| 18/9 |
Malcolm McLean |
- Map including street names for Wingrove
- Map with boundaries for Wingrove
- Number of properties in Wingrove
|
- Detailed map of Wingrove ward can be found on Council’s website
- Wingrove map showing boundaries
- Based on the rateable property type for Wingrove ward, there are 3,395 residential properties and 503 business properties.
|
| 18/9 |
Andrew Bakos |
To find out whether land at 167-241 Allendale Road, Diamond Creek can be sold. |
This is unclear, suggested contacting National Trust or seeking legal advice. |
| 24/9 |
Kelly Joy |
Question about the election signage and promotion fact sheet:
Signs and advertising on public land
To ensure Council doesn’t appear to support an individual candidate, election signage is not permitted:
- on Council land including roadsides, nature strips, parkland or Council-owned property
- attached to Council buildings
- attached to a verandah, awning or fence that overhangs Council land
- on land owned by other government agencies such as Parks Victoria or VicRoads with the required approval from the relevant agency.
Should this be ‘without’?
|
Correct and apologies - there is an error on the fourth point. It should read ‘on land owned by other government agencies such as Parks Victoria or VicRoads without the required approval from the relevant agency’.
|
| 24/9 |
Kelly Joy |
Signs are not permitted on land managed by VicRoads etc without approval from the relevant agency, therefore are they allowed if approval is provided by DTP, for example on an arterial road? |
With regards to signage on land managed by other government agencies, you will need to speak to the agency about the requirements for signs on that land. |
| 24/9 |
Kelly Joy |
Question about the election signage and promotion fact sheet:
Events and pop ups
Candidates and supporters can hold events in public spaces but will need to follow the guidelines:
- Election material can’t be distributed within 50 metres of Council property – is a park, playgrounds, bbq area defined as ‘council property’ in this context or only buildings such as council offices and community centres etc?
- Candidates need permission from the property owner to campaign in a public space – if the space has an ‘owner’ is it not then a private space? Or does this mean council, as the ‘owner’, must approve events in public spaces such as park, playgrounds, bbq area?
- Consider public safety and community amenity – don’t obstruct access to footpaths.
- A-frame and freestanding signs aren’t allowed on Council land – does this include when an event is being held in a public space?
|
- The 50-metre restriction on election material distribution applies to all Council properties. This includes not only Council buildings, such as offices and community centres, but also parks, playgrounds, BBQ areas, and similar spaces that are owned or managed by Council.
- ‘Public space’ has the same meaning as ‘public place’ in the Summary Offences Act 1966, and therefore you are correct in that it includes spaces such as parks, playgrounds, and BBQ areas. If the public space is Council owned or managed, then yes you will need Council permission to campaign.
- However, some public spaces may be owned or managed by other government agencies like Parks Victoria or VicRoads. For any campaigning on land managed by other government agencies, you'll need to contact the relevant agency to understand their specific requirements.
- If candidates and supporters are planning or attending events in public spaces, A-frame and freestanding signs are not permitted on Council land, this includes a public space that is Council owned or managed.
|
| 25/9 |
Kelly Joy |
Advise on what the process is to gain approval to run small events (such as free sausage sizzles) and hand out flyers at local parks/bbq areas.
|
All of the information regarding planning an event in Nillumbik is found on our website via the below link.
There are clear instructions available on how to apply to hold an event on Council land.
Planning an event in Nillumbik
|
| 21/10 |
Karen Egan |
Regarding the boundary and ownership of the Panton Hill Community Hall and Footy oval. In the 1960s-70s, Melbourne Water acquired much of Panton Hill east of the main road, including the footy club's land, for the planned dam project. This led to the unusual boundary running through the oval, with Melbourne Water owning one half and the council likely owning the other. The community hall itself sits on Melbourne Water land, not owned by Melbourne Water, but Council built and own the hall. Can Council explore whether it's possible to rectify the boundary and land ownership issues for the oval and hall? Since Melbourne Water is unlikely to sell this land, a boundary realignment would be sufficient to sort out all the issues on who’s responsible for maintenance and other related concerns. |
Council officers have been looking into your request and confirmed that the land is not located in the Christmas Hills divestment area and is not owned by Melbourne Water. Melbourne Water has confirmed it cannot be considered as part of the divestment process as it is unrelated, and Melbourne Water does not own it. Any enquiries with regard to the land in question is a matter for the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) as the relevant land owners.
To confirm, DEECA own the land associated with the Panton Hill hall, and majority of the football oval is managed through a Committee of Management for the area known as the A E Cracknell Reserve. However Council owns 35 Rodger Road, which includes a smaller area in the south east portion of the football oval. Council has been maintaining the entire AE Cracknell Reserve oval for a very long time, given that it is utilised by public, local sporting clubs and Council owns a small area which sits within 35 Rodger Road, Panton Hill.
Council's view is that a boundary realignment serves no real improved outcome for the Reserve and its users with regard to the current landowner situation. However, something Council can investigate further.
It is considered this is a matter that would need to be put to a new sitting Council for its appetite given budgetary considerations of potentially long-term agreements for Council to be Committee of Management. |
| 22/10 |
Roma O'Callaghan |
- Information in regard to being able to build villa/townhouse type dwellings in Eltham and surrounds.
- Feasibility of Councillors seeking to form some sort of advocacy/working group to advance downsizing in Eltham and Nillumbik.
- Information about the planning reforms currently being released by the State Government including the new activity centres and walkable catchments around them.
|
Underlying zones in and surrounding the Major Activity Centres (including Eltham) do not prohibit townhouse type development (2-6 on a lot for example), however overlays that predominantly require significant vegetation retention and responsiveness to the unique character of Nillumbik may impact on the yields achievable. However the important thing is that the type of dwellings, particularly downsizers identified their preference for (at the Nillumbik Seniors Forum), was achievable via the current settings in the planning scheme.
There is an issue with market feasibility to be considered – that is developers will only develop property that will provide a return on investment sufficient to justify undertaking the development.
Council had adopted a submission to the State Government's draft Plan for Victoria and Housing Targets which is available on Council’s Participate Nillumbik site, but also is available in the papers of the Council meeting of the 27 August which outlines market feasibility of unit development (among other matters).
Supply of land and appropriate zoning is only one element of delivering dwellings, other considerations need to be addressed including but not limited to cost of construction (labour, materials, transport) and tax settings (incentives, in/out costs) noting the recent stamp duty announcement by the State Government is for apartments bought off the plan directly aimed at development of unit developments – a key policy lever for the State Government – not for other forms of dwellings at this time.
The planning reforms being prepared and implemented by the State Government are quite unprecedented – although NSW (metro Sydney) had been through similar types of reforms and that is evidenced in the type of development now present in and around their train stations. State government reforms do not go through the planning scheme amendment process that Council’s amendments must undertake – that is there is no third party notification and appeal rights (for example a planning panel to hear objections), rather they are amendments which affect all or many planning schemes in Victoria, and are implemented by the Minister for Planning without the usual timeframes that local government must adhere to under the Planning and Environment Act.
Not all activity centres have been announced as yet – and we are yet to see if Nillumbik’s Major Activity Centres (Eltham and Diamond Creek) are included in this next tranche. Planning officers know as much as what is being publicly announced in the media, and won’t have a full picture of implications for Nillumbik until likely early next year. A new sitting Council would be presented with changes and implications of such once officers have had the opportunity to review the raft of changes and their implications. We would then make recommendations to a new sitting Council for their consideration and input on how to proceed.
With regard to forming a working group to advance downsizing in Eltham and Nillumbik, given the State Government robust planning reform agenda and the fact that Council will not understand the final situation for our planning scheme and the complete reform agenda until likely early next year, in the Council officer's view it would be premature given the considerations of that group may be significantly altered given the changing planning policy landscape, and perhaps it would be more feasible to consider the focus/advocacy of that group once the planning reforms are more understood.
|