Agenda item

In accordance with Chapter 3, Rules 57 and 59, of the Governance Rules developed by Council in accordance with section 60 of the Local Government Act 2020.

In accordance with Chapter 3, Rules 57 and 59, of the Governance Rules developed by Council in accordance with section 60 of the Local Government Act 2020.

 

QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC

 

QUESTION 1

Aaron Graham, a resident of Olinda, asked: 

We've experience two dog attacks since moving to this council since last winter. Given that the council has full records of breed, location of residence, desexed status, age etc. what preventative measures has this council put in place to ensure the safety of both its constituents as well as their pets to prevent attacks by other pets, particularly dogs, and which councillor is responsible for the program?

 

Jane Price, Director Communities:

Thank you for your question, Aaron.

It is a whole of Council responsibility to ensure statutory requirements under the Domestic Animal Management Act 1994 are met. This includes the development and implementation of a Domestic Animal Management Plan (or DAMP) and an updated DAMP was endorsed by Council on 22 November 2022.

The DAMP outlines current programs to assist with the promotion of responsible pet ownership, welfare of dogs and cats, the protection of the community and the environment as well as evaluation of Council’s animal management service.

 ‘Minimising Dog Attacks’ is a section of the DAMP that outlines details of factors that can influence aggressive behaviour in dogs and actions Council is focusing on to support a reduction in this type of behaviour. Since 2018 Council has seen a reduction in reported dog attacks.

Council Officers also inspect properties where declared dangerous and menacing dogs are required to be appropriately contained.

Further information can be found in the Yarra Ranges Domestic Animal Management Plan 2022 – 2026 available on Council’s website.

 

 

 

 

QUESTION 2

Neil Doyle, a resident of Lilydale, asked: 

In regard to Agenda Item 10.4. Could you please confirm or deny that the replacement street lights being rolled out are in fact just lights and do not have the ability to collect images, data or monitor movement from the public passing by?

Can you please confirm or deny these new lights have no 5G connectivity or any other ability to transmit or receive data from any other smart city initiative?

 

Kath McClusky, Director Planning & Sustainable Futures:

Thank you for your question, Neil the replacement streetlight program is looking to replace the inefficient lighting currently along the road network with energy efficient lighting. The streetlights do not have the ability to collect data, images or monitor movement and have no internet capability or connectivity.

The program is similar to replacing lights in the home, such as when changing over from the less efficient halogen lights to LED lighting.

 

QUESTION 3

Ian Bergwerf, a resident of Lilydale, asked: 

Under the local Government Act 2020 the council is required to be transparent and efficient. Can you please explain why when the councillors have unanimously voted to remove 8 trees in Kookuburra lane, Mt Evelyn the planning system requires a further vote on the planning permit application. This is not efficient planning nor is it in the interest of the community.

 

Kath McClusky, Director Planning & Sustainable Futures:

Thank you for your question, Ian

The two-step process which has been followed in this case is the same as the one any landowner would need to take if they are seeking consent and permission to remove a tree from a neighbouring property.  The first step is to ask for consent from the landowner to remove the vegetation, then if consent is given, there is still the requirement to obtain a planning permit for the removal. In this case, the arboricultural assessment which Councillors relied upon in November to give consent, was then used as documentation in the second step to lodge the planning permit application. 

During the independent planning assessment for Kookaburra Lane, the first Council arborist report was reviewed independently by a second planning arborist.  There is no double handling, and this process is consistent with any private landowner wanting to remove trees from a neighbouring property.  The Yarra Ranges is renowned for its treed environment. Requests to remove significant native canopy trees need to be considered on a case-by-case basis to ensure the right balance between protecting the environment and landscape our community values and ensuring community wellbeing and are assessed against the provisions of the planning scheme.

 

 

QUESTION 4

Kathy Ricciuti, a resident of Silvan, asked: 

Pg32 of council reports pack 13.12.22 states Monbulk UDF will have weekend engagement, letterbox drop off and a community meeting. Warburton UDF says there will be direct mail of the draft UDF.

Where and when has this happened? How do we trust that council will do the bigger things they promise when these simple agenda items above are not adhered to adequately? Will the suggested reneging of the tree removal at Kookaburra Lane in tonight's agenda be another example of council's broken promises?

 

Kath McClusky, Director Planning & Sustainable Futures:

Thank you for your question, Kathy.

An extensive program of community engagement has been delivered for both the draft Warburton and Monbulk Urban Design Frameworks, including drop-in sessions, stakeholder meetings with trader and community groups and an online webinar that was recorded and uploaded to the Council website. These activities were communicated via media releases, local newspaper articles, posters in shopfronts and community noticeboards, dedicated web pages and social media promotions. 

In response to community feedback, engagement periods were extended and  additional drop-in sessions were held, and a postal mailout to Monbulk residents and businesses was sent in early March.

A direct digital mailout was sent in December 2022 to key stakeholders, community groups and Government agencies seeking submissions for both UDFs. There was no direct postal mailout to all residents in Warburton. It was felt that previous significant participation from local residents in engagement activities for the Warburton Place Plan and Warburton Mountain Bike Destination had captured many community views about issues the urban design framework seeks to address.

Around 3,191 people visited the Warburton UDF information on Council’s online engagement platform ‘Shaping Yarra Ranges’, with 207 surveys completed. To date Council has also received 25 hard copy surveys and 50 emailed submissions. Between 40-60 people attended each of the four drop-in sessions held in Warburton.

As of 4pm today, 7,335 people have viewed information on the Monbulk UDF project page through Shaping Yarra Ranges, with 320 surveys completed to date. The survey closes on 26 March.

During the consultation period Council has experienced disruptions by parts of the community to some of its meetings and have therefore needed to modify some of the consultation approaches to address potential risks to staff and community and ensure an orderly and safe engagement.  This included not proceeding with a presence at the Monbulk weekend market.

Any actions included in a final adopted UDF will be planned for delivery as with all previous actions in other UDFs, Structure Plans and Masterplans.

With regard to the vegetation removal application, as indicated by the CEO at the commencement of the meeting, the matter has been withdrawn from consideration at this evening’s meeting, and will be presented at a future Council meeting for a decision by Councillors.  Council will be presented with the opportunity to discuss and debate this application in the public Chamber at a future date and may or may not support the officer recommendation. All trees that were identified as dangerous were removed last year.

The report and recommendation in the agenda prepared by officers follows a comprehensive professional and technical arboricultural assessment, based on arboricultural merit.  This assessment has been completed as required against the Yarra Ranges planning scheme.  The planning team’s role is to present a balanced assessment of the proposal against the planning scheme ensuring assessments respond to both individual community member requests as well as broader community interest in protecting and managing our trees.  This assessment is independent of the Council resolution of last year.

 

 

 

QUESTION 5

Anonymous asked:

For what projects or developments does the Yarra Ranges Council seek funding or intend to seek funding through the State Government-led 20-Minute Neighbourhood Initiative?

Include projects or developments seeking partial or full funding.

Include any current or intended projects, developments, initiatives, committees or advisory bodies.

Include possible funding for any current or new projects, developments, Initiatives, committees or advisory bodies.

Thank you

 

Kath McClusky, Director Planning & Sustainable Futures:

Thank you for your question.

The State Government’s Municipal Strategic Planning Project (MSPP) seeks to deliver “better planning for Neighbourhood Activity Centres” to support the outcomes of its 20 Minute Neighbourhood initiative. Council has previously applied in 2022 for funding to develop overviews for each of the key activity centres to support housing, transport and business outcomes. Council was not successful in this funding application.

Council does not currently have a forward schedule of projects that are intended to seek funding through the Victorian Government’s 20 Minute Neighbourhood, however it would be considered if any future projects align with the objectives and outcomes, including a small selection of relevant actions in adopted Structure Plans which are all available on Council’s website and the final versions of the current Urban Design Frameworks.

 

 

QUESTION 6

Anonymous asked:

Yarra Ranges Council development process seems to assume ownership of ‘Council land’ and seems to assume the right to sell the land to developers.

In terms of Council selling ‘Council land’, who actually owns the land?

Who owned the land originally?

Is it the present day community member’s land or does it belong to the first nations people?

 

Hjalmar Philipp, Director Built Environment & Infrastructure:

Thank you for your question, Megan.

Firstly, it’s important to mention that Council acknowledges the continuous connection to country of Wurundjeri and other Kulin Nations as the traditional owners and custodians of the land in Yarra Ranges.

As bureaucratic as it sounds on matters regarding land tenure and sale, including native title and traditional ownership, Council is obliged to act in accordance with relevant federal and state government legislation, including the land tenure system that has been established in Australia.

The Local Government Act 2020, in particular Part 5, is one of the key pieces of legislation outlining Council’s role, powers and obligations, including in relation to community feedback when selling any land.

Ultimately any sale needs to be in the best interests of the community.

The Act can be viewed online at legislation.vic.gov.au.

 

SUBMISSIONS FROM THE PUBLIC

 

Community Health

Brian Mier provided Councillors with an update on the work that has been undertaken regarding community health and the need for ongoing support from Yarra Ranges Council.

The Mayor referred the matter to the Director Communities for further investigation.

 

Candlebark Community Nursery

Bernard Heinze provided Councillors with an update on the Candlebark Community Nursery and the current financial situation.

The Mayor referred the matter to the Director Built Environment & Infrastructure for further investigation

The Mayor requested a letter be sent to the Department of Transport, on behalf of Council, encouraging them to re-consider the lease terms for Candlebark Nursery.