Geographic Place Names

From Road Name Data Wiki

Section 6, of the Geographic Place Names Act 1998 requires the Guidelines to be reviewed at least once every 5 years. A review of the 2004 guidelines is currently underway. In response, the MAV has held three workshops that have discussed input into this process.

list of attendees and meeting

This submission from the MAV is focused on major changes or policy direction, it is not intended to address issues of detailed process or practice. It is anticipated that the MAV will continue to collaborate with the Registrar's office in working through the detail of the suggested changes.

Contents 1 Request Process for Registering Minor Changes 2 Registrar's Advertising 3 Road Names 3.1 Roads on Private Property or Common Property 3.2 Registration of Road Names through the Subdivision Process 3.2.1 Outstanding Issues 4 Retrospective Naming of Roads 4.1 Road on Private Land 5 References

Request Process for Registering Minor Changes

It is requested that Geographic Place Names (GPN) implement a consolidated process for minor name changes, in particular, for changes to boundary locations. The change should include:

1. Guidelines as to what constitutes a minor change.
2. A process that is commensurate with the nature of a minor change, including due consideration of the resources commitment and investment required by councils to process the change prior to lodging the name with the registrar
3. Consider, setting a more realistic scope of consultation, advertisement and time-frames.
4. Implement an initial approval from the registrar to use the minor change process.

Registrar's Advertising

The investment required by councils to develop naming proposals, complaint with the Guidelines can be significant. Specifically when you consider the requirements for consultation, advertisement, consideration and the management of the decision through council. Councils are not opposed to making this investment but are concerned that it can be undermined or the returns deminished by the current process.

Once councils complete the development and approval of a proposal they forward it to the Registrar, who then partially repeats the process by re-advertising the proposal.

Parties are given a second opportunity to respond to the proposal as the registrar receives responses from the public.

From the perspective of Local Government it appears that the Registrar is assuming the role of decision maker on the proposed name rather than monitoring that council followed the correct procedures. It appears that the powers delegated to councils to name a place are undermined by the Registrar who can, through the process of re-advertisement, require councils to reconsider the proposal, not because councils didn't follow the correct procedure but rather because parties are given a second chance to object to the proposed name.

The nature and timing of the Registrar’s advertisement means that it is far more likely to receive adverse objections. This 2^nd response is likely to be statistically skewed public opinion. Most of the acceptance will be silent in the Registrar’s process as most supporters will consider that they have already voiced their support through the council's consultation process.

Based on feedback received during the 2^nd advertisement the Registrar can request further investment from councils in justifying their position or repeating part of the process, not because the guidelines were not adhered to but because the decision was objected to.

Councils understand that in certain circumstances the concerns of the Registrar regarding the proposal are valid. The issue that council officer have is that this decision comes after they have invested considerable resources in obtaining approval for the proposal through council.

Requests:

1. The Registrar is involved much earlier in the process, either:
   1. prior to the proposal being sent to the referral agencies, the registrar is notified of the intent and the proposed process, but not necessarily the naming outcome or
   2. at the same time as the referral agencies are notified, the registrar is sent the same information as the referral agencies plus the proposed process,
2. The Registrar has a fixed time to respond to the proposal, a nil response is regarded as acceptance,
3. after council decision is made the Registrar's principal role is to ensure the Guidelines were adhered to. This could remove the requirement for a 2^nd advertisement.
4. If the Guidelines are deemed to have been followed by council then the name proposed by council is accepted and registered without a second round of advertisements.

Road Names

Roads on Private Property or Common Property

The practice of naming roads that are on Private Property is inconsistent across Local Government. Roads that are on private land, common property, crown land may look like roads but are not designated as a road in respect of say the Road Management Act, Local Government Act or Road Safety Act definition of a road. Because the road is not declared a road many councils consider that they do not have an obligation to name these roads. They do not differentiate the function of control and management of the road from the obligation to name the road. The MAV believes that this practice needs to change, a view that is supported by a report prepared by the Public Land Consultancy 2009. However, the legislative framework is unclear in this area and further work is clearly required.

Consider the example of Broad Acre Development:

Planning and building regulations are such that a developer can save costs by constructing cul de sacs as private driveways, the road provides access to multiple properties but is classed as a driveway not a road and built to a lesser standard saving the developer construction costs.

On one hand some councils work with the developer to name these structures as roads. Although in a planning sense these structures are classed as private driveways not a road, in respect of other codes, such as the Australian/New Zealand Standard™ "Geographic information—Rural and urban addressing" AS/NZS 4819:2003^[1] they are roads, also from the perception of the general public, these structure look and function like roads, they run for several hundred meters (some are as long as 2km) and service multiple premises, most people would recognise them as roads not driveways and expect them to function as a road. To this end many residents along these structures commonly refer to their address as being on that road frontage. Councils that name these structures generally require the name and naming process to follow GPN Guidelines. The signing of the road makes it very clear that the road is Private. Councils do this because they believe this is the only way emergency management and other service providers will adequately find the address.

On the other hand, a major issue for councils is that these roads are built to a different standard to council roads, (usually much less) and they fear any repercussions for maintenance or repair, particularly if the structure is damaged by heavy goods vehicles etc., e.g. garbage trucks. These councils believe that by naming the road the public treats the structure as a public road. Other councils say they don’t name, because naming the road sets a citizen expectation about the level of service they receive to their property frontage, such as garbage collection, post etc. Even though the Vendor Statement makes it clear that the road is privately owned few citizens understand the implications, garbage bins placed at the end of the driveway, not outside of their premises, post delivered to a mail box 500 meters away, not out the front of their house. Councils want to keep the “road” looking like a driveway. There are insurance and public liability issues that arise when service organisation enter private land. Naming the road can diminish the user's awareness that the road is in fact a private driveway, the public does not expect driveways to be named.

Changing the Planning and Building regulation to prevent such practice is an option, but not necessarily achievable as there is a major push towards more affordable housing.

The majority opinion of the MAV working groups was that roads (or things that look like roads) on private land that service multiple properties and whose extent is greater than a prescribed length must be named and signed. The definition of multiple properties and prescribed length needs to be determined.

This recommendation is at odds with the LGA Section 10, which states councils MAY name roads and number premises, it does not make it a mandatory requirement that they SHALL name roads. However, if they do name the road they MUST use the Guidelines.

One possible solution would be to change the LGA to require councils to name all roads that are required to provide property addresses in accordance with AS/NZS 4819. However, this may require further clarification to avoid the requirement to name private roads that access single properties or a common property driveway serving a block of units. The removal of complex addressing from (AS/NZS 4819) and the insistence that ALL properties MUST be addressed using a simple address structure, complaint with the revised AS/NZS 4819 (i.e. no complex addressing) could also be used to fix unacceptable address situations that have historically arisen through numerous situations, see Scenarios,

AS/NZS 4819 - Private Road

Clause 1.4.23

A trafficable route with the right of passage restricted to the owner of the land and other persons possessing the consent of the owner(s).
NOTE: Also includes private rights of way and shared access lots deemed suitable for naming by the relevant jurisdictional road naming authority.

Alternatively, the issue could be resolved for the naming of new developments through a requirement in the Victorian Planning Provisions, requiring Councils to name all roads (public and private) that are used to provide an address to a property, and that only simple address structures are permitted (as presently being proposed by the review of AS/NZS 4819) as valid property addresses.

recommendation:

1. all properties are addressed
2. all addresses are compliant with AS/NZS 4819 - based on the road name that from the property frontage
3. property is defined to the level of individual occupancy, as per Property TRG recommendations.
   it includes: any premises where the occupant can reasonably be expected to have an address that uniquely identifies the access location to their property, for example by emergency management.

Registration of Road Names through the Subdivision Process

Following presentations from Land Registry, Office of Geographic Place Names and Department of Sustainability end Environment the Local Government Planning and Subdivision Technical Refernec Group agreed that inclusion of reference to the Guidelines in the VPP would be positive.

The TRG develop the concept further to explore the most appropriate time to include this in the planning and subdivision process. The group made the following recommendations:

Comments	Process Graphic
What is the extent of the different practice in LG
1. the naming of roads, in accordance with the Guidelines, should be a condition of the subdivision permit. All roads (private and public) that provide access to more than a set number of properties and/or exceed the prescribed length, or provide a frontage to properties that may in all reasonable situations expect a street address based on that frontage, shall be named.	Road Naming a Condition of Subdivision Permit
2. At the time of lodging Form 1. for certification by Council the proposed Plan of Subdivision MUST contain a complete set of road names, where the names and naming process complied with the requirements of the Guidelines. 3. Councils must ensure the Guidelines are followed and assess the proposed names and ensure they comply with the Guidelines 4. Councils will approve the proposed names (or notify the applicant of the need for change) and include them in the certified plan of subdivision. 5. The Registrar is kept informed of the proposed names through DES who are advised of the names on the lodged Form 1 the Certified Plan and any significant changes.	Road Naming Approval part of Certification

Outstanding Issues

1. the process does not accommodate developments that are not subdivided (such as some Retirement villages) etc,. The premises in these developments are all built on the one parcel of land and therefore not covered by the sub-divison process.
   1. OGP needs to consider changes to the planning permit conditions for developments with multi occupancies or distinctly different uses, such as the blocks within an education campus, where the use of a direct street frontage address structure (no complex addresses) is reasonably required to provide effective identification and location of the property.

Retrospective Naming of Roads

See Road Naming Workshop Scenarios and Workshop 1, Outcomes for background to the recommendations.

The major issue with retrospective naming of private road names is the application of the full Guidelines.

In general the working groups position was:

Road on Private Land

Councils should name all roads on private land that provide access to:

• premises that have some exclusive service, such as electricity, water telephone etc., for example:
  • semi-permanent accommodation parks
  • retirement villages
  • industrial and commercial parks
• locations that provide a hub for services or broad area of services, such as:
  • educational campuses
  • hospitals
  • industrial and commercial sites

Councils are Custodian of the Road Name

Councils should be custodian of the road name, alignment and extent.

Addressing Standard

locations shall be addressed from the frontage road.

Councils shall co-ordinate the naming of the road and the numbering of premises.

addresses to comply with AS/NZS 4819

Process

will follow the Guidelines for Geographic Names Victoria

the name shall be unique, correct syntax and non offensive

retrospective naming MAY meet other Guidelines requirements - may not go through Guidelines naming process

new name shall meet all Guidelines requirements - shall go through Guidelines naming process

Other Requirements

Responsibility for signage

to be with owner/occupier,

council powers to require signage,

changes to alignment must notify council.

References

1. ↑ Standards Australia 2006 Australian/New Zealand Standard™ "Geographic information—Rural and urban addressing", First published as AS/NZS 4819:2003, Reissued incorporating Amendment No. 1 (October 2006).