2 Two residents wrote to Council in June 2011 opposing the reinstatement of a 

basketball tower due to the proximity of the tower to their properties and 

concerns about anti-social behaviour. 

6.2.3 A petition containing 21 signatures was sent to Council in June 2011 

supporting the installation of a new basketball tower. 

6.3 Survey results 

6.3.1 Thirty seven completed surveys were returned following distribution of an 

information and survey flier to 276 households. This is a return rate of thirteen 

percent. 

6.3.2 Thirty respondents (81.1%) indicated they or a member of their household had 

used the reserve in the past 12 months. 

6.3.3 Thirty one respondents (81.6%) supported a basketball tower being provided 

at Harricks Crescent Reserve. 

6.3.4 The survey gave residents two location options for the basketball tower within 

the reserve. 

(a) 

(b) 

Twenty respondents (54.1%) supported a new location closer to the 

playground equipment. 

Eleven respondents supported the previous location and six did not 

answer the question. 

6.3.5 Twenty respondents (54.1%) indicated their family would use a basketball 

tower if one was provided. 

6.3.6 A summary of general comments from the survey is provided: 

(a) A basketball tower will provide another activity at the reserve for 

children, young people and parents to participate in. 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

Fourteen residents expressed concerns that the basketball tower will 

encourage vandalism and anti-social behaviour. 

Many older residents indicated that their visiting grandchildren would 

enjoy using a basketball tower. 

Many residents requested additional improvements to the reserve, such 

as lighting, new play equipment and more shade trees. 

(i) 

These requests will be considered in future capital works 

programs. 






6.4 Recreation opportunities 

6.4.1 The reinstatement of a basketball tower will enhance recreation opportunities 

in the local area. 

6.4.2 The closest basketball tower to this reserve is at Westmeadows Reserve in 

Ardlie Street, approximately 820 walkable metres from the western side of 

Harricks Crescent Reserve. For many local residents this is outside the 500 

walkable metre catchment. 

(a) 

Other basketball towers in public parks and reserves are located in 

Greenvale, Gladstone Park and Jacana. 

6.5 Adopt a Park Program 

6.5.1 Information regarding Council’s new Adopt a Park Program will be distributed 

to residents together with the correspondence advising the outcome of the 

consultation process. 

6.5.2 It is hoped that by raising residents’ awareness of, and potential participation 

in this program, vandalism and graffiti at the reserve may be minimised. 

6.5.3 Council officers will also monitor the appropriate use of the basketball tower 

through regular inspections and maintenance visits to the reserve. 


This report provides advice to Council on the investigation into the petition (PJL 215) 

received in support of a basketball tower being reinstated at Harricks Crescent Reserve, 

Attwood. It recommends that a basketball tower be installed in a new location closer to the 

play equipment, further away from neighbouring residential properties, and the existing 

concrete pad be removed. The petition’s first name signatory and residents who participated 

in the consultation and reside in abutting residential properties will be notified of the Council 

decision. 






ATTACHMENT 1 





REPORT NO: 

CW272 

REPORT TITLE: Quarterly Food Sampling Report April-June 2011 

SOURCE: 

DIVISION: 

FILE NO: 

Tony Gullone, Coordinator Public Health Services 

City Communities 

HCC11/702-03 

POLICY: - 


Safe and Healthy City 


Pursuant to requirements of the Food Act 1984 this report provides a summary of the results 

of quarterly food sampling undertaken over the April – June 2011. 


That Council notes the April – June 2011 Food Sampling results. 


The annual budget of the Food Sampling Program for the 2010/11 year was $49,500. This 

includes the purchase and testing of samples by a Food Analyst. For year 2010/11 the 

actual expenditure for Food Sampling Program was $34,380. 


The Food Act 1984 requires that food sampling reports (prepared by an external analyst) be 

presented to Council. Section 32 (3) of the Act states: Every report received by a council 

from an analyst under this section shall be presented at the next ordinary meeting of the 

council held after the receipt of that report. 


5.1 Where relevant, Council’s Public Health Unit provide updates of food sampling results 

to local food businesses through Council’s quarterly Food News publication. 






5.2 The proprietors of all premises from which samples are purchased for analysis are 

advised of the results when they become available. 

5.3 The businesses that receive unsatisfactory results are inspected by EHO’s who assist 

proprietors by interpreting failed analysis results. This provides Council with an 

opportunity to advise proprietors of any necessary remedial action they may need to 

undertake and also identify any deficiencies in implemented food handling processes. 


6.1 Food Sampling Program 

6.1.1 Specific food sampling exercises are undertaken on a monthly basis in 

conjunction with other food safety monitoring, validation and health education 

work conducted by Council’s Public Health Unit. 

6.1.2 Council’s monthly food sampling exercise’s generally target food premises 

according to risk classification. Proposed sampling exercises can be altered or 

modified if and when prevalent food safety issues are identified. 

6.1.3 During the fourth quarter of sampling Environmental Health Officers completed 

a food sampling exercise paying particular attention to the microbiological 

safety of food prepared in recently transferred food businesses. 

6.2 Performance against annual targets 

6.2.1 The Food Act 1984 stipulates minimum requirements for the number of food 

samples to be taken per annum. The annual target for Hume City Council for 

2010/11 year was 415 samples. Hume City Council exceeded the annual 

target by 23 food samples; this was achieved with the allocated budget. All 

food samples obtained are submitted to Council’s Food Analyst for either 

chemical (compositional), labelling, foreign matter or microbiological, analysis. 

6.2.2 The table below outlines food sampling for July 2010 to June 2011. 

1 st Quarter 2 nd Quarter 3 rd Quarter 4 th Quarter 

Target 118.5 118.5 118.5 60 

Actual 144 71 158 55 

YTD Target 118.5 237 355.5 415 

YTD Actual 144 215 383 438 






6.3 Results 

6.3.1 A total of 60 food samples were submitted for analysis during April to June 

2011 

Sample 

Type 

Analysis Type 

Total Number 

of Samples 

April – June 

2011 

Number of 

Non- 

Complying 

Samples 

Microbiological - 

Extraneous Matter - 

Routine 

Chemical/Compositional 55* 

- 

samples 

Labelling 6 

Species 

- 

Microbiological - 

Complaint Extraneous Matter - 

samples Chemical/Compositional 5 

- 

Labelling - 

Species 

- 

Total 60 6 

* Only routines samples are included in food sample target 

6.3.2 In total there were 6 assessed at non-complaint with the labelling requirements 

as per FSANZ Food Standards Code. The non-compliant results were 

anticipated given the products selected for analysis were imported and therefore 

were not suitably labelled. 

6.3.3 Of the non complying microbiological samples, EHO’s would provide food 

business proprietors with information pertaining to the FSANZ Food Standards 

Code labelling requirements. A warning letter is also issued stating that follow up 

sampling is likely to be undertaken to ensure compliance with the Food 

Standards Code. 


7.1 The food sampling report for the quarter reveals an overall microbiological compliance 

rate of 100%. This is an unprecedented compliance rate given the nature of the 

sampling exercises undertaken within the quarter. The targeting of potentially 

hazardous foods gave council an opportunity to assess the food handling practices of 

some unknowledgeable food handlers who have benefitted from the provided advice, 

knowledge and guidance. 

7.2 The Public Health Unit will be conducting a food labelling information session in late 

September, targeting food importers, distributors and manufacturers. The primary 

objectives of the information session are to educate proprietors on their obligations to 

label food in accordance with the Australian New Zealand Food Standards Code and to 

ultimately achieve better labelling compliance across the municipality. 




















COUNCIL PLAN THEME – APPEARANCE OF THE CITY AND 

ENVIRONMENT 

REPORT NO: 

REPORT TITLE: 

SOURCE: 

DIVISION: 

FILE NO: 

AE44 

Hume Planning Scheme Amendment C122 - Application 

of the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay and the 

Special Building Overlay - for adoption 

Lucy Anderson, Strategic Planner 


HCC09/624 

POLICY: - 


Appearance of the City 


Council has been requested to undertake a planning scheme amendment on behalf of 

Melbourne Water to apply the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO) and Special 

Building Overlay (SBO) to various areas affected by inundation (flooding) in 1 in 100 year 

storm events from Melbourne Water drains or waterways across the City. At a Council 

meeting on 27 September 2010, Council resolved to seek Authorisation from the Minister for 

Planning to prepare and exhibit Amendment C122. The Amendment was exhibited and 

7 submissions received. All submissions have been resolved and it is now recommended 

that Council adopt the amendment and send it to the Minister for Planning for approval. 


That Council: 

 

 

having considered all submissions, adopts Hume Planning Scheme Amendment 

C122 with changes in accordance with Section 29(1) and 23(1) of the Planning and 

Environment Act 1987; 

submits Hume Planning Scheme Amendment C122 with changes to the Minister for 

Planning for approval in accordance with Section 31(1) of the Planning and 

Environment Act 1987. 


Planning and Environment Act 1987. 


REPORTS – COUNCIL 



REPORT NO: AE44 (cont.) 


4.1 Planning Scheme Amendment C122 was placed on public exhibition in accordance 

with the requirements of Section 19 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. This 

included public exhibition from 1 March 2011 to 4 April 2011 by: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

Notice to surrounding landowners 

Public notice in the Hume Leader newspaper 

Notice in the Government Gazette 

Notice to the relevant referral authorities 

Notice to all Ministers prescribed under the Planning and Environment 

Regulations 2000. 

4.2 After exhibition was completed, Melbourne Water requested that some additional 

overlay mapping be introduced through this amendment. This additional mapping only 

affected one landowner (the Salesian Society Inc School) and they were given one 

month (12 July 2011 until 15 August 2011) to comment on the amendment if they 

wished to do so. No submission was received from the school. 

4.3 Seven (7) submissions were received during the exhibition period. Of the seven, three 

had no objection to the amendment, three objected to the amendment, and one 

requested changes. Further discussion on the submissions is provided in Section 5.2 of 

this report. 



5.1.1 Melbourne Water has recently conducted a review of its flood mapping data 

and has identified additional areas which are subject to flooding in 1 in 100 

year storm events. The flood data that has been supplied is supported by the 

latest available information and was gathered utilising current industry best 

practice methodology and programs. A technical report for Merri Creek has 

also been supplied to Council. 

5.1.2 The amendment proposes to apply the SBO to urban areas which contain 

overland flowpaths or stormwater pipes that are subject to inundation during a 

1 in 100 year storm event. This will require that a permit is obtained for most 

buildings and works within the areas subject to inundation. The application of 

the SBO will assist in minimising flood damage by ensuring new development 

allows free passage and temporary storage of floodwaters. 

5.1.3 The amendment also proposes to apply the LSIO to a number of open 

waterways in predominately non urban areas within the municipality that are 

affected by inundation during a 1 in 100 year storm event. This will require that 

a permit is obtained for buildings and works within the areas subject to 

inundation. The application of the LSIO will assist in maintaining the free 

passage and temporary storage of floodwater, as well as maintaining river and 

floodplain health. 






5.1.4 The amendment was exhibited from 1 March 2011 to 4 April 2011. Seven 

submissions were received during exhibition period. 

5.2 Consideration of Submissions 

5.2.1 As per Section 23(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, after 

considering a submission which requests a change to the amendment the 

planning authority must: 

 

 

 

Change the amendment in the manner requested; or 

Refer the submission to a panel; or 

Abandon the amendment or part of the amendment. 

The following provide consideration of the seven (7) submissions received. 

5.2.2 VicRoads 

(a) 

VicRoads had no objection to the amendment provided the following 

exemption be inserted into the Schedule to the LSIO and SBO clauses: 

‘Any works undertaken by the Road Corporation be exempt from the 

requirement for a Planning Permit.’ 

(b) 

Planning Officer’s response: 

(i) 

(ii) 

A letter of response was sent to VicRoads, stating that unless 

designed properly, major earthworks such as levees, railways and 

roads have the potential to obstruct or divert floodwaters which 

may result in increased flood damage and flood risk. The referral 

to Melbourne Water ensures that all drainage, river health and 

flooding issues are considered as part of the development 

approval process. Therefore their request could not be supported 

by Melbourne Water. 

VicRoads were satisfied with the response and withdrew their 

request to change the amendment. 

5.2.3 Robin Viney on behalf of the Carmody Family, 785 Sunbury Road, Sunbury 

(a) 

Robin Viney objected to the amendment on the following grounds: 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

The mapping was incorrect and did not reflect recent improvement 

works that had occurred to the waterway on the property; 

The area of inundation as shown on the map is excessive; 

The inclusion of the overlay would impact on the continual use of 

the property for rural purposes; 

(iv) The information provided with the amendment was not 

comprehensive enough. 






(b) 


(i) 

(ii) 

Melbourne Water reassessed their mapping for the Carmody 

property and amended the mapping to exclude the property from 

the overlay. 

Robin Viney has now withdrawn his objection to the amendment. 

5.2.4 Mark Hally 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

Mr Hally owns a property at 271 Mitchells Lane, Sunbury. 

Mr Hally objected to the amendment because he felt there was a lack of 

information and a lack of time to consider the amendment. 


(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

Melbourne Water met with Mr Hally to discuss his submission and 

provide him with additional information. 

Melbourne Water reassessed their mapping for the property and 

amended the mapping to exclude the property from the overlay. 

Mr Hally has now withdrawn his objection to the amendment. 

5.2.5 Jeavons & Tomkinson on behalf of Mr Anthony McMahon 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

Jeavons & Tomkinson submitted an objection to the amendment on 

behalf of Mr McMahon for the following properties: 

(i) Lot 1 TP885249, Jackson St, Sunbury 

(ii) Lot 1 TP688804, 2-16 John Street, Sunbury 

(iii) Crown Allotment 1 Section 6, Township of Sunbury, 2 Vaughan 

Street, Sunbury 

(iv) Crown Allotment 2 Section 6, Township of Sunbury, 5 Jackson 

Street, Sunbury. 

Jeavons & Tomkinson objected for the following reasons: 

(i) The mapping is incorrect and does not extend the full length of 

Blind Creek; 

(ii) The overlay will have negative outcomes on the land, such as 

devaluation of land, decrease in amount of R1Z land available, 

additional planning process time to develop land. 

Planning Officers response: 

(i) 

(ii) 

Hume City Council and Melbourne Water met with the submitters 

to discuss the amendment. Melbourne Water explained the 

purpose and impacts of having the overlay on the land, and 

explained that the presence of the overlay did not prohibit the 

possibility of developing the land in the future. 

Jeavons & Tomkinson have now withdrawn their submission. 






5.2.6 Letters were received from Metropolitan Fire & Emergency Board (MFB), 

Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) and City West Water, 

which all stated they had no objection to the amendment. Since the 

submissions do not request changes to the amendment, no further action is 

required. 


The amendment would apply the SBO and LSIO to areas within Hume that are subject to 

inundation during a 1 in 100 year storm event. This will assist in reducing the amount of new 

development occurring within flood prone areas and will allow Melbourne Water to monitor 

the cumulative impact of development within these areas and discourage additional 

inappropriate development. It is recommended Council adopt the amendment and send to 

the Minister for Planning for approval.

Agenda - Hume City Council

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?