At each meeting of Hume City Council, members of the public can submit written questions for council staff to answer. Approved questions are answered by council staff who read carefully prepared statements.
On Monday 8 September most questions covered the issue of hundreds of 40-tonne trucks using roads on the Canterbury Hills estate to access land at Riddell Rd to dump earth.
Due to the volume of questions about the trucks, council combined them for two ‘answers’.
We also list one disallowed question with regard the proposed power plant in Bulla.
Q1: Will Council mandate automatic truck counting (or CCTV) at the Canterbury Ave access and publish a weekly public dashboard showing truck numbers, deposited volumes, and where loads are originated from to mitigate the increased safety risks of so many heavy vehicles accessing Canterbury Ave every day since council have allowed the property owner of 370 Riddell Road to access the property this way?
Q2: Is there a Site Environmental Management Plan (SEMPs) or Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMPs) for 370 Riddell Road including the entrance and track accessed from the end of Canterbury Avenue and was this approved?
Q3: Council has stated publicly “the landowner says the works at 370 Riddell Road ‘are for farming’ and may be exempt from planning permits”… but that Council is “concerned the scale exceeds what would normally be expected”.
Under the Hume Planning Scheme and any relevant Local Laws, what are the objective tests for ‘normally expected’ farm-scale earthworks? (For example, imported volume per hectare, duration, daily truck trips, stockpile limits and setbacks.)
Please cite the exact clause(s) being used to treat this activity as farming and therefore exempt from planning permits (if that remains Council’s position), and publish the benchmarks and evidence Council relies on within 10 business days, naming the responsible officer.
Q4: Regarding the lake and public walking trail behind our estate (Canterbury Hills – built by Townsend): 100s of trucks are now routinely using a section of that path every day.
Who holds primary responsibility for public safety on that shared section—Council, the landowner at 370 Riddell Road, or the haulage operator?
On what approval was this access granted, and if a member of the public is injured, who is liable under Council’s policies and insurance?
Please name the responsible officer and commit to publishing the approvals and risk assessment.
Q5: Under Hume’s Road Management Plan (2025) defect and hazard response standards and given ongoing dirt/pebbles/rocks on the roadway on Canterbury Ave are washing into stormwater pits from 600+ trucks a day (evidence supplied to council).
Will Council order the operator of 370 Riddell Rd to install wheel-wash/rumble grid, sealed apron, pit protection and daily sweeping, and will Council commence scheduled street sweeping and pit clean-outs on Canterbury Ave? By what date and who is responsible for enforcement and monitoring?
Q6: What laboratory certificates/material classifications has Council sighted in regard to the dumping at 370 Riddell road over the last 6 months to confirm clean/unrestricted, asbestos-free material?
Who is responsible for sampling & frequency, and how many loads have been rejected in 2025? Please publish a summary within 10 business days
Q7: From January 2025 until today, can the council please disclose the specific laboratory certificates and material classification documents that the council has reviewed to verify that all materials at 370 Riddell Rd, Sunbury are clean, unrestricted, and asbestos-free.
Additionally, identify the party responsible for conducting material sampling, and provide details on any load rejections that have occurred in 2025.
We request that these findings be published within 10 working days.
Q8: Can the council please confirm that, from January 2025 until today, they have been fully aware of the legal requirements governing this matter, has granted the necessary consent for use on Canterbury Avenue, Sunbury, and can provide a copy of the corresponding documentation within 10 working days?
Q9: Under Hume’s Road Management Plan, will Council commit to inspecting Canterbury Ave at regular intervals and repair all pavement/kerb defects due to such a high volume of heavy vehicles daily, and then recover the full reinstatement costs from the party responsible under s112 of the Road Management Act 2004?
Q10: Under the Hume Planning Scheme and Council Local Laws governing agricultural activity and the importation of soil to farmland, who is responsible for verifying and monitoring each load delivered to 370 Riddell Road- including contamination checks, volumes and source logs and how often do those checks occur?
If council considers this activity “farming” and exempt, please cite the exact clause(s) and the limits/conditions that apply and confirm where the records are held and when they will be published.
Q11: Has an Erosion / Environmental Management Plan (EMP/ESCP) for 370 Riddell Road, Sunbury been submitted and approved by Council?
If so, please state the approval date, permit/plan reference, and the key conditions and limitations (e.g., stockpile/setback limits, erosion-sediment and stormwater controls, monitoring/reporting requirements), and publish the approved plan and conditions within 10 business days.
Q12: I am writing on behalf of Canterbury Hills residents regarding the significant increase in heavy vehicle movements along Canterbury Avenue.
On a single day, 665 truck movements were recorded, and residents are reporting hundreds more each day. This is not Sunbury Road – Canterbury Avenue is a small residential street in a quiet estate, never intended to carry this volume of traffic.
The impacts are severe:
- Children cannot safely ride their bikes or walk along the street.
- Residents are being blocked from leaving or entering their own driveways.
- Trucks are speeding, spreading dirt and dust.
- On Saturday, there was even smoke coming from the farm site, raising environmental
concerns.
The community update published on Council’s website on 2 September 2025 stated that
Council’s Planning Investigations Team are “actively investigating the activity taking place.”
at 370 Canterbury Avenue.
How long will this investigation go on for? When is the next site inspection scheduled, and
how often will Council attend going forward?
This situation has transformed what was once a peaceful estate into a dangerous and unliveable environment.
We urge that both Sunbury ward councillors as well as Council treat this as a matter of urgency, communicate clear timelines, and take visible action to support the safety and wellbeing of Canterbury Hills residents.
RESPONSE – ACTING DIRECTORY CITY PLANNING AND PLACES: Hume City Council acknowledges and thanks all community members who have taken the time to report concerns, contact us and be in attendance tonight regarding the use of heavy vehicles along Canterbury Avenue in Sunbury.
The questions tonight are about activity on 370 Riddell Rd, and truck movements associated with activity on this land. No works on this land have been authorised by Council. There are no documents that Council share.
Your vigilance and commitment to the safety and wellbeing of the community are greatly appreciated. Please be assured we understand and share your frustration in regard to the continued activity on site and are doing our best within our powers and consistent with the rule of law to resolve this issue.
We have a number of actions on foot and are in regular discussions with key regulators including Victoria Police. Council Officers have also undertaken a number of site visits as a part of our ongoing investigations.
The site is subject to an active investigation across Council and officers have attended the site and surrounding areas on a number of occasions so they are aware of the activity and the damage and disruption being caused. That investigation will also determine if fill being imported is legally sourced and clean.
The land occupier has advised that the works being undertaken on 370 Riddell Road, which is generating the truck movements, are related to farming. If this was the case, it would be exempt from a planning permit requirement.
We are concerned that the scale of activity goes beyond what would be expected for agricultural use and we are actively pursuing this. Unfortunately, it can take time to resolve such matters but rest assured it is being worked on.
With regard to the questions about traffic and truck movements, Council has very limited powers in relation to controlling trucks using Canterbury Avenue. Council has had counters at the site and been monitoring the cleanliness of the roads. Under National Heavy Vehicle Law, all vehicles smaller than or equal to 19m in length and lighter than or equal to 42.5 tonne has the right to use the road network without approval – this includes all the trucks that are known to be using the road currently.
Council is able to ban trucks from local roads, a truck ban would not work in this case because the trucks are conducting deliveries to the site, which would be exempt from any bans. Unfortunately, other restrictions such as no stopping or clearways also do not address the problem of trucks queuing on Canterbury Avenue. These restrictions apply to parked vehicles, so a driver who is unable to move due to a queue of traffic in front of them would not be in breach of them.
We do understand safety concerns and have been in contact with Victoria Police raising our concerns and those raised by residents about potential dangers. If the use of the land requires a permit Council would expect a traffic management plan to be developed which would mitigate many of the concerns including amenity and safety issues being experienced by the local community.
We remain committed to working collaboratively with the community and relevant authorities to ensure appropriate action is taken to address community concerns and we ask for your patience as we work through the details under the law.
Officers are keen to meet with community representatives to discuss these matters in further detail and an invite will go out shortly.
We should also point out that neighbouring land at 370A and 430 Riddell Road are also subject to ongoing VCAT action taken by council, on behalf of the community. These matter are scheduled to be heard in early November 2025. Those processes are ongoing but separate.
Q13: Can Council confirm whether Canterbury Avenue’s 5.65 – 6.33m carriageway meets Austroads/DTP standards for two-way heavy-vehicle operation with on-street parking?
If not, by what date will Council implement restrictions and complete a safety audit (including, but not limited to, swept-path, and two-truck passability). Please name the officer and publish the audit.
Q14: Under Council’s Public Transparency Policy and the Local Government Act 2020 principles, will Council publish within 10 business days the documents relied upon for this site: road-reserve consents, vehicle-crossing approvals, any Traffic Guidance Scheme/Traffic Management Plan, and Council’s inspection notes since January?
Please name the officer responsible for publication.Question: Given Council’s duty under its Road Safety responsibilities and RMP to manage risks on local roads, will Council commission and publish an independent safety audit (swept-path, two-truck passability on a 5.65–6.33 m carriageway with parking), and install interim controls pending findings? Please give the commission date, consultant name, and publication date.
Q12: On what statutory basis did Council permit the construction and ongoing use of a vehicle access at the cul-de-sac end of Canterbury Avenue to serve 370 Riddell Road a street that was designed and gazetted as a dead end in the original subdivision.
Please confirm whether Consent to Work Within a Road Reserve and a compliant vehicle crossing exists (permit numbers, dates, conditions), whether the subdivision/road status was formally varied or reopened, and why access via Riddell Road was not required instead.
If approvals don’t exist or conditions are being breached, by what date will Council suspend use of this access and commence enforcement. Please name the officer to follow up with.
RESPONSE – ACTING DIRECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND ASSETS: As outlined in the earlier response, if the use of the land requires a planning permit Council would expect a traffic management plan to be developed to our satisfaction which would mitigate many of the concerns and amenity and safety issues being experienced by the local community.
Traffic management plans may typically include requirements for sweeping, bonds for defects, managing traffic volumes and safety management around the site.
In terms of the road carriageway, Council agrees this is not suitable for two-way heavy traffic, the intended use of the road is for local residential traffic only. Unfortunately, Council has no powers to simply ban heavy vehicles from this area if it is claimed they are undertaking deliveries to the site.
Council can consider parking restrictions, but we are mindful of the fact this will make it easier for trucks to move with greater ease and increase speeds in this area. Officers are happy to speak with the local residents about options to address these issues.
Q13: What is happening with the planning for Ramadan Night Market for 2026? Can I please have a budget breakdown in the previous and or current financial year on what was spent on Christmas Carols, Easter and decorations.
RESPONSE – DIRECTOR CITY SERVICES AND LIVING: At this time Officers are working to provide a response to a Notice of Motion from Cr Kurt, raised on 24 March 2025, requesting that Council investigates the feasibility of establishing a Hume Night Market during Ramadan, and explores options for the market to operate on Thursday to Sunday nights during the first two weeks of Ramadan.
Officers’ response to this investigation will be presented to the Council meeting on 13
October 2025. This means Hume City Council are not currently planning for a Ramadan
Night Market in 2026.
In regard to Council’s expenditure on Christmas Carols, Easter and decorations, I can
advise the following, in the 2024/25 financial year Council spent:
- $288,000 on the Carols by Candlelight event in Craigieburn
- In 2025/26 Council will again spend $288,000 to deliver both
the Carols by Candlelight in Craigieburn and a smaller Carols event in Westmeadows. - Christmas decorations and activations across Hume had $318,000 allocated in
2024/25, and has $437,000 budgeted in 2025/26.
Council do not deliver Easter events; however some Community Centres and Venues deliver small scale Easter related programming. Council also undertakes social media posts and a banner at the Hume Global Learning Centre Broadmeadows to celebrate Easter as a cultural Day of Significance.
Q14: How much does council invest with a dollar amount for other religious and cultural holidays per year? Willing to come together to organise this for the community with Hume’s support.
RESPONSE – DIRECTOR CITY SERVICES AND LIVING: Council spends approximately $20,000 per annum to celebrate cultural Days of Significance, and to deliver events such as the Harmony in Hume Interfaith Sports Day.
Council also invests heavily in grant programs to support community groups and organisations in Hume to plan and deliver their own events, festivals, and activations to celebrate religious and cultural holidays. $520,000 is provided annually for the Community Grants Program, and is allocated to the $290,000 Events Grant Program.
Q15: In January 2020 Hume City Council ceased issuing late fines for items returned to public libraries, with the aim of encouraging returns and ensuring continued access for all community members. Could the Council please provide: Data on whether there has been an increase in the return rate of overdue library items since the removal of late fines. Information on the estimated annual income forgone by not charging late fees since this policy change.
RESPONSE – DIRECTOR CITY SERVICES AND LIVING: In the 2018/19, prior to the removal of late fines, 5.41% of loans received an overdue notice. In 2024/25, 5.27% of loans received an overdue notice.
This minor decrease (0.14%) indicates no significant change in the return rate of overdue
library items since the removal of late fines. The estimated annual income forgone by not charging late fees is $29,000. This was the amount collected from late fees in the financial year prior to ceasing overdue fines.
Q: Disallowed: I am concerned about the proposed waste-to-energy plant in Bulla. I note that the council has not publicly stated a position on this proposal. Could each councillor please clarify their stance – do you support, oppose, or remain neutral on the proposed project?
Council answer: Disallowed under section 56.5.1 of Council’s Governance rules as it relates to a matter outside the duties, functions and powers of Council.
Q16: Last month I asked for the itinerary of the mayor’s trip to Canberra and only got the planned meetings. Can you provide the final agenda of who the mayor actually met with, who else from Hume went along, and which states the parliamentarians were from?
RESPONSE – ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: The itinerary for the delegation to Canberra was coordinated by the Northern Councils Alliance who was responsible for the scheduling of meetings with Ministers, Shadow Ministers, Senators and Members of Parliament for this delegation.
Hume City Council was represented by the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer.
As there were seven Councils represented (Hume, Mitchell, Whittlesea, Darebin, Merri-bek, Nillumbik and Banyule) the Mayors were allocated specific meetings with elected representatives from the Federal Government.
Hume City’s Mayor met with the following:
- The Honourable Catherine King, Minister for Infrastructure, Regional Development
and Local Government - James Patterson, Senator for Victoria
- The Honourable Andrew Giles MP, Member for Scullin and Minister for Skills and
Training - The Hon Peter Khalil MP, Member for Wills and Assistant Minister for Defence
- The Hon Kate Thwaites MP, Member for Jaga Jaga and Special Envoy for Climate
Change Adaption and Resilience - Rob Mitchell – Member for McEwen
- Basem Abdo – Member for Calwell
- Jo Briskey – Member for Maribyrnong
- The Honourable Sam Rae, Minister for Aged Care and Seniors, Member for Hawke
Q17: Council watch showed the CEO was in Canberra with Tanya Plibersek, I haven’t seen this reported anywhere, so where was that travel approved?
RESPONSE – ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: Thank you for your follow up question. Hume City Council was honoured to be the only Local Government in Australia to be invited by the Minister for Social Services to participate in a Ministerial roundtable on Outcomes for place-based investment.The roundtable brought together representatives from the community and social services sectors, the philanthropic sector and from State and Federal Government.
It afforded an opportunity to share the importance of ensuring that place-based investment is well thought through and is driven by outcomes that are led and devised on the ground in communities,
rather than from in Canberra.
This is particularly important in communities like Hume City where we have seen the success of such programs as the Community Hubs – which were designed and piloted in Hume City and have been rolled out across the country.
The travel took place following consultation with the Mayor.
Q18: Will Hume City Council consider running their own Shuttle service between Broadmeadows and Sunbury? If not – why not?
RESPONSE – ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: Council appreciates your concerns around the lack of direct public transport connectivity between Sunbury and Broadmeadows. A bus that runs directly from Sunbury to Broadmeadows and back has long been identified as needed to support non-vehicular traffic between these two communities.
As you have asserted, public transport is the responsibility of the Victorian Government. For Council to consider running a shuttle service between Sunbury and Broadmeadows this would need to be considered through Council’s budgetary processes.
To aid Council’s budget processes, officers would need to prepare or oversee the coordination of significant information to support any allocation of funding. This would include, but is not limited to, such things as feasibility studies, business cases and public transport and vehicular travel data analysis.
This would then provide Councillors with enough information to make a decision on whether to allocate funding to commence a service that is not the responsibility of Council.
Q19: Other than writing to MPs that gets up nowhere. What can Council do to support their
residents in this space?
RESPONSE – ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: Thank you for your follow up question. Council is developing an Advocacy Strategy which will guide Council’s strategic advocacy efforts in ensuring that both the State and Federal Government is aware of the projects and issues that are most important to our community. This will include the designation of a priority list of projects and issues that Council will work with community on to raise with all levels of Government.
As public transport is the responsibility of the Victorian Government, advocacy items linked to train services and infrastructure, trams and buses will be considered as part of the strategy.
Engagement with local Members of Parliament is just one way that Council and the community could raise this matter with the Victorian Government. Other engagement could occur with the Minister for Active and Public Transport, public transport user groups and local community advocacy groups.
The ultimate level of advocacy that Council would implement in responding to this issue will be determined by the level of priority that Council places on this matter as the Advocacy Strategy and priority list is adopted.
The Advocacy Strategy 2025-2028 will be presented to Council in the coming months.
Q20: Council’s parking on Narrow Streets Policy uses traffic volume thresholds to trigger restrictions. Given reported volume on Canterbury Avenue Sunbury, will council apply POL 184 now to implement time based/No stopping/Clearway during queuing hours?
Please confirm the trigger met, the signs to be installed and the installation date and publish the decision.
RESPONSE – ACTING DIRECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND ASSETS: Restrictions such as no stopping or clearway would not address the problem of trucks queuing on Canterbury Avenue. These restrictions only apply to parked vehicles, so a driver who is unable to move due to a queue of traffic in front of them would not be in breach of either restriction.
Q21: What can we, as a community working with our local council, do to hold the Victorian Government accountable for urgent and proper action on the Lancefield to Melbourne Rd?
Meaning a full and sustainable resurfacing of this critical stretch, not just temporary patch jobs? Taxpayers shouldn’t have to keep footing the bill.
RESPONSE – ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: Thank you for your question and for highlighting the need for intervention to improve Melbourne-Lancefield Road in Sunbury.
With significant developing occurring along Melbourne-Lancefield Road as part of the Lancefield Road Precinct Structure Plan, vehicular traffic is increasing which is putting pressure on the state of the road. Recent traffic counts recorded on the road indicated that there are over 8,000 vehicles using the road daily (including many trucks) which we expect to increase substantially as more people choose Sunbury as their home.
To highlight the need for the Victorian Government to invest in the road immediately we encourage you to contact your local Member of Parliament, Josh Bull, the State Member for Sunbury, to raise your concerns.
That engagement will afford you with an opportunity to demonstrate how intervention is needed now to prevent an ongoing safety issue for residents not only in Sunbury but also those coming to and from the Macedon Ranges and beyond.
To aid your efforts, Council will also write to the State Member for Sunbury and the Department of Transport and Planning (DTP) to ensure that both Mr Bull and the Department are aware of the need to invest in the road.
Council officers look forward to hearing from you on the outcome of your conversations.
Source / Council minutes.