Banyule City Council Ordinary Meeting 22 June 2015 Agenda by Banyule City Council

Ordinary Meeting of Council Council Chambers, Service Centre 275 Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe 22 June 2015 commencing at 7.45pm Following the public forum commencing at approximately 7.30pm and may be extended to 8pm if necessary.

AGENDA

Acknowledgement of the Traditional Owner, the Wurundjeri willam people "Our meeting is being held on the Traditional Land of the Wurundjeri willam people and, on behalf of Banyule City Council, I wish to acknowledge them as the Traditional Owners. I would also like to pay my respects to the Wurundjeri Elders and to the Elders of other Aboriginal peoples who may be present here today” Apologies and Leave of Absence Nil Confirmation of Minutes Ordinary Meeting of Council held 9 June 2015 Disclosure of Interests Nil Presentation Refugee Week (Sunday 14 June to Saturday 20 June)

1. Petitions 1.1 Amendment for new carport at 2/1 Della Torre Crescent, Ivanhoe (P352/2013) .............................................................................................................. 3 REPORTS: 2. People – Community Strengthening and Support 2.1 Yulong Reserve - High Protective Fencing .............................................................. 5 3. Planet – Environmental Sustainability Nil

AGENDA (Cont’d) 4. Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment 4.1 Marshall Street, Ivanhoe - Proposed Children's Crossing ........................................ 9 4.2 Amendment to Permit for a new Carport at 2/1 Della Torre Crescent, Ivanhoe (P352/2013) ............................................................................. 13 4.3 Metropolitan Planning Levy and Planning Application Fees .................................. 20 4.4 Proposed Apartment Building at 13-17 Cartmell Street Heidelberg ....................... 24 5. Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life 5.1 Adoption of Banyule's City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 3) ............................................. 43 6. Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely 6.1 Budget Declarations ............................................................................................... 55 6.2 Adoption of Budget for Period 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016 .................................. 58 6.3 45 Simms Road Montmorency - Proposed Licence - Land adjacent to Montmorency Secondary College ...................................................................... 68 6.4 Commonwealth Financial Assistance Grants ......................................................... 71 6.5 Additional Paid Parking Locations .......................................................................... 74 6.6 Summary of 2015 Banyule Community Satisfaction Survey Results ................................................................................................................... 88 6.7 Community Chef - Offer of Additional Shares in Regional Kitchen ........................ 95 6.8 Councillor Report on Conferences Attendance ...................................................... 99 6.9 Items for Noting .................................................................................................... 101 6.10 Assembly of Councillors ....................................................................................... 102 7. Sealing of Documents Nil 8. Notices of Motion 8.1 Cap on numbers of Electronic Gaming Machines ................................................ 107 8.2 Rail Link to Doncaster .......................................................................................... 109 8.3 Simpson Barracks ................................................................................................ 111 9. General Business 10. Urgent Business Closure of Meeting

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 2

1.1

AMENDMENT FOR NEW CARPORT AT 2/1 DELLA TORRE CRESCENT, IVANHOE (P352/2013)

Author:

Christopher Mullan - Development Planner, City Development

Ward:

Olympia

File:

P352/2013

1.1

Petitions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A petition with sixteen (16) signatures has been received by residents located in Della Torre Crescent, Ivanhoe and nearby streets requesting that the planning application be supported which seeks retrospective approval for a double space carport and associated works at 2/1 Della Torre Crescent, Ivanhoe. The petition prayer is as follows: â&#x20AC;&#x153;We the undersigned, residents and ratepayers of Banyule City wish to bring to the attention of Council: Capital Improvements by the owner of Unit 2 No 1 Della Torre Crescent, Ivanhoe We wish to advise we support the development that includes the following: 1. Increased paving to allow a second car to be parked on the property. 2. The demolishing of a large unattractive carport and erection of a less intrusive shade sail. 3. The erection of a bin enclosure to ensure all bin and garden equipment is hidden away. We believe the above changes which also includes raised stone garden beds that incorporate extensive planting is in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood. Our view is that it is a vast improvement on what previously existed. We also believe the second car parked on the property does not impact negatively on the aesthetic appeal of the property/neighbourhood and is a safety improvement with regard to the onstreet parking close to the intersection. We therefore request Banyule Council: Remove the conditions on the permit to allow the above changes remain.â&#x20AC;? RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1.

Receives and notes the petition.

Considers the points made in the petition when considering the amendment to Planning Permit P352/2013

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 3

1.1

Petitions

AMENDMENT FOR NEW CARPORT AT 2/1 DELLA TORRE CRESCENT, IVANHOE (P352/2013) contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d DISCUSSION The application has been assessed with regards to the impacts of the proposed works associated with the shade sail carport and its surrounds on the streetscape, landscaping, and vehicle access. The application was considered with regards to the applicable policies and objectives that, including objectives to maximise landscaping and minimise the visual dominance of car parking facilities within Clause 22.02 Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy, and preferred vegetated outcomes within Schedule 1 to the Environmental Significance Overlay. The report for the proposed amendment will be considered at Item 4.2 in this Council Meeting Agenda.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 4

2.1

YULONG RESERVE - HIGH PROTECTIVE FENCING

Author:

Lucia Brennan - Recreation Planner, Community Programs

Ward:

Grimshaw

File:

F2014/102

2.1

People – Community Strengthening and Support

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Bundoora Football Club and surrounding residents have identified concerns regarding personal injuries and property damage sustained from footballs entering the footpath and roadway on Bent St, Bundoora and into surrounding properties behind the goals at the northern end of Yulong Reserve. A risk assessment of the potential injury and liability exposure has been conducted. As a result, the installation of protective fencing at each end of the reserve is being recommended. It is further recommended that all adjacent property owners be notified prior to installation, advising residents of Council’s intention to install the additional fencing and explain the reason for the decision. Given the urgency of the matter, officers recommend an allocation of $35,000 from Council’s current budget to complete the proposed works as soon as possible. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1.

Allocate $35,000 from surplus funds within the 2014/15 financial year to erect a black chain-wire fence (30m long x 6.1m high) behind the goal posts at each end of the Yulong Reserve Oval.

Write to all adjacent property owners prior to installation, notifying residents of Council’s intention to install the additional fencing and providing an explanation of the reason behind the decision.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 5

2.1

People – Community Strengthening and Support

YULONG RESERVE - HIGH PROTECTIVE FENCING cont’d BACKGROUND Council received a letter from the State Member for Bundoora, on 19 March 2015 confirming a member of his constituency had received a knock to the head from a football kicked on Yulong Reserve whilst walking along Bent St in Bundoora. This incident caused the pedestrian distress and a request was made for Council to undertake further investigation. Council Officers discussed the issue with the Bundoora Football Club and the Club confirmed footballs can spill onto the footpath and roadway along Bent St from time to time. This situation may impact on pedestrians and motorists. At the northern end of Yulong Reserve, residential properties are relatively close to the boundary of the reserve and directly behind the goals. The club also confirmed that footballs end up in the back yards of the adjacent properties. Officers confirmed the potential of stray footballs as part of their investigation. Council received a letter from the Bundoora Football Club on 20 April 2015 advising the Club had received complaints from neighbours in relation to potential personal and property damage caused from footballs entering their property. The letter requested Council investigate the issue and take action to rectifying the problem and suggested the installation of sufficient high protective netting behind the goals at each end of the oval. Council conducted a risk assessment of the situation in May 2015. The risk assessment concluded that the risk was ‘high’ and measures to secure funding to install fencing/netting at both ends of the oval should occur immediately. LOCALITY PLAN Yulong Reserve is located on the corner of Bent St and Plenty Rd, Bundoora.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 6

People – Community Strengthening and Support

2.1

YULONG RESERVE - HIGH PROTECTIVE FENCING cont’d HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER Victoria's Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities (the Charter) outlines the basic human rights of all people in Victoria. The Charter requires that governments, local councils and other public authorities comply with Charter and to consider relevant Charter rights when they make decisions. In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues. CURRENT SITUATION There is evidence that footballs land on the footpath along Bent St, on the road and into the properties behind the goals at the northern end of the reserve up to approximately ‘half a dozen times’ each match day. As reserve fencing/netting is the responsibility of Council, quotes were obtained to erect black chain-wire fencing (measuring 30m long x 6.1m high) behind the goal posts at each end of the reserve. The proposed fencing is similar to fencing behind the goals at A K Lines Reserve, Watsonia and Simms Rd Oval, Montmorency. A planning permit is not required for the works under the Planning Scheme section 62.02-1. FUNDING IMPLICATIONS No funds are set aside in current Budget to complete the proposed works. The Bundoora Football Club has also indicated they have no capacity to assist with funding to complete the works. The cost of the works including contingency would be approximately $35,000. CONSULTATION Whilst discussions have occurred between Bundoora Football Club and some neighbouring property owners in relation to this matter, no formal consultation process has occurred between Council and surrounding residents regarding the installation of the proposed fence. It would therefore be appropriate for a letter to be sent to all adjacent property owners prior to installation advising residents of Council’s intention to install the additional fencing, and providing an explanation. TIMELINES Should Council approve funding for the fencing, the works will be programmed as soon as possible in order to reduce any risk.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 7

2.1

People – Community Strengthening and Support

YULONG RESERVE - HIGH PROTECTIVE FENCING cont’d CONCLUSION Having reviewed an issue regarding a risk associated with stray footballs located at Yulong Reserve, officers confirm that the appropriate resolution is by erecting protective fencing that will ensure safe passage along abutting footpaths and roads and protection for abutting properties. The installation of protective fencing requires an allocation of funds from Council’s current Budget and should this be endorsed works would commence as soon as possible.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 8

4.1

MARSHALL STREET, IVANHOE - PROPOSED CHILDREN'S CROSSING

Author:

Sanjev Sivananthanayagam - Transport Engineer, City Development

Ward:

Griffin

File:

F2015/57

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Community concern was raised in relation to the safety of the informal crossing point in Marshall Street, Ivanhoe. Investigations were undertaken and the construction of a children’s crossing and appointment of a crossing supervisor is warranted at this location, adjacent to Ivanhoe Girls Grammar School. The school has expressed their support for the installation of the crossing and willingness to contribute to the project financially. The overall cost of the project will be defined following further investigations and discussions with the school. The provision of a permanent crossing supervisor is estimated to cost Council approximately $10,000 per year. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1.

Develop a draft concept plan for a children’s crossing in Marshall Street, Ivanhoe and seek a funding contribution for its installation from Ivanhoe Girls Grammar School.

Consider allocating funds within future Capital Works budgets for the design and construction of a children’s crossing in Marshall Street, Ivanhoe adjacent to Ivanhoe Girls Grammar School.

Following any installation of a children’s crossing in Marshall Street, Ivanhoe: a. Fund the provision of a school crossing supervisor; and b. Include the children’s crossing in future funding submissions for the VicRoads’ Crossing Supervisor Subsidy Scheme; and

Write to Ivanhoe Girls Grammar School advising Council’s decision.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 9

4.1

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.1

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

MARSHALL STREET, IVANHOE - PROPOSED CHILDREN'S CROSSING cont’d HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered to determine if it raises any human rights issues. In particular, whether the scope of any human right established by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities is in any way limited, restricted or interfered with by the recommendations contained in this report. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues. BACKGROUND The campus of Ivanhoe Girls Grammar School has frontages and pedestrian access points on Noel Street and Marshall Street, Ivanhoe. Figure 1 shows the location of the school and proposed children’s crossing location.

Figure 1 – Marshall Street Crossing Location In 2012, line marking was installed to increase motorists’ awareness of the possible presence of pedestrians at the informal crossing point in Marshall Street, between Norman Street and Studley Road (Figure 2). The location did not meet the warrants for the installation of a children’s crossing at the time.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 10

MARSHALL STREET, IVANHOE - PROPOSED CHILDREN'S CROSSING cont’d

Figure 2 – Informal Pedestrian Crossing Following further concerns in relation to the safety of the informal crossing point, investigations have been undertaken. DISCUSSION In accordance with VicRoads guidelines for school crossings, an unsupervised crossing is warranted where 20 or more students cross the road and the traffic volume exceeds 50 vehicles during any hour on a normal school day. For a supervised children’s crossing to be warranted for a primary school, the number of children crossing at the crossing (minimum 20) multiplied by the number of vehicles (minimum 100) must exceed 5,000. Two pedestrian and traffic counts were undertaken at the informal crossing point in May and June 2015. Table 1 details the results of these counts. Table 1 - Pedestrian and Vehicle Data, Marshall Street Ivanhoe Date Pedestrians Vehicles Multiple Tuesday 14 May 2015 (3pm – 4pm) 21 303 6,363 Wednesday 10 June 2015 (3pm – 4pm) 27 298 8,046 Warrants Unsupervised School Crossing 20 50 Supervised School Crossing (Primary School) 20 100 5,000 The results confirm that the informal crossing point on Marshall Street meets the VicRoads guidelines for the provision of a school crossing supervisor and school crossing infrastructure. In order to improve drivers’ awareness of pedestrians at the location, ‘No Stopping’ restrictions will be installed to operate on school days at the school’s starting and finishing times. FUNDING IMPLICATIONS Ivanhoe Girls’ Grammar School has expressed their support to the introduction of measures to improve the safety of students and parents in the area, and their willingness to contribute financially to the project.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 11

4.1

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.1

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

MARSHALL STREET, IVANHOE - PROPOSED CHILDREN'S CROSSING cont’d Given the difference in levels between the east and west side of the road, the width of the central median in Marshall Street and existing vegetation in the area, the design and construction of the proposed children’s crossing will be more complex than most of the existing crossing points in Banyule. The design must consider widening the central median to provide a queuing platform and ramp including potential removal of vegetation. In light of the above, it is difficult to estimate the cost of this project for Council. A concept design is required to progress funding discussions with Ivanhoe Girls Grammar School and subsequent budget considerations. The provision of a permanent school crossing supervisor is estimated to cost approximately $10,000 per year, with VicRoads’ subsidy covering around 27% of the costs and the remaining 73% being borne by Council, based on the 2014/15 Subsidy Scheme structure. CONCLUSION Following a review of the existing informal pedestrian crossing point in Marshall Street, Ivanhoe between Norman Street and Studley Road, the design and construction of a children’s crossing and subsequent appointment of a crossing supervisor is recommended. As an interim measure, parking restrictions will be installed on the approaches to the crossing point to improve drivers’ awareness of pedestrians at the Marshall Street crossing. The installation cost of the children’s crossing will be estimated following further discussions with Ivanhoe Girls’ Grammar School and the completion of a design. It is recommended that Council allocates funding in future budgets to install the crossing and allocate a crossing supervisor.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 12

4.2

AMENDMENT TO PERMIT FOR A NEW CARPORT AT 2/1 DELLA TORRE CRESCENT, IVANHOE (P352/2013)

Author:

Christopher Mullan - Development Planner, City Development

Ward:

Olympia

File:

P352/2013

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant has lodged an amendment to an existing permit to retain a double width shade sail carport and associated modified vehicle access, a bin storage area next to the carport, and other hard surfaces within the frontage. The proposed amendment would result in the retrospective approval of:  The construction of the double width car space and shade sail carport that was built without Planning and Building approval.  The concreting of a section of the nature strip to provide access to the second car space without Asset Protection approval.  The removal of a street tree without Parks and Gardens approval. The shade sail carport, and the associated hard surfacing within the frontage is not supported as it is inconsistent with the preferred landscaping and car parking objectives within Council’s Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy and Schedule 1 to the Environment Significance, and vehicle crossing requirements. This report recommends an outcome that is considered to be appropriate. However, the recommendation is different to what has been requested by the applicant. RECOMMENDATION PART A: That Council, having complied with Section 50 to 62 and 72 to 76 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 issue a Notice of Decision to amend Planning Permit P352/2013 including the following changes: 

Conditions 1 (a), (b) and (c) be retained on the permit to result in a single width carport and driveway, to reinstate the nature strip, and to align the fencing with the single width driveway.



Condition 1 (d) be removed to maintain the location of the bin storage area next to the carport.

PART B That the land owner be advised that the double width shade sail carport is to be removed in accordance with Planning Permit P352/2013, and the associated nature strip and landscaping areas are to be reinstated within 60 days of the date of this amended permit.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 13

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

AMENDMENT TO PERMIT FOR A NEW CARPORT AT 2/1 DELLA TORRE CRESCENT, IVANHOE (P352/2013) cont’d

Planning Permit Application:

P352/2013

Development Planner:

Mr Christopher Mullan

Address:

2/1 Della Torre Crescent, IVANHOE

Proposal:

Amendment to remove Conditions 1 (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the original permit to maintain the existing conditions regarding the double width shade sail carport structure, bin storage area, fencing, footpaths, and concrete area within the nature strip that were constructed without planning approval.

Existing Use/Development:

Single dwelling

Applicant:

Mrs Leanne Winch

Zoning:

Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Schedule 3

Overlays:

Environmental Significance Overlay – Schedule 1 Vegetation Protection Overlay – Schedule 3

Notification (Advertising):

The application was advertised in accordance with Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by way of distribution of letters to adjoining and nearby land owners and occupiers. Meetings were later held at the subject site on Tuesday 2 June 2015 between the property owners, Councillors and Development Planning Officers, and at Council’s Rosanna office on Wednesday 3 June 2015 between the objectors, the Ward Councillor and Development Planning Officers.

Objections Received:

Two plus one letter of support that contains two parties and one petition in support with sixteen parties.

Ward:

Griffin

Council has received a request to amend the permit pursuant to Section 72 of the Planning and Environment Act (1987). The applicant has applied to undertake the following changes to the planning permit and endorsed plans as reflected in amended plans received by Council on 21 October 2014: Amendment to the permit 1.

Condition 1 (a) to be removed. This condition states “The double car parking space to revert back to being a single car parking space of the same width as the existing vehicular crossover to the street, and the overhead shade sail structure reduced in size so that it covers this single car space only. The portion of the site currently occupied by the additional car parking space to

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 14

AMENDMENT TO PERMIT FOR A NEW CARPORT AT 2/1 DELLA TORRE CRESCENT, IVANHOE (P352/2013) cont’d revert back to a landscaped zone, containing planting to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority”. 2.

Condition 1 (b) to be removed. This condition states “The entrance to the single car parking space and the 1.5 metre high front fence to properly align with the existing single crossover”.

Condition 1 (c) to be removed. This condition states “All concrete hard surfacing located outside the property boundary to be removed and the nature strip reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority”.

Condition 1 (d) to be removed. This condition states “The rubbish bin storage area located adjacent to the car parking area and the front fence to be removed, and landscaping reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority”.

OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 requires members of Council staff, and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council, to disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates. Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. BACKGROUND/HISTORY The subject site forms part of a multi-unit development that was constructed in 1980. The development was subsequently subdivided into separation lots in 1981. A planning investigation for the subject site commenced on 14 February 2013 with regards to the unlawfully erected double carport and associated works without a planning permit. This investigation was closed off on 14 April 2013 as a result of Planning Permit Application No. P352/2013 being lodged to retrospectively legitimise the unlawful works which more specifically are described as a constructed double width shade sail carport, modified vehicle access, and associated hard paving. It also appears that around that time a Weeping Bottle Brush (Callistemon viminalis) street tree that was located in proximity to the west of the crossover to the subject site was removed. Council’s GIS system indicates that the tree was removed between November 2012 and January 2014. A portion of the nature strip where the street tree was located was also concreted within this time to create a wider vehicle access without the relevant approval from Council’s Asset Protection Department. Planning Permit No. P352/2013 was initially issued on 2 January 2014, but rather than allowing the unlawful works to remain as constructed, the permit ultimately issued allowed for development of land for buildings and works comprising the demolition of the existing carport, the construction of a fence and erection of a shade sail. As such, the permit was issued to allow for a single width shade sail carport, reinstated landscaping areas, and a reinstated nature strip and it was therefore expected that the land owner would subsequently undertake the necessary rectification works.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 15

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.2

Place â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

AMENDMENT TO PERMIT FOR A NEW CARPORT AT 2/1 DELLA TORRE CRESCENT, IVANHOE (P352/2013) contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d Rather than complying with the condition of permit P352/2013 or lodge an appeal to VCAT against the conditions, the land owner is now endeavouring to once again legitimise the unlawful works by formally requesting the amendment to delete conditions of the permit which form part of the current application. The application was considered by Council on 11 May 2015. The matter was deferred to a future Council meeting so that an onsite meeting could be arranged between interested Councillors and the land owner. As required under the Council Meeting Resolution, a meeting was held at the subject site on Tuesday 2 June 2015 between the property owners, Councillors and Development Planning Officers. A consultation meeting was then held on Wednesday 3 June 2015 between the objectors, the Ward Councillor and Development Planning Officers. Locality Plan

Figure 1: Locality plan SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA The subject site is located on the south-eastern corner of Della Torre Crescent and Kenilworth Parade. This site is occupied by a double storey brick veneer dwelling with a tiled roof, and is part of a multi-unit development which was constructed in the early 1980s, and shares party walls with other dwellings within the development. The dwelling is setback approximately 6.8 metres from the front boundary, with a car parking space located in front of the dwelling and access via Kenilworth Parade. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION The application was advertised pursuant Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act (1987) because it was deemed that the application could cause material detriment to third parties. The application was advertised by mail to adjoining and surrounding property owners and occupiers. A total of two objections have been received. Grounds of objection are summarised as follows:

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 16

AMENDMENT TO PERMIT FOR A NEW CARPORT AT 2/1 DELLA TORRE CRESCENT, IVANHOE (P352/2013) cont’d  

        

The course of action to appeal against conditions was clearly stated on the Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit. However, the applicant failed to exercise this option. Twelve months have elapsed since the decision was made and is now attempting to remove conditions in their entirety through an amendment process. The amendment process was not intended to be a conduit to either reverse or cancel all other conditions. The footprint of the shade sail carport is more than double the footprint of the original carport. The structure does not blend in with the surrounds and would be detrimental to the neighbourhood character. The structure was erected without planning permission. It cannot be certain that the steel posts have been installed in accordance with the BCA. The double width shade sail carport results in two vehicles now using the single width accessway from Kenilworth Parade. There is an increased hazard for entering and exiting the property. The Council has moved the “no standing” signs about 6 metres further east from the corner of Kenilworth Parade because of the danger of accidents. The bin enclosure is obtrusive and is a detriment to the ongoing ambience of the property as a whole. The on-going non-compliance and on-going process is having an emotional impact. Amenity impacts of the structure on the neighbouring property. The proposed 1.52 metre high timber fencing is inconsistent with previous correspondence regarding the fence which stated that brick pillars were to be erected.

As required under the Resolution from the Council Meeting on 11 May 2015, a meeting was held at the subject site on Tuesday 2 June 2015 between the property owners, Councillors and Development Planning Officers. A consultation meeting was then held at Council’s Rosanna office on Wednesday 3 June 2015 between the objectors, the Ward Councillor and Development Planning Officers. The on-site meeting enabled the Councillors to gain a greater understanding of the existing conditions and what was being considered as part of the application. The meeting with objectors was to provide a forum for the objectors to raise any concerns and raise questions in detail prior to the Council Meeting. No agreement was reached between the parties as a result of these meetings. REFERRAL COMMENTS The application was referred to Council’s Construction, Engineering, Parks and Gardens, and Building Departments. The following concerns were raised:  The widening of the crossover would not be supported as it does not meet Council’s specifications where the crossover must be a minimum of 9 metres from the intersection of the lot boundaries.  The concreted portion to widen the crossover has not been approved by Council.  Council does not have any records of the removal of the Weeping Bottlebrush street tree.  Building approval would be required and if the structure is not compliant with building regulations then it would be required to be brought up to standard to gain approval.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 17

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

AMENDMENT TO PERMIT FOR A NEW CARPORT AT 2/1 DELLA TORRE CRESCENT, IVANHOE (P352/2013) cont’d PLANNING CONTROLS The proposed amendments should be considered in context of the current planning controls applying to the land. This relates primarily to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (Schedule 3) and the Environmental Significance Overlay (Schedule 3), for which approval was originally required under. As the subject site is located within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, the proposal was also considered having regard to the objectives and design responses of the Garden Suburban Precinct 3 within Clause 22.02 Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy and Clause 54 ‘ResCode’. It is also noted that there have been no substantial changes to the controls that affect the site or relevant policies. TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION The double width carport structure is considered to be of greater visual dominance on the streetscape than the previously approved single width carport due to its proximity to the property boundary, and the additional width in built form and hard paving. The structure is considered to be contrary to the neighbourhood character objective of minimising the visual dominance of car parking facilities. The added presentation of built form to the street is also considered contrary to the vegetated presentation objectives of Schedule 1 to the Environmental Significance Overlay. The portion of the nature strip that has been concreted without Council’s consent (which is necessary to facilitate vehicle movements from the second car parking space that is requested) results in reversing turning movements within the nature strip that are considered to be unsafe. This is due to sight lines, turning movements close to the intersection, and the potential for vehicle access over the kerb. A double width crossover is considered to be contrary to Council’s Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy due to the length of the frontage (14.267 metres), the resulting impacts on landscaping opportunities along the streetscape, and the proximity to the Della Torre-Kenilworth Parade “T” intersection, a double width crossover for this property would be contrary to the objectives and decision criteria of Council’s Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy. As mentioned within the Engineering and Construction referral comments, a widened crossover would not be supported as it is located less than 9 metres from the intersection. The extent of hard paving throughout the northern setback is increased by approximately 37 square metres due to the carport, bin storage and footpaths. The minimal amount of permeable space is contrary to the preferred vegetated streetscape and the landscaping objectives within Council’s Residential Neighbourhood Character and Schedule 1 to the Environmental Significance Overlay. The loss of a street tree to accommodate the concrete portion of the nature strip without any replacement street trees is also considered to be detrimental to the preferred landscape character of the area. CONCLUSION The double width car parking area and vehicle crossing width to facilitate vehicle movements is not in accordance with State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks and the planning controls relevant to the land and the application. The removal of Condition 1 (d) is however considered appropriate.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 18

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.2

AMENDMENT TO PERMIT FOR A NEW CARPORT AT 2/1 DELLA TORRE CRESCENT, IVANHOE (P352/2013) cont’d As such, it is considered that the conditions that have been requested to be removed should be retained so that permission is given for a single width car space and shade sail. The retained conditions will also require the nature strip next to the driveway to be reinstated and additional permeable space be provided for landscaping.

ATTACHMENTS No.

Title

Advertised plans

115

Technical consideration

119

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page

Page 19

4.3

METROPOLITAN PLANNING LEVY AND PLANNING APPLICATION FEES

Author:

Scott Walker - Director City Development, City Development

File:

F2015/1891

4.3

Place â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In the 2014 State Budget a Metropolitan Planning Levy (MPL) was introduced and will commence on 1 July 2015. The levy will apply to planning permit applications for projects valued at more than $1 million in 2015/16 in the Melbourne metropolitan area. Permit applicants will need to verify whether the levy applies to their development. If required the levy is to be paid directly to the State Revenue Office who will issue them with a MPL certificate, this certificate is to be lodged with the planning permit application. Where the levy is applicable Council cannot accept an application without a levy certificate. The State Government indicates that the levy will support funding for the Metropolitan Planning Authority and the implementation of Plan Melbourne and is in addition to the planning permit application fees collected by Council. Planning permit application fees have not been increased since 2009 and continued advocacy to the State Government with the support of the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) and other Councils is needed to push for an increase. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1.

Note the Metropolitan Planning Levy introduced in the 2014 State Budget effective as of 1 July 2015.

Write to the Minister for Planning and Local State Members of Parliament requesting immediate action to increase planning permit fees for local councils.

Write to the Municipal Association of Victoria and neighbouring Councils advising of this decision and seeking their ongoing action in advocating for increased planning permit fees for local councils.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 20

METROPOLITAN PLANNING LEVY AND PLANNING APPLICATION FEES cont’d CITY PLAN This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “maintain and improve Banyule as a great place to live” and “maintain and improve Banyule as a great place to live”. BACKGROUND The new Metropolitan Planning Levy (MPL) which was announced in the 2014/15 State Budget will commence on 1 July 2015. Planning permit applications for projects in metropolitan Melbourne with an estimated development (construction) cost of more than $1 million will be levied $1.30 for each $1000 of the estimated development cost. The levy is to be paid to the State Revenue Office who will issue an MPL certificate. If the levy is applicable to a planning permit application Council cannot accept the application without the MPL certificate. HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER Victoria's Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities (the Charter) outlines the basic human rights of all people in Victoria. The Charter requires that governments, local councils and other public authorities comply with Charter and to consider relevant Charter rights when they make decisions. In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues. DISCUSSION Metropolitan Planning Levy (MPL) A range of charges are imposed on developments which are then used to assist state and local government and various authorities to assess planning applications and provide infrastructure and services for the community. Whilst the State Government undertakes much of the broad statewide strategic planning for Melbourne, Councils undertake planning at the local level and utilise fees from planning permit applications to provide a contribution towards the cost of delivering local planning services. Until now there has been no state government fee or levy on planning permit applications. The State Government has indicated that the new levy on planning permit applications is being introduced to enable the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning and the Metropolitan Planning Authority to implement an improved planning system. The State Government indicates that the funding will support better planning for jobs and productivity, by helping the growth and development of significant employment hubs across the metropolitan area and driving the expansion of the central city. They claim that the levy has been designed to ensure that planning permit application

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 21

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.3

Place â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

METROPOLITAN PLANNING LEVY AND PLANNING APPLICATION FEES contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d costs remain competitive against other states while delivering increased certainty for Victoria's development and construction industry. The levy applies to planning permit applications for projects valued at more than $1 million (threshold value) in 2015/16 in the Melbourne metropolitan area. The threshold value will be adjusted annually according to the Consumer Price Index unlike local Council Planning Fees which have been capped at the 2009 level. The levy rate is set at $1.30 per $1000 (or 0.13% of the whole value of the development) for affected projects. Applicants are required to pay the levy to the State Revenue Office prior to making a planning permit application to the responsible planning authority. The State Revenue Office will issue a levy certificate after the levy is paid. For any proposed development to which the levy applies, the responsible authority cannot accept a planning permit application unless the application is accompanied by a valid levy certificate. Applications that require, but do not have a valid levy certificate will be void. This means that if a permit application is ultimately refused or a development does not proceed and the permit lapses then the levy will need to be paid again when a fresh planning application is lodged. The levy is in addition to current planning permit application fees collected by Councils. However, it is also noted that the planning permit application fees have remained unchanged since 7 September 2009. This means that whilst the cost of delivering planning services at the local level continues to increase substantially there has been no corresponding increase in the planning permit fees to subsidise the increased costs. The new levy places a substantial financial burden on applicants yet Councils get none of the benefit at a time when limited Council resources are already stretched. The new levy will also increase annually with CPI whereas local planning permit fees remain at 2009 levels and can only be increased by the State Government. The Municipal Association of Victoria has estimated that the new levy will collect nearly $20 million dollars annually from permit applications for the State Government. This is close to the total planning permit fees collected by all metropolitan Councils combined. The usual planning permit application process remains unchanged by the imposition of the new levy. Planning and Environment Fees Banyule Council submitted a Motion for consideration by State Council to review the Planning and Environment Fees to ensure they better reflect the cost of delivering statutory planning services. The fees have not been reviewed for a number of years with the last increase effective 7 September 2009. In this time Council has experienced a substantial increase in the number of applications that it receives each year as well as an increase in the more complex types of applications. The inaction of not reviewing the fees has a direct impact on service delivery by the Planning Department. It is estimated that due to the absence of fee indexation, the total real forgone revenue at the end of the 2013/14 financial year for Banyule Council is in the order of $728,000. The table below shows the cost of delivering statutory planning services at Banyule compared to the total income that is received which includes statutory fees as well as all other fees that Council is able to generate such as those associated with providing

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 22

METROPOLITAN PLANNING LEVY AND PLANNING APPLICATION FEES cont’d additional services such as the preparation of public notification material on behalf of applicants. The net cost to Council in recent years is $400,000 to $500,000+ more annually than it was in 2009 when the fees were last reviewed. The fee income attributable to statutory planning permit fees in the 2013/14 financial year was about $600,000 which is approximately 30% of the actual cost of delivering the service excluding open space contributions and is expected to decrease further next financial year. This is reflective of the significant increase in workload and numbers of applications received over recent years. The costs below also exclude Council’s Strategic Planning Services which provides for significant policies such as Housing and Neighbourhood Character and Activity Centre Planning. Actual 2013/14 June YTD

Actual 2012/13

Actual 2011/12

Actual 2010/11

Actual 2009/10

Net Cost

1,629,275

1,729,385

1,912,887

1,387,410

1,201,783

Total Expenditure

3,876,084

3,580,441

3,805,774

3,128,139

2,577,390

(2,246,809)

(1,851,056)

(1,892,887)

(1,740,729)

(1,375,607)

Total Income

Table 1: Development Planning Service Cost

The MAV has been advocating for increased planning fees on behalf of Councils over recent years but is yet to receive a suitable response from the State Government. The MAV has indicated that meetings will be held with the Minister for Planning shortly but support and advocacy from local Councils is necessary to get the message across more strongly. There is also concern that the State Government has focused on increasing fees to provide themselves with additional revenue at the expense of local government, yet has provided no relief in the planning burden experienced by Councils. In effect, this is another form of cost shifting from State Government to Local Councils. Any efforts by Councils to now push for increased fees may well be resisted by the Development Industry on the basis that they now have to pay the new levy despite previous feedback being supportive of increased fees provided they result in improved delivery of local government planning services. CONCLUSION It is noted that a new Metropolitan Planning Levy will commence on 1 July 2015 to enable the State Government to collect funds to undertake planning for the state. However, planning permit fees for councils have not increased since 2009 and should be reviewed and increased in line with the increased cost to deliver planning outcomes and to assist councils in delivering improved local planning services.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 23

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.4

PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDING AT 13-17 CARTMELL STREET HEIDELBERG

Author:

Una McCafferkey - Development Planner, City Development

Ward:

Ibbott

File:

P1345/14

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Council resolved at its meeting of 9 June 2015 to defer its decision on this application subject to a consultation meeting being held on 17 June. This meeting was scheduled and all objecting parties were subsequently invited to attend. Council officers will present feedback on outcomes from this meeting at the Council meeting on 22 June 2015. The applicant, Cartmell Street Joint Venture, seeks to build a five story building plus basement, with 66 one and two bedroom apartments. The building is attached at the basement and is then separated into two distinct forms; the separation between buildings increases with height. Car parking is provided in a basement accessed from Cartmell Street. All resident parking is provided on-site, however a reduction of five (5) visitor car spaces is required. There is no significant vegetation on the site. The design of the building provides a positive response to the intentions of the DDO5 however there is a variation to the preferred overall building height and height of the podium façade. The variation is supported because: 

Due to the slope of the site the building will have a maximum height of 16.5m above street footpath level. This is only 3.5m higher than the 13.0m suggested for Precinct Plan 3 at section 8 of the DDO5.



The upper two levels are well recessed from all sides of the building and occupy only the central part of the overall site.



The building setbacks are considered to be responsive to the streetscape and abutting land uses.



A comprehensive assessment has been made with regard to topography and public views of the Burgundy St valley. The overall height of the building will not significantly impact views of the valley.

The modest shortfall in visitor car parking is also considered acceptable given the location of the site within walking distance of the Heidelberg Train Station, Smart Buses along Burgundy St and adjoining public car park. There is however substantial community interest in this proposal with 38 objections received. The majority of these objections are from surrounding properties in Cartmell, Hawdon, and Darebin Streets. It is recommended that the application is approved with appropriate conditions.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 24

4.4

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.4

PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDING AT 13-17 CARTMELL STREET HEIDELBERG cont’d RECOMMENDATION That Council having complied with Section 52, 58, 60, 61 and 62 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit in respect of Application No. P1345/2014 for Multiunit development - 62 Apartments and a reduction in the standard number of car spaces required at 13 -17 Cartmell Street HEIDELBERG, subject to the following conditions: Plans 1.

Before the development permitted by this permit starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the advertised plans submitted with the application but modified to show: (a)

Clarification of the ‘open’ notation on the rear elevation at basement level;

(b)

Car park level fenestration treated to prevent overlooking towards the south and the west Use Standard B22 of Clause 55 as guidance;

(c)

Architectural implementation of the recommendations of the Noise Assessment required by Condition 18 of this permit;

(d)

An additional 3 car parking spaces which can be provided using vehicle stackers;

(e)

Landscaping as required by Condition 2 of this permit;

(f)

Engineering plans showing a properly prepared design with computations for the internal drainage and method for of disposal of stormwater from all roofed areas and sealed areas including: (i)

The use of an On-site Stormwater Detention (OSD) system;

(ii)

The connection to the Council nominated legal point of discharge;

(iii)

The outfall drainage works necessary to connect the subject site to the Council nominated Legal Point of Discharge;

(iv)

The integration, details and connections of all Water Sensitive Urban Design features in accordance with the endorsed Sustainable Management Plan.

Please note the Engineering plans must show all protected and/or retained trees on the development site, on adjoining properties where tree canopies encroach the development site and along proposed outfall drainage and roadway alignments (where applicable) and every effort must be made to locate services away from the canopy drip line of trees and where unavoidable, details of hand work or trenchless installation must be provided. (g)

The Tree Preservation Fencing in accordance with Condition 26 of this permit;

(h)

A schedule of external building materials and colours, including details of cladding and roofing materials; the schedule should be presented on a separate sheet and must include colour samples.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 25

4.4

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDING AT 13-17 CARTMELL STREET HEIDELBERG cont’d

(i)

Annotation as to how corridors will be ventilated - preferably naturally;

(j)

The location and sizing of the heat recovery ventilators to be indicated and annotated on the plans;

(k)

A minimum of 12 of the dwellings designed and annotated to meet the Banyule Council Liveable Housing Guidelines (available on Council website);

(l)

The location and sizing of any photovoltaic power generation systems;

(m)

All sustainable design features indicated in the submitted Sustainability Management Plan submitted with the application. Where sustainable design features outlined in the SMP cannot be visually shown, include a notes table providing details of the requirements (i.e. energy and water efficiency ratings for heating/cooling systems and plumbing fittings and fixtures, etc). This must include water tanks with an effective capacity of 30 000L, plumbed to at least 27 bathrooms as outlined on page 26 the SMP.

The development permitted by this permit must not be commenced until a satisfactory detailed landscaping plan is submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Such plan must be prepared by a person suitably qualified or experienced in landscape design and be generally in accordance with the Landscape Concept Plan by CCA Design Group submitted with the application (dated November 2014) but expanded to include a plan for vegetation at each level, and shall include: (a)

An indigenous and/or drought tolerant planting theme;

(b)

A schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground cover, which includes the location and size at maturity of all plants, the botanical names of such plants and the location of all areas to be covered by grass, lawn or other surface material as specified;

(c)

Location and details of paving, steps, retaining walls, fence design details and other landscape works including cut and fill.

(d)

Garden beds for the majority of balcony edges that are integrated in to the building structure in order that greenery of each façade is provided. Climbing plants on trellis structures are encouraged to maximise a ‘green façade’.

General 3.

The development as shown on the endorsed plans or described in the endorsed documents must not be altered or modified except with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Before the development permitted by this permit starts, all lots comprising the subject land must be consolidated into one lot under the Subdivision Act 1988.

Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority the development permitted by this permit must not be commenced until: (a)

The tree protection measures required by Condition 26 are installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 26

Place â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.4

PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDING AT 13-17 CARTMELL STREET HEIDELBERG contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d

Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority the development permitted by this permit must not be occupied until the development has been completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority in accordance with the permit and endorsed plans (including, but not limited to built form and layout, parking, landscaping, drainage, street numbering, replacement of street trees).

Section 173 agreement 7.

Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, prior to the commencement of works the owner/s of the land at 13-17 Cartmell St Heidleberg must enter into an agreement with the Responsible Authority pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Such agreement shall require that all waste collection from the land will be carried out by a private waste collector in accordance with the Waste Management Plan endorsed as part of Planning Permit P1345/14. A memorandum of the Agreement is to be entered on title and the cost of the preparation and execution of the Agreement and entry of the memorandum on title is to be paid by the owner.

The waste bin area must be provided prior to the occupation of the development permitted by this permit, maintained and used to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must not be used for any other purpose.

Urban Design / External Appearance 9.

The walls of the development on the boundary of adjoining properties must be cleaned and finished in a manner to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

10.

Any air-conditioning or cooling units, condensers and the like must not be located on external walls or on balconies without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

11.

All pipes (except down-pipes), fixtures, fittings and vents servicing any building on the site must be concealed in service ducts or otherwise hidden from external view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

12.

All telecommunications and power connections (where by means of a cable) and associated infrastructure to the land must be underground to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Graffiti prevention measures 13.

Any walls or spaces accessible to the public must be treated in accordance with Safer Design and CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) Principles. Where appropriate the following measures must be implemented to the satisfaction of the responsible authority: (a)

textured or rough services that make it difficult to apply graffiti;

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 27

4.4

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDING AT 13-17 CARTMELL STREET HEIDELBERG cont’d

14.

(b)

permeable fencing instead of solid walls;

(c)

buildings with high-density, low absorbency materials;

(d)

anti-graffiti coating to protect the surface when building or revitalising the walls (including façade);

(e)

sensor lighting and/or enhanced surveillance to deter graffitists;

(f)

the break up of large surfaces to minimise the canvas available for graffitists; and

(g)

measures to make surfaces less liable to graffiti.

The permit holder/occupier must promptly remove or obliterate any graffiti on the subject site which is visible to the public and keep the site free from graffiti at all times to the satisfaction of the responsible authority

Environmentally Sustainable Design 15.

All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Sustainability Management Plan (SMP) and STORM report prepared by Northern Environmental Design, dated 28 May 2014 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the SMP may occur without prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

16.

Prior to the occupation of any dwelling approved under this permit, a statement from the author of the SMP report, approved pursuant to this permit, or similarly qualified person or company, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The statement must confirm that all measures specified in the SMP have been implemented in accordance with the approved plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Bicycle Parking 17.

Unless otherwise agreed in writing, three bicycle hoops providing secure lock up parking for 6 bicycles are to be provided to Council satisfaction within the road reserve (nature strip) in front of the site in proximity to the building entrances.

Noise Assessment 18.

A Noise Assessment prepared by a suitable qualified person or company must be provided to Councils satisfaction. This report must take account of all noise associated with the use of the basement car park including noise resulting from use of the vehicle stackers. Noise impacts on abutting dwellings is to included and recommendations for any preventative structural measures to reduce noise transfer must be included.

Construction Management Plan 19.

Before the development starts, a construction management plan must be prepared and submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. The plan must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Once approved, the plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 28

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.4

PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDING AT 13-17 CARTMELL STREET HEIDELBERG cont’d plan must address the following issues: (a)

measures to control noise, dust and water runoff;

(b)

prevention of silt or other pollutants from entering into the Council’s underground drainage system or road network;

(c)

the location of where building materials are to be kept during construction;

(d)

site security;

(e)

maintenance of safe movement of vehicles to and from the site during the construction phase;

(f)

on-site parking of vehicles associated with construction of the development;

(g)

wash down areas for trucks and vehicles associated with construction activities;

(h)

cleaning and maintaining surrounding road surfaces;

(i)

measures to maintain access for pedestrians and road users along Cartmell Street and the adjoining Council Car Park during construction; and

(j)

compliance with Banyule City Council General Local Law No. 1 (2015)

Car Parking / Access 19.

Areas set aside for the parking of vehicles together with the aisles and access lanes must be properly formed to such levels that they can be utilised in accordance with the endorsed plans and must be drained and provided with an all-weather seal coat. The areas must be constructed, drained and maintained in a continuously useable condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

20.

Areas set aside for the parking and movement of vehicles as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must be made available for such use and must not be used for any other purpose.

21.

The boundaries of all car spaces, access and egress lanes and the direction in which vehicles should proceed along the access lanes must at all times be clearly indicated on the ground to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

22.

Vehicular access or egress to the subject land from any roadway or service lane must be by way of a vehicle crossing constructed in accordance with Council’s Vehicle Crossing Specifications to suit the proposed driveway(s) and the vehicles that will use the crossing(s). The location, design and construction of the vehicle crossing(s) must be approved by the Responsible Authority. Any existing unused crossing(s) must be removed and replaced with concrete kerb, channel and naturestrip to the satisfaction of the Council prior to occupation of the building. All vehicle crossing works are to be carried out with Council Supervision under a Memorandum of Consent for Works which must be obtained prior to commencement of works.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 29

4.4

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDING AT 13-17 CARTMELL STREET HEIDELBERG cont’d 23.

Unless otherwise agreed in writing, prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a Car Park Management Plan must be prepared and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Such a plan must clearly identify, although is not limited to outlining: (a)

Unless otherwise agreed in writing, parking must be allocated as follows: (i)

1 space to each dwellings.

(ii)

4 spaces for visitor parking.

(b)

Details of any warning light / boom gate systems etc. to control and manage the movement of vehicles to and from the basement.

(c)

Where storage enclosures are provided at the end of a car space, the enclosure must be allocated to the dwelling that has been allocated the car space.

(d)

Details as to how the following matters will be brought to the attention of prospective purchasers: (i)

That occupants of the dwellings on the land have no entitlement to on-street or off-street parking by way of a resident vehicle parking permit.

Tree Protection / Landscaping 24.

Except with the further written consent of the Responsible Authority, no vegetation (other than that indicated on the endorsed plan, or exempt from planning permission under the provisions of the Banyule Planning Scheme) shall be damaged, removed, destroyed or lopped.

25.

Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, prior to the commencement of works (including demolition) on the site Tree Preservation Zones must be established around the Street trees. You must contact Council’s Development Planning Arborist on 9457 9878 once the Tree Preservation Fencing is erected so that an inspection of the fencing can be carried out. Once installed and inspected the Tree Preservation Zones must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, and meet the following requirements: (a)

Extent Tree Preservation Zones are to be provided to the extent of the canopy of the street trees (within the nature strip) indicated as being retained on the endorsed plan

(b)

Weed control Any weeds located within the Tree Preservation Zone are to be removed and the area mulched with 100mm of composted coarse grade woodchips.

(c)

Fencing (i)

Vegetation Preservation fences with a minimum height of 1.2 to 1.5 metres and of chain mesh or like fence with 1.8 metre posts (e.g. treated pine) or like support every 3-4 metres and a top line of high visibility plastic hazard tape must be erected around the perimeter of the zone.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 30

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

(d)

4.4

PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDING AT 13-17 CARTMELL STREET HEIDELBERG cont’d (ii)

The posts must be strong enough to sustain knocks from on site excavation equipment.

(iii)

The fences must not be removed or relocated without the prior consent of the Responsible Authority.

Signage Fixed signs are to be provided on all visible sides of the Tree Preservation Fencing, stating “Tree Preservation Zone – No entry without permission from the City of Banyule”.

(e)

Irrigation The area must be irrigated during the summer months with 1 litre of clean water for every 1 cm of trunk girth measured at the soil / trunk interface on a weekly basis.

(f)

Access to Tree Preservation Zone (i)

(ii)

(iii) (iv)

No persons, vehicles or machinery are to enter the Vegetation Protection Zone except with the consent of the Responsible Authority; No fuel, oil dumps or chemicals are allowed to be used or stored within the Vegetation Preservation Zone and the servicing and refuelling of equipment and vehicles must be carried out away from the root zones; No storage of material, equipment or temporary building is to take place within the Vegetation Preservation Zone; Nothing whatsoever, including temporary services wires, nails, screws or any other fixing device, is to be attached to any tree.

NOTE: Requests for consent of the Responsible Authority (City of Banyule) pursuant to this Condition should be directed to Council’s Arborist – Development Planning on 9457 9878. Consent for the conduct of works within the Tree Protection Zone, where granted, may be subject to conditions. Such conditions may include a requirement that:

26.



Any underground service installations within the Tree Protection Zone be bored to a depth of 1.5 metres;



All root excavation be carried out by hand digging or with the use of ‘AirExcavation’ techniques;



Roots required to be cut are to be severed by saw cutting and undertaken by a qualified arborist.

Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, the landscaping areas shown on the endorsed plans must used for landscaping and no other purpose and any landscaping must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 31

4.4

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDING AT 13-17 CARTMELL STREET HEIDELBERG cont’d Time Limits 27.

In accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies: (a)

The development is not commenced within two years of the date of this permit;

(b)

The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.

In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing: (a)

Before the permit expires, or

(b)

Within six months afterwards, or

(c)

Within 12 months afterwards if the development started lawfully before the permit expired.

PERMIT NOTES (A)

Expiry of Permit In the event that this permit expires or the subject land is proposed to be used or developed for purposes different from those for which this permit is granted, there is no guarantee that a new permit will be granted. If a permit is granted then the permit conditions may vary from those included on this permit having regard to changes that might occur to circumstances, planning scheme provisions or policy.

(B)

Additional approvals required Building Permit Required A Building Permit must be obtained prior to the commencement of any works associated with the proposed development. Building over Easements No structure (including but not limited to sheds, retaining walls, eaves, water tanks, paving and landings) shall be built over any easement on the subject land except with the consent of the relevant Responsible Authority. Access to Council Reserve No permission can be granted either temporary or otherwise by Council and/or its employees with respect to access to the adjacent Council owned land (including the road reserve and Council carpark) for any purposes relating to the proposal (eg. parking of surplus vehicles, delivery of materials etc.), without application being made for the requisite permit (ie. Local Law Permit). Supervision of works undertaken on Council Assets Council’s Construction Department must supervise all works undertaken on Council assets within private property, Council Reserves, easements, drainage reserves and/or road reserves, including connection of the internal drainage

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 32

PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDING AT 13-17 CARTMELL STREET HEIDELBERG cont’d system to the existing Council assets. Prior to the commencement of any works, an application must be made and a permit received for: 

A “Memorandum of Consent for Works” for any works within the road reserve; and/or



A “Drainage Connection Permit” for any works other than within a road reserve.

Asset Inspection Fee Prior to the commencement of building works on site in accordance with Local Law 1, a non-refundable Asset Inspection Fee is payable to Council for the inspection of existing Council assets. For further information in relation to this process and the relevant fee please contact Council’s Construction Department on 9490 4222. Removal of Street Tree For the required process and any information concerning the removal of a street tree, enquiries should be directed to Banyule Tree Care Department. (D)

Action on/for completion Completion of Development Immediately upon completion of the development permitted by this permit, the owner or developer of the subject land must notify Council’s Development Planning Section that the development is complete and complies with all requirements of the permit. The development will then be inspected to ensure compliance. An early inspection process will ensure that the subdivision approvals including the Statement of Compliance can be issued without delay. Residential Noise (/air-conditioning unit/vacuum unit etc) The operation of the (/air-conditioning unit/vacuum unit etc) shall comply with the Environment Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 1997. Prohibited times of use as specified by the Regulations are Monday to Friday before 7am and after 10pm & Weekends and public holidays before 9am and after 10pm (if audible from a habitable room of a neighbouring property).

(E)

Previous Planning Approvals This Planning Permit must be read in conjunction with previous permits that may affect the site.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 33

4.4

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.4

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDING AT 13-17 CARTMELL STREET HEIDELBERG cont’d Planning Permit Application:

P1345/14

Development Planner:

Matt Dobson

Address:

13-17 Cartmell Street Heidleberg

Proposal:

Multiunit development - 62 Apartments and a reduction in the standard number of car spaces required

Existing Use/Development:

Three lots with single dwellings

Applicant:

Cartmell Street Joint Venture

Zoning:

Residential Growth Zone – schedule 1

Overlays:

Vegetation Protection Overlay- schedule 5 (VPO5) Design and Development Overly –schedule 5 (DDO5)

Notification (Advertising):

Public notification was conducted by means of erecting three signs on the site and posting notices to the owners and occupiers of surrounding properties.

Objections Received:

A total of 38 objections have been received.

Ward:

Griffin

PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION The proposal comprises two main buildings connected at basement level. The buildings have a 2.0m setback to Cartmell St at ground, first level and second level, with balconies protruding into this space. The third level is setback 2.6m. The fourth level is setback 4.6m, with the balcony setback by 2.0m from the street. The front section of the building is built to boundary on the east and west sides before stepping back to between 3.0m and 4.5m at the ground level, with slightly deeper setbacks at the higher levels. The rear setback is 3.0m at the basement level (which sits above ground at the rear due to the fall of land) and then stepped, with the setback increasing at each level. The buildings present a podium façade to Cartmell St with a maximum height of 11.03m and an average height of 10.4m. The maximum overall height of the building is 19.5m at the centre of the site. The sheer wall on the east boundary close to Cartmell St is 11.0m high and 6.5m in length. The equivalent wall on the west boundary is a maximum of 11.6m high and 6.5m in length. The building has two entrances, located roughly centrally to the site frontage, either side of the car park entrance, and leading directly into a foyer and then to lift and stairwell. Access is also provided from the basement carpark. The basement provides one car space for each unit using vehicle stackers, and four visitor car spaces. Twelve bicycle spaces are provided as well as areas for services and waste bins.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 34

PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDING AT 13-17 CARTMELL STREET HEIDELBERG cont’d There are 23 two bedroom and 39 one bedroom apartments. Each apartment has a balcony or terrace ranging in size from 8 to 44 square metres. The rear of the building is stepped significantly as it rises with a small amount of landscaped area at ground level at the rear. The building has a contemporary design with the street façade, and east and west facades having a high degree of articulation using timber detailing, smooth render, stucco render, and stacked face brick. A copy of the advertised plans is included as Attachment 1 to this report. OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 requires members of Council staff, and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council, to disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates. Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. BACKGROUND/HISTORY There have been no planning permits issued previously for any of the three lots. LOCALITY PLAN

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 35

4.4

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.4

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDING AT 13-17 CARTMELL STREET HEIDELBERG cont’d SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA The 1724sqm site comprises three lots, being 13, 15 and 17 Cartmell Street located on the southern side of Cartmell Street, Heidelberg between Cape and Hawdon Streets. At present there is a free-standing single storey dwelling on each lot and no significant vegetation. There is a cross-fall of approximately 6.2m (from the front north-western corner towards the rear south-eastern corner), and a fall of 2.2m along the actual street frontage. Adjoining land to the east is developed as an at grade, 94 space Council car park which provides short stay parking. Adjoining to the west is a single storey dwelling in a large garden lot at 100 Hawdon Street, and a three dwelling, double storey development at 98 Hawdon Street. To the rear of the site is an apartment building with 31 dwellings across four levels, including a raised basement. Set higher above the subject site, on the northern side of Cartmell Street are a mix of single storey and double storey dwellings with south views over the subject site to the Burgundy Street valley and towards the south-east. The site is located approximately 65 metres from Burgundy Street and 450 metres from Heidelberg Train Station. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION It was considered that the proposal may cause material detriment to surrounding properties, and as such public notification was conducted by means of erecting three signs on the site and posting notices to the owners and occupiers of surrounding properties. A total of 38 objections have been received. Grounds of objection are summarised as follows: 

Inadequate on-site car parking/demand pressures on nearby public car parking. A reduction in the required car parking is inappropriate.



Visual bulk of the development is excessive for the locality.



Loss of light and overlooking



Proposal does not comply with the relevant planning policy framework in the Banyule Planning Scheme.



Proposal does not meet Clause 55 objective – B17 for side setback.



Proposed works on the site’s western boundary may have a detrimental effect on vegetation on the adjoining property.



Concerns over the construction phase. Noise and construction vehicles



Building height, mass and density are excessive – the proposal dominates the site and the street.



The small units will attract renters and ‘low calibre’ neighbours



Proposal does not respect the heritage characteristics of the street and neighbourhood.



Proposal does not comply with height and setback guidelines within the DDO5.



Overshadowing, overlooking and noise potential from balconies.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 36

PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDING AT 13-17 CARTMELL STREET HEIDELBERG cont’d 

Inconsistent with garden streetscape character. More landscaping/green areas are required.



Potential social issues with future occupants, including increased rates of crime.



Pedestrian safety risks associated with additional traffic.



Poor design quality.



Rubbish collection along street will be affected by increased parking.



Loss of views.



Shadow diagrams should demonstrate shadowing impacts throughout the year.



Lack of on-site car parking will have a detrimental impact on availability of parking for existing residents.



Devaluation of properties in the area.



Overdevelopment.



Private open spaces are inadequate and onsite amenity is poor.



Inadequate/misleading plans and reports supplied with application.



Increased noise from traffic and air-conditioning units.



Wall on west boundary is too high.



Ridgeline views impacted contrary to policy



Balcony setbacks to street are inadequate.



Use of car stackers is slow and will cause vehicles to back up into street when entering building.



Numerous hard rubbish collections will mean constant rubbish on verge.



Light and heat reflection towards the western neighbours.



Telecommunication signals will be interrupted.



Building appears to be outside property boundaries.

Council resolved at its meeting of 9 June 2015 to defer its decision on this application subject to a consultation meeting being held on 17 June 2015. The consultation meeting was scheduled and all objecting parties were subsequently invited to attend. REFERRAL COMMENTS The proposal was referred externally to Public Transport Victoria as the proposal is for more than 60 dwellings. Public Transport Victoria did not object and did not request any conditions to be applied to any permit that may issue. The proposal was also referred to the following Council departments for comment: DEVELOPMENT PLANNING ARBORIST

There are no trees on the site that require a permit for removal under the provisions of the Vegetation Protection Overlay –schedule 5 (VPO5).

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 37

4.4

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.4

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDING AT 13-17 CARTMELL STREET HEIDELBERG cont’d Council’s Arborist concurs with the findings of the Project Arborist. ENGINEERING SERVICES (DRAINAGE AND TRAFFIC)

No concerns were raised, however standard conditions are requested in relation to drainage. The shortfall of eight visitor car spaces was considered acceptable given the site’s location and short term parking availability for visitors within the area. The mechanical parking (vehicle stackers) provided meet the relevant Standards and it was noted that Council has adopted a car parking policy and strategy, which will restrict residents and visitors of new developments from obtaining permits for parking in restricted areas. The 12 onsite bicycle spaces and three hoops for six bicycle spaces on the nature strip are considered acceptable. The cost of installing these will be borne by the developer as reflected by way of condition on permit. COUNCIL’S ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE DESIGN (ESD) CONSULTANT

The ESD qualities proposed are found to be acceptable, with minor conditions to be included on permit in regard to ventilation of corridors and adherence to the Sustainable Management Plan that was submitted with the application. Importantly, a condition is proposed requiring an ESD assessment to be made at the completion of construction to ensure that the proposed measures have been implemented. PLANNING CONTROLS The planning controls applicable to the site are outlined in Table 1 below: Table 1: Applicable Planning Controls Control Residential Growth Zone – schedule 1 Vegetation Protection Overlay – schedule 5 (VPO5) Design and Development Overlay (DDO5) Car Parking Bicycle facilities Integrated public transport planning

Clause 32.07 42.02 43.02 52.06 52.34 52.36

Permit Triggered Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

POLICIES CONSIDERED Relevant policies considered in the assessment of this proposal are outlined in Table 2 below: Table 2: Relevant Planning Scheme Policy Policy SPPF Settlement Built Environment and Heritage (including sub clauses) Housing (including sub clauses) LPPF Land Use Built Environment (Diversity area)

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Clause 11 15 16 21.04 21.06

Page 38

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

Local Places –Heidelberg Specialised and Major Activity centre Safer Design Policy

4.4

PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDING AT 13-17 CARTMELL STREET HEIDELBERG cont’d 21.08 22.03

Planning controls are detailed in Attachment 2 to this report. TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION THE POLICY CONTEXT

The provisions of Clauses 21.04-1 Land use, Clause 21.06 Residential Areas Framework, and Clause 21.08-2 Heidelberg Specialised and Major Activity Centre clearly contemplate significant change for the subject site rather than merely minimal or moderate change. High density dwellings and intensification of use are encouraged. The strong messages (which build upon State Policies for housing that emphasise land in and around higher order activity centres as a focus for increased housing opportunities) are echoed in the Residential Growth Zone objectives and Design and Development–schedule 5 (DDO5) provisions which are based in the sound strategic work undertaken as part of the Heidelberg Structure Plan process. The siting and design parameters have been set for the subject site and surrounding area by DDO5, particularly as to building heights, and street setbacks The remaining policy issues are essentially urban design related. Consideration of the proposal should focus specifically on Clause 52.35 Urban Context report and design response for residential development of five or more storeys (including an assessment against the Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development) and the Design and Development Overlay-schedule 5. An assessment against the Residential Neighbourhood Character policy has not been made as it does not apply within the Residential Growth Zone. HEIGHT AND FORM OF THE BUILDING

The maximum height of the proposed building is 19.5m which is reached roughly central to the site. Due to the slope of the site the building will have a maximum height of 16.5m above street footpath level. This is 3.5m higher than the 13.0m suggested for Precinct Plan 3 at section 8 of the DDO5. The maximum podium height is 11.03 metres which is 1.03 metres above the preferred height of 10.0m. The average height of the podium is 10.4m.The development is regarded to meet the Objectives of the DDO5 despite the overall building height and podium height exceeding the Standards provided within the DDO5. This is substantiated in light of the following considerations: 

The building is consistent with the preferred future for the south side of Cartmell St as expressed in the DDO5 and the site’s Residential Growth Zone status. The fall of the land results in a building that is 6.5 metres taller than the 13.0 metre Standard sought within the DDO5, however the overall height in relation to ground level at street frontage is 16.5 metres which is only 3.5m taller than the Standard.



The top two levels of the building produce a softening of the upper level form of the building as they are recessed from all sides and add to the mosaic of materiality and form. The upper levels will be seen from across the Burgundy St

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 39

4.4

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDING AT 13-17 CARTMELL STREET HEIDELBERG cont’d valley, so this level of articulation and detail is important and preferred to simply a flat roof form. 

The impact is acceptably managed through deep recession at the rear where the new building addresses the rear portion of the Hawdon St apartment building.



The proposed height and setbacks are appropriate for the site bearing in mind that this is a consolidation of three residential lots. While the adjoining sites to the side have not been developed and the site at the rear is occupied by a 4 storey (including basement) apartment building, the overall built form of the new building is consistent with an approved apartment building at 3-5 Cartmell St. This approved building has a height of 19.5m, with a podium height, and height above footpath level matching the building proposed for the subject site.



A comprehensive assessment has been made with regard to topography and public views of the Burgundy St valley. The overall height of the building will not significantly impact views of the valley.

It is noted that ground floor side setbacks were increased by the proponent after concern was raised by Council in regard to future access to light, in the event of future development of adjoining sites. The setbacks provided will provide for sufficient light under current conditions. The setbacks set a reasonable precedent for any future adjoining development which will maintain an acceptable level of light into apartments on the lower levels. GUIDELINES FOR HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

In assessing the acceptability of the more detailed design elements of the proposal, Council is required to consider the Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development. An assessment against the Guidelines is included as Attachment 3. The proposal responds positively to the guidelines as summarised below: 

The design response results in a building that is suited to the preferred future of the area as guided by the Precinct Plan 3 at Section 8 of the DDO5;



The building is considered to respect the preferred scale and character of the Activity Centre despite being higher than the 13.0m Standard. This is because the upper two levels are well recessed from all sides of the building and occupy only the central part of the overall site;



The proposal is considered to balance the objective seeking to protect views from the public realm along and across the Burgundy St valley with the desire for increased building sizes;



The building has been thoughtfully designed to include a high degree of articulation, and use of multiple materials and colours that will create visually interesting building that exhibits a high standard of urban design;



The building setbacks are considered to be responsive to the streetscape and abutting land uses;

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 40

PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDING AT 13-17 CARTMELL STREET HEIDELBERG cont’d 

Access to sunlight and daylight by abutting dwellings has been achieved with reference to Clause 55, and overlooking issues are well managed;



The building achieves a high ESD rating as evidenced by the Sustainable Management Plan submitted with the application;



Vegetation in the form of medium sized trees along the rear boundary, and green balconies will be provided. The impact on neighbouring vegetation will be limited to the likely loss of small trees of low retention value.



Overlooking to within 9.0 metres is achieved which is consistent with the residential standard within Clause 55. This is by way of 1.7m high screening or wide balcony edges.



Overshadowing in accordance with the equinox standard of Clause 55 is provided by significant setback of the rear of the building from neighbouring dwellings to the south.

TRAFFIC AND CAR PARKING

Each apartment is provided with one car space which is consistent with the standard requirement for a one or two bedroom apartment. The use of car stackers to achieve this is now commonplace in apartment buildings and considered acceptable. Vehicle movement is well managed and the double width ramp will provide convenient access and egress. A reduction in the number of required visitor spaces from 12 to four is considered reasonable given the availability of public transport within the Heidelberg Major Activity Centre and the benefits associated with multi-purpose trips. A condition on permit to increase by three the number of car spaces provided will result in an overall shortfall of 5 spaces only. The adjoining public car park provides opportunity for short term parking. Council’s Activity Centre Car Parking Policy is to not issue visitor or resident parking permits for new multi dwelling developments. LIVEABLE HOUSING

In accordance with Council’s Liveable Housing Guidelines, a minimum of 20% of the apartments should be suitable for people with limited mobility. This can be achieved by a permit condition. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE DESIGN (ESD)

The ESD qualities proposed were found to be acceptable, with minor conditions to be included on the permit in regard to ventilation of corridors and adherence to the Sustainable Management Plan which was submitted with the application. A condition can also be included requiring an ESD assessment to be made at the completion of construction to ensure that the proposed measures have been implemented. RUBBISH AND RECYCLING COLLECTION

A Waste Management Plan was submitted with the application. A condition should be included on permit regarding the need for private waste collection in accordance with the Waste Management Plan.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 41

4.4

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.4

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDING AT 13-17 CARTMELL STREET HEIDELBERG cont’d OBJECTORS CONCERNS The majority of objectors’ concerns have been addressed above and in the attached Higher Density Guidelines assessment, however the following require further discussion: Lack of car parking The applicant has offered to provide an extra 3 car spaces in vehicle stackers. This reduces the parking shortfall to 5 spaces and can appear as a condition on permit. Proposal does not respect the heritage characteristics of the street and neighbourhood. The site and surrounding area is not within a Heritage Overlay. Noise potential from balconies. Typical residential noise is to be expected from any new dwellings and a Noise Assessment can be required by condition on permit to ensure that any noise associated with use of the basement car park and vehicle stackers has acceptable impacts on the dwellings to the rear and the west of the site. Construction phase issues Noise and dust in the short term are matters which are not controlled by the Planning Department and are policed by Council’s Local Laws and Environmental health Departments and through the building regulations. A Construction Management Plan will be required. Devaluation of properties No evidence has been provided that properties will lose value as a result of the proposed development. It has long been accepted that a perceived devaluation of properties by objectors is not a relevant planning consideration. Telecommunication signals will be disrupted This is outside the remit of planning consideration. CONCLUSION The proposed development is consistent with State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks, the Residential Growth Zone-schedule 1, the Design and Development Overlay-schedule 5, the Vegetation Protection Overlay-schedule 5, Clause 52.06 Car parking, and is generally in accordance with the Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development. The proposal should be supported with appropriate conditions.

ATTACHMENTS No.

Title

Architectural Plans

123

Background Information

165

Assessment against Higher Density Guidelines

177

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page

Page 42

5.1

ADOPTION OF BANYULE'S CITY PLAN 20132017 (YEAR 3)

Author:

Peter Utri - Manager Organisational Systems, Corporate Services

File:

F2014/785

Previous Items Council on 25 May 2015 (Item 5.1 - Proposed City Plan & Budget - Consideration of Submissions Received) Council on 13 April 2015 (Item 6.1 - Preparation of City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 3)) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is presented for the adoption of Banyule’s City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 3), which strives to achieve Council’s Vision for its community of: ‘Banyule, a green, liveable and prosperous city, sustaining a healthy and engaged community.’ The City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 3) outlines the strategic intent, direction and priorities for Banyule City Council under the objectives of People, Planet, Place, Participation and Performance. It helps guide the services Council provides to the community. The Plan is reviewed and updated each year after comprehensive consultation with the community, Councillors and staff, and is framed through a legislative context and relies on evidence of industry best practice. This annual review process ensures Council continues to deliver the most appropriate services and projects for Banyule. Feedback has helped Council to plan specific key initiatives and priorities for Year 3 of the City Plan, which encompasses the 2015/16 financial year. The draft City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 3), including the Strategic Resource Plan 2015/2016–2018/2019, has been available for community consideration and comment during 2015 in two key stages:  

Initial draft - during 11-25 March 2015, and extended to 14 April 2015. Final draft (public exhibition period) - from 14 April 2015 to 15 May 2015. (At the Council Meeting on 13 April 2015, Council resolved to give notice for ‘Preparation of City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 3)’. This resolution included a public exhibition period, and the process was commenced for the receipt of written public submissions.)

During both stages, the drafts were available via Council’s website and Service Centres, and at local libraries and neighbourhood houses. The draft plan was also promoted through The Banner newsletter and via advertisements in local papers A report was presented to the 25 May 2015 Council Meeting to enable Council to formally consider written submissions received regarding the Draft City Plan 20132017 (Year 3) and Proposed Budget 2015/2016. This separate meeting provided an opportunity for Council to receive, hear and consider the submissions in respect of Council’s intention to adopt the City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 3) on 22 June 2015. The attached City Plan contains the Strategic Resource Plan (SRP) for Banyule City Council for the next 4 year period. The SRP outlines how Council will manage our financial and non-financial resources, including human resources, over the next four years to achieve our strategic objectives.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 43

5.1

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

5.1

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

ADOPTION OF BANYULE'S CITY PLAN 2013-2017 (YEAR 3) cont’d All initiatives outlined in the City Plan are matched by a resource allocation through Council’s Annual Budget, either in full or phased over the life of this Plan. The adoption of this Plan fulfils Council’s obligations and compliance with sections 125 and 126 of the Local Government Act 1989. The City Plan is the Council Plan for the purposes of the Act. RECOMMENDATION That: 1.

Council, having considered all submissions received and having complied with the requirements of sections 125 and 126 of the Local Government Act 1989, adopt with amendments the Banyule City Council’s City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 3) as attached to this report.

A copy of Banyule’s City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 3) be provided to the Minister for Local Government prior to financial year-end (ie. 30 June 2015)

The submitters be advised that Council has considered their submissions relating to Banyule City Council’s City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 3) and that they be notified of the outcome of their submission

Submitters be thanked for their contributions.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 44

ADOPTION OF BANYULE'S CITY PLAN 2013-2017 (YEAR 3) cont’d A four year City Plan has been developed through extensive community engagement and feedback. The foundation of this work has led Council to include significant areas of emphasis in its planning, including: 

Continuing a strong focus on delivering quality, value for money services



Ensuring our financial sustainability and making sure Council continues to deliver services to the levels expected.

 

Improving communication with the community so Council is better informed as to things that matter. The building of a strong and vibrant community



Developing local activity centres in an appropriate and sustainable way.



Making land-use planning more consistent and see that it improves local neighbourhood character



Advocating to other levels of government on important community issues, even where it is not Council’s direct delivery role, and ensuring that this is done in the strongest terms to affect change for the betterment of Banyule. Identifying opportunities that bring social and economic benefits to the community

 

Ensuring comprehensive transport planning and advocacy on transport and congestion issues.

Each year Council reconsiders the areas of emphasis outlined for its four year plan. These views have been considered to develop City Plan key initiatives for 2015/16. A clearer link to the outcomes of how Banyule has responded to the community engagement findings is also articulated in the City Plan through the inclusion of key initiatives. These initiatives reflect the intent of Council to provide a comprehensive suite of services to its community in line with its strategic intent and the priorities and needs of its community. BACKGROUND The City Plan is Banyule City Council’s Plan as required by Section 125 of the Local Government Act 1989. The Plan forms Council’s key strategic platform for the delivery of services and areas of focus for advocacy to its Community. The Plan also contains Council’s response to section 126 of the Local Government Act 1989, in so far that it incorporates Council’s Strategic Resource Plan 2015/2016– 2018/2019. This is the third year of Council’s four year City Plan 2013-2017, prepared following the Council election in October 2012. The development of the City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 3), attached to this report, has been formed by the information gathered through an extensive community engagement and planning process. The framework is developed and supported by current policy and responds in a strategic sense to the expressed needs of our community. The process included Councillor Planning sessions during November-December 2014 and February 2015, to review progress being made against the City Plan 20132017, identify challenges, and review focus areas and priorities.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 45

5.1

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

5.1

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

ADOPTION OF BANYULE'S CITY PLAN 2013-2017 (YEAR 3) cont’d The Plan articulates the key strategic intent of Council and responds to newly identified challenges and opportunities presented to Council and the community over the life of this Plan. CONSULTATION AND RESEARCH An overview of the consultation approach Council is committed to engaging with and listening to its Community and using this feedback to inform the services and service levels that are offered to the community. Community feedback, along with things such as legislative changes, reviews of service standards, budget information and industry trends all contribute to shaping Council’s strategic direction. Banyule’s four year City Plan 2013-2017 was initially developed in 2013 with extensive community consultation. Each year the City Plan is reviewed and modified. Accordingly, the design of the consultation approach is such that Council can include community feedback into the City Plan review process. Consultation for Year 3 of the City Plan This year’s community consultation has informed the Year 3 City Plan review process. Separate surveys were distributed for four key City Plan objectives (the fifth objective of ‘Performance’ mainly relates to the internal functions of Council). The process highlighted examples of what has been achieved, asked for feedback about whether people thought Council was on track, and asked for suggestions for improvement. Consultation and Research The City Plan consultation survey provides just one way in which people can have their say about Council’s services. A broad range of consultation and data sources inform the development of the City Plan. Council welcomes and encourages community feedback and people can share their views at any time. Community feedback can be made via a distributed return paid postcard, letter, telephone, website or email. The feedback received, and the customer requests generated, are a key source of information to assist in improving services. Council also delivers an ‘Out & About’ program to foster better links and information flow with the community. Under this program, members of the customer service team (supported by service unit staff) attend community centres and events to promote Council and community programs and services, as well as educate the community on how to best access the services and opportunities available to them. This program is very successful and has a particular focus on groups who have difficulty in accessing Council information or services, for example senior citizens groups. Council has appointed specific Advisory Committees which provide strategic advice to Council that represents the views of particular groups in the community. The demographic data is referenced and analysed to assist in understanding how the community is changing and to plan for appropriate services. All of this information, combined with things such as legislative changes, reviews of service standards, budget information and industry trends, help to shape the updated City Plan.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 46

ADOPTION OF BANYULE'S CITY PLAN 2013-2017 (YEAR 3) cont’d The information gathered and the feedback received is incorporated into the Draft City Plan 2013 – 2017 (Year 3) and reflected in the community consultation results as follows:  Council’s Draft City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 3) Included are proposed key initiatives to provide clear and practical examples of the intent of Council’s strategic directions and the link to community feedback. This allows the community to comment in detail on whether Council has fairly represented the priorities and needs of its community.  Community Consultation Results (What You Said! documents) This group of documents includes a summary of the approaches Council used to consult and engage with the local community, and four reports detailing the community’s’ feedback and examples of how Council is addressing community feedback under the headings of Place; Planet; People; and Participation. These documents assist the community to see Council’s response to the themes they raised by showing links with the Draft City Plan 2013–2017 (Year 3). The themes and issues presented within the areas of People, Planet, Place and Participation are as follows: People Themes:  Good health for people of different ages life stages and backgrounds  Health information and communication  Community safety  Regular recreation and social activities  Support and inclusion for those who need assistance to participate fully in the community  More support for employment Planet Themes:  Waste management and recycling  Litter and waterways  Raising awareness of environmental issues and promoting practical actions  Valuing trees, greenery, local parklands and wildlife  Protecting our valued natural environment from overdevelopment  More action to support and promote renewable energy  More community partnerships, education and local ownership

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 47

5.1

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

5.1

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

ADOPTION OF BANYULE'S CITY PLAN 2013-2017 (YEAR 3) cont’d Place Themes  Encouraging and providing alternative transport options while recognising the problems of traffic congestion  Maintaining and looking after footpaths, roads and public spaces  Valuing, protecting and enhancing our parks, open spaces and playgrounds  Improving the local economy to deliver a more vibrant and prosperous Banyule  Impact of development on the capacity and character of Banyule Participation Themes  Social inclusion within our diverse community  Ensuring Banyule’s diverse community is reflected in our images, signs and celebrations  Multiple ways to provide information to different audiences and for different purposes  Engaging meaningfully – how Council listens and engages with Banyule’s diverse community The full details of community themes and initial responses can be found at Council’s general website http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au and follow the links to the City Plan or Community Consultation. In addition to these themes developed with the community, Council is committed to strong governance and efficiency. The areas of emphasis are included within the Performance Objective. These themes are more focused on the internal functions of Council to ensure the right outcomes for the community. Performance Themes The following themes relate to the City Plan’s Performance objective, based on analysis of the feedback received through the various consultation and research processes:  Efficiency  Effectiveness  Best Value quality for our services  Prudent financial management  Secure information  Stable industrial environment  Transparency  Accountability.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 48

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

5.1

ADOPTION OF BANYULE'S CITY PLAN 2013-2017 (YEAR 3) cont’d Local Government Planning and Accountability Framework Banyule City Council adheres to the Local Government Planning and Reporting Better Practice Guide in the development of its strategic planning process: This Guide is designed to assist councils to best meet requirements under the Local Government Act 1989 as they relate to the planning and accountability framework. It provides councils with relevant and practical information to assist in the development of key planning and reporting documents required under the Local Government Act 1989 and as prescribed in the Local Government (Planning and Reporting) Regulations 2014 (the Regulations). These include the Council Plan (City Plan), Strategic Resource Plan, Annual Budget and Annual Report. The Guide also outlines the role of the Victorian Auditor-General and highlights the benefits of a relationship with a Community Plan. In April 2014, legislation was introduced to include the requirement for Councils to report against the Local Government Performance Reporting Framework (LGPRF). The Local Government (Planning and Reporting) Regulations 2014 support the operation of the new planning and reporting framework for Councils under the Local Government Amendment (Performance Reporting and Accountability) Act 2014. Key measures as part of the LGPRF are included in Banyule’s set of Strategic Indicators. These include indicators and measures of service performance, financial performance and sustainable capacity, along with a checklist of 24 governance and management requirements. The list of indicators included in the State Government’s LGPRF is included in Council’s Budget 2014-2015 document (and draft Budget 2015-2016). The first set of results will be reported in Council’s Annual Report 2014-2015, in line with the legislative requirements. Council will review these and adjust targets and indicators as appropriate on an annual basis. Council will continue to work with the State Government and Local Government industry sector in the further development and implementation of the LGPRF. Consultation on the Initial Draft City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 3) The draft of the new City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 3), including the Strategic Resource Plan 2015/2016–2018/2019, has been available for community consideration via Council’s website and Service Centres, and at local libraries and neighbourhood houses, during 11-25 March 2015, and extended to 14 April 2015. The draft plan has also been promoted through The Banner newsletter and via advertisements in local papers. Public Notice and Formal Submissions Process At the Council Meeting on 13 April 2015, Council resolved to give notice for ‘Preparation of City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 3)’. Advertisements were placed in ‘The Age’ and Leader newspapers at the commencement of the public notice period. The public notice informed the community of Council’s intention to adopt Banyule’s City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 3) at a Council Meeting on Monday, 22 June 2015. A copy of the draft City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 3) was then made available for community comment from 14 April 2015 to 15 May 2015. It was available via

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 49

5.1

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

ADOPTION OF BANYULE'S CITY PLAN 2013-2017 (YEAR 3) cont’d Council’s website and customer service centres, local libraries and neighbourhood houses, together with the proposed Budget 2015/2016. Two public meetings regarding the proposed City Plan and Budget were held between 6:00pm and 7:00pm on the following dates at the following locations. Date Tuesday 5 May Wednesday 6 May

Venue Tom Roberts Room, 275 Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe WaterMarc Community Meeting Room, 1 Flintoff Street, Greensborough

The submissions were presented to Council at its meeting 25 May 2015. This separate meeting provided an opportunity for Council to receive, hear and consider the submissions in respect of Council’s intention to adopt the City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 3) and Budget 2015/2016 at a Council Meeting on 22 June 2015. ADVOCACY Council works in partnership with community groups, local agencies and different levels of government to advocate for improved services, infrastructure and social outcomes. Council also advocates seeking opportunities for equitable funding and service arrangements. This report has an important link with Council’s City Plan key direction to: ‘Engage meaningfully with our community’ This key direction sits within Banyule’s ‘Participation’ objective: Participation: Community Involvement In Community Life – Govern effectively by appropriately engaging the community in issues that affect them, and advocate for the broader interest of the community. HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered to determine if it raises any human rights issues. In particular, whether the scope of any human right established by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities is in any way limited, restricted or interfered with by the recommendations contained in this report. It is considered that the subject matter of the City Plan does not raise any human rights issues but enhances the human rights of our community. As a part of Council’s community engagement program for the City Plan, the plan has been developed through extensive consultation and engagement. This process of community involvement has promoted and facilitated specific rights outlined in the Charter, namely the right to take part in public life and the right to freedom of expression. LEGAL CONSIDERATION The public exhibition period is a statutory requirement under the Local Government Act 1989, and enables members of the community to make formal submissions under section 223 of the Act. Written submissions were invited to be submitted by 15 May 2015.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 50

ADOPTION OF BANYULE'S CITY PLAN 2013-2017 (YEAR 3) cont’d The required statutory notice appeared on Council’s website on Tuesday, 14 April 2015, and in ‘The Age’ on Wednesday, 15 April 2015. This was supported with a copy of the public notice being placed in local papers the following week, together with the Banyule in Brief advertorial. The public notice informed the community of Council’s intention to adopt Banyule’s City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 3) in accordance with Sections 125 and 126 of the Local Government Act 1989, at a Council Meeting on Monday, 22 June 2015. A copy of the draft City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 3) was then made available for inspection and community comment from 14 April 2015 to 15 May 2015 (a four week period). It was available via Council’s website and customer service centres, local libraries and neighbourhood houses. Submissions received by Council in accordance with Section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 were considered by Council on 25 May 2015 prior to the final Council consideration of the adoption of the City Plan on Monday, 22 June 2015. CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS Following the Council meeting of 25 May 2015 to hear and consider the submissions received, a detailed summary of the considerations of the submissions has been included in the report relating to the Adoption of the Council Budget 2015/2016 also to be considered at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 22 June 2015. Of the thirty–one (31) submissions received, one specifically commented on the draft City Plan. The submission suggests the City Plan is a balanced document, however proposes some alternative narrative. It suggests other P’s, providing a “basis for evaluating actual performance, rather than the City plan document. They are: Pragmatism, Progress”. It also uses some examples to support this alternative, suggesting specific cases where the submitter believes Council could have achieved better outcomes. Examples cited are: Ivanhoe Major Activity Centre Structure Plan Process, 107-109 Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe, 8 Donaldson Street, Ivanhoe, Waterdale Assisted Living, Ivanhoe. It is being recommended that this submission for a change to the P’s not be supported on this occasion and that no changes be made to the draft City Plan. In addition, a number of submissions related to both the City Plan and the Budget. These were primarily focused on initiatives that related to budget items, and have been included in the budget considerations. All submitters will be informed in writing after the adoption of the City Plan and Budget as to the outcome of their submissions. FUNDING IMPLICATIONS The attached City Plan contains the Strategic Resource Plan for Banyule City Council for the next 4 year period. The Strategic Resource Plan outlines how Council will manage its financial and nonfinancial resources, including human resources, over the next four years to achieve its strategic objectives.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 51

5.1

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

5.1

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

ADOPTION OF BANYULE'S CITY PLAN 2013-2017 (YEAR 3) cont’d The Strategic Resource Plan consists of the following: 

The ‘Performance – Use our resources wisely’ objective. This includes key directions for achieving the objective, and focus areas for the next four years



The ‘Management of our Human Resources’ section, which includes statements describing the human resources required for the next four years



The Financial Resources section, which includes information on financial position, financial statements and commentary on these.

The Plan also takes into account services and initiatives contained in plans adopted by Council, as well as other information prescribed by the regulations. The Strategic Resource Plan is prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1989 and the Local Government (Planning and Reporting) Regulations 2014, which commenced operation on 18 April 2014.This sits well with Banyule’s objective of ‘Performance – Use our resources wisely’. In addition, the Strategic Resource Plan describes how Council manages its financial resources in a sustainable manner. Prudent management enables Council’s staffing, physical resources and community services to be maintained in a way that meets the community’s current and future needs. This includes developing sustainable income streams and financial independence, and rates that support the services and infrastructure for the Banyule community. Linkage between City Plan and Budget The Annual Budget is developed within Council’s overall strategic planning framework. This framework guides the Council with information that aids in identifying community needs and aspirations over the long-term, converting these into medium (Council Plan) and short-term (Annual Budget) objectives, key directions, initiatives, activities and allocates resources in a considered manner with this information. Accountability to the Banyule community is ensured through Audited Financial and Performance Statements (containing key performance indicators) and Council’s statutory annual report to the community. Essential in the planning and application of Council’s resources is the critical link to the community. Banyule undertakes an ongoing and iterative process of engagement across all parts of the community. Council utilises community information along with key demographic data, due reference to legislative context and industry benchmarks to assess the appropriate level of service for the Banyule community. Council compares these services against both national and international standards of quality, efficiency and effectiveness. There are direct and obvious links between the broad range of information Council gathers and the activities funded to meet its strategic intent. Council also reviews this annually and re-assesses activities and areas of emphasis for the community on this basis.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 52

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

5.1

ADOPTION OF BANYULE'S CITY PLAN 2013-2017 (YEAR 3) cont’d POLICY IMPLICATIONS The City Plan is underpinned by a key strategic framework. Each strategic objective is underpinned by comprehensive supporting policies, strategies and plans. Council’s key policy and strategic documents informing the City Plan are continuously reviewed to ensure relevance and responsiveness to community needs and best industry practice:  Banyule People: Health and Wellbeing Policy & Strategy  Banyule Planet: Environmental Sustainability Policy & Strategy  Banyule Place Policy & Strategy  Banyule Participation Policy & Strategy  Banyule Performance Framework: Banyule Management System The key policy and strategic documents include the rationale and policy context for each of the key directions that have been set to achieve Council’s objectives. City Plan’s Relationship with the Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan The City Plan and the Banyule People: Health and Wellbeing Policy & Strategy meet Banyule’s obligation for the provision of a Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan under the Victorian Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008. This City Plan is used as a vehicle for the strategic planning of the health and wellbeing of the Banyule community. The City Plan is reviewed on an annual basis with a further lens relating to the health and wellbeing outcomes of the community. This is done to ensure compliance under the Victorian Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008. This work of Council occurs in many forms, from the upkeep of parks to the delivery of targeted programs, from the health of babies to immunisation of the community against disease. The annual action plan for the Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan is based from actions across the Organisation, within Council’s annual business plan, supporting plans, and service unit plans. Council uses these actions to achieve the strategic outcomes for the community. The actions and outcomes from the Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan are reported separately to the Victorian Department of Health & Human Services. CONCLUSION Year 3 of the City Plan has refined Council’s endeavours to deliver on the expressed needs of the Banyule community. The prioritisation of themes within Council’s key objectives have been reassessed and reordered with far greater emphasis on the efficiency and effectiveness of Council’s operations. The community has expressed a strong desire to maintain the existing levels (and in some cases increased) services offered, and Council will endeavour to communicate more effectively with the community on the priorities and actions.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 53

5.1

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

ADOPTION OF BANYULE'S CITY PLAN 2013-2017 (YEAR 3) cont’d Council continues to demonstrate through this Plan, its comprehensive framework of integrated objectives, focus areas and key initiatives which are being implemented for the benefit of the community. These planning drivers cover a broad range of service delivery areas, internal support activities, important advocacy issues and deliver strong leadership for the community with good open governance. This third year of the 4 year strategic plan, refines the blueprint for Council’s way forward to achieve its Vision: Banyule, a green, liveable and prosperous city, sustaining a healthy and engaged community.

ATTACHMENTS No.

Title

Draft City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 3) (Under Separate Cover)

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page

Page 54

6.1

BUDGET DECLARATIONS

Author:

Vivien Ferlaino - Governance Co-ordinator, Corporate Services

File:

F2015/1955

6.1

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Proposed Budget 2015/2016 (Budget) has been prepared to deliver the City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 3) objectives, which set the overall strategic direction for Banyule. The Budget comprises services, initiatives and capital works across the municipality. The ‘Adoption of Budget for the period 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016’ report is included in this Agenda. The need for Councillors to disclose a conflict of interest where one exists in relation to any of these services or capital works requires that they be addressed separately as part of the Budget process. Any items included in the Budget in which a Councillor discloses a conflict of interest are to be dealt with by separate resolution under this ‘Budget Declarations’ process. Once all disclosures have been made and the items which are the subject of any disclosure are determined by the Council, all Councillors are able to vote on the Budget 2015/2016. This report provides an opportunity for Councillors to disclose any conflicts in relation to the Budget. RECOMMENDATION (1)

The Mayor/Chairperson invite Councillors to disclose any conflicts of interest in relation to adoption of the Budget 2015/2016 by classifying the type and describing the nature of the interest in accordance with the Local Government Act 1989.

(2)

Following each disclosure, Council consider and determine upon the relevant project and the associated funding in the Budget 2015/2016.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 55

6.1

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

BUDGET DECLARATIONS cont’d LEGAL CONSIDERATION Councillors and staff are required to declare Conflicts of Interest in accordance with the Act. Normally where a Councillor has a conflict of interest in an item on the agenda, he/she must declare the interest and must remove themselves from being involved in participating in the discussion or voting on the matter. With regard to the adoption of the Council Budget, provision has been made in the Act for exempting a Councillor from having to declare a conflict of interest in the overall Budget. The exemption applies so long as the item/s that a Councillor has a conflict of interest in are considered and determined separately prior to adoption of the Budget as a whole. Therefore to ensure all Councillors are able to participate in the adoption of the Budget, any items included in the Budget in which a Councillor discloses a conflict of interest are to be dealt with by separate resolution under this ‘Budget Declarations’ process. Any Councillor declaring a conflict of interest would need to then follow the normal process and remove themselves from the Chamber for the discussion and vote on the matter/s. Once all disclosures have been made and the items which are the subject of any disclosure are determined by the Council, all Councillors will be able to participate in the consideration and adoption of the Budget 2015/2016 as a whole package. HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER Victoria's Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities (the Charter) outlines the basic human rights of all people in Victoria. The Charter requires that governments, local councils and other public authorities comply with Charter and to consider relevant Charter rights when they make decisions. In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues. CONCLUSION In developing the Budget 2015/2016, Council services and capital works have been considered for funding. Councillors who have a conflict of interest in any items to be considered are required to disclose the type and nature of the interest. Due to the wide ranging nature of these services and capital works, it is reasonably foreseeable that a Councillor may disclose a conflict and would otherwise be required to excuse themselves from the vote on the Budget. As this would make the adoption of an annual Budget unworkable in practice, the Local Government Act provides a mechanism for Councillors to vote on a budget, by requiring the conflict of interest items to be considered and resolved separately.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 56

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.1

BUDGET DECLARATIONS contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 57

6.2

ADOPTION OF BUDGET FOR PERIOD 1 JULY 2015 TO 30 JUNE 2016

Author:

Tania O'Reilly - Manager Finance & Procurement, Corporate Services

File:

F2015/1084

Previous Items Council on 25 May 2015 (Item 5.1 - Proposed City Plan & Budget - Consideration of Submissions Received) Council on 13 April 2015 (Item 6.2 - Preparation of Budget for Period 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is presented for the adoption of Banyule’s Budget for 2015/2016 in accordance with the Local Government Act 1989. The budget is set in a manner that allows the resources of the community to be allocated prudently and delivers on Council’s efforts to achieve its Vision for the community of: Banyule, a green, liveable and prosperous city, sustaining a healthy and engaged community. The development of the Budget 2015/2016 is based on information gathered from extensive community consultation and industry best practice accounting standards. The Budget is developed and supported by current policy and responds in a direct way to the expressed needs of the community as outlined in the City Plan. Council is required to make informed decisions on behalf of its community for the sustainable governance of the municipality. These decisions are based on a sound, considered and prudent financial management basis. The setting of the budget, the levels of service provided, and the careful stewardship of the community’s assets are paramount in the establishment of this budget. The Budget 2015/2016 presented for adoption by Council (attached) incorporates consideration of public submissions to the exhibited proposed Budget at a Council Meeting on Monday, 25 May 2015. Commentary has been included in the Budget 2015/2016 to note that submissions supported by Council are to be funded during 2015/2016. The submissions to be funded include: 1. 2. 3.

The Wellness Walk 2015 - Sponsorship Arrangements - $26,000 to be funded. Environmental initiatives – $89,000 to be funded from the Environmental Reserve. Continued financial membership of NORTH Link – $15,000 one off allocation and subject to key performance indicators (subject to a further report to Council and be agreed by Council at its meeting on 6 July 2015).

Council’s Budget 2015/2016 responds to the community priorities for Banyule as set out in the City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 3) and ensures the delivery of the right services in the right way in response to the community’s expressed needs. The Budget will ensure Council’s finances remain sustainable and that appropriate resources are allocated to meet the services and capital requirements of the City.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 58

6.2

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

ADOPTION OF BUDGET FOR PERIOD 1 JULY 2015 TO 30 JUNE 2016 contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d RECOMMENDATION Adoption of Budget 2015/2016 That: 1.

Council having considered all submissions received and having complied with the requirements of sections 127, 129 and 130 of the Local Government Act 1989, adopt the Banyule City Council Budget 2015/2016 (Budget 2015/2016) as attached.

All submitters be advised Council has considered their submissions (as per the attached summary table) relating to the Budget 2015/2016, the submitters be advised of the outcome of the consideration as it relates to their specific submission, and they be thanked for their contributions.

Council give public notice of the adoption of the Budget 2015/2016

A copy of the Budget 2015/2016 be provided to the Minister for Local Government in accordance with section 130 (4) of the Local Government Act 1989.

Declaration of Rates and Charges 5.

In accordance with sections 158 and 161 of the Local Government Act 1989, Council declare the Rates Levies and Annual Service Charges for the 2015/2016 rating year commencing 1 July 2015 and ending 30 June 2016 as follows: 5.1

Amount Intended to be Raised An amount of $89,184,011 (or such other amount as is lawfully raised as a consequence of this Resolution), be declared as the amount which Council intends to raise by general rates, service charges and the municipal charge as follows: General Rates Municipal Charge

$82,383,451 $6,800,560

The service charges be in the sums as specified in Appendix D of the Council Budget 2015/2016. 5.2

General Rates 5.2.1

A general rate be declared in respect of the 2015/2016 Financial Year.

5.2.2

It be further declared that, consistent with the City Plan and having regard to the considerations outlined in the Budget for the 2015/2016 financial year, the general rate be raised by the application of differential rates.

5.2.3

A differential rate be respectively declared for rateable land having the characteristics specified below, which will form the criteria for each differential rate so declared: 5.2.3.1 Residential Vacant Land Any land on which no dwelling is erected, but which, by reason of its locality and zoning under the Banyule Planning Scheme, would, if developed, be or be likely to

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 59

6.2

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.2

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

ADOPTION OF BUDGET FOR PERIOD 1 JULY 2015 TO 30 JUNE 2016 cont’d be used primarily for residential purposes. 5.2.3.2 Commercial or Industrial Vacant Land Any land on which no building is erected, but which, by reason of its locality and zoning under the Banyule Planning Scheme, would, if developed, be or be likely to be used primarily for commercial or industrial purposes. 5.2.3.3 Commercial or Industrial Improved Land Any land which is used, designed or adapted to be used primarily for commercial or industrial purposes. 5.2.3.4 Other Land (including Residential Improved Land) Any land which is not residential vacant land, commercial or industrial vacant land or commercial or industrial improved land. 5.3

Each differential rate be determined by multiplying the Capital Improved Value (CIV) of each rateable land (categorised by the characteristics described in paragraph 5.2.3 of this Resolution) by the relevant percentages indicated in the following table: CATEGORY Residential Vacant Land Commercial or Industrial Vacant Land Commercial or Industrial Improved Land Other Land (including Residential Improved Land)

5.4

% 0.344162% (or 0.00344162 cents in the dollar of Capital Improved Value) 0.446136% (or 0.00446136 cents in the dollar of Capital Improved Value) 0.318669% (or 0.00318669 cents in the dollar of Capital Improved Value) 0.254935% (or 0.00254935 cents in the dollar of Capital Improved Value)

In accordance with Section 4 of the Cultural and Recreational Lands Act 1963, the amount of rates payable in respect of each of the rateable lands to which that Act applies be the amounts fixed hereunder:    

1 Vasey Street Ivanhoe 54 Cleveland Avenue Lower Plenty 8 Main Road Lower Plenty 540 The Boulevard Ivanhoe East

$18,930.42 $16,242.90 $34,691.49 $736.66

The amount in lieu of rates payable in respect of each rateable land to which the Cultural and Recreational Land rate applies is determined by multiplying the Capital Improved Value of that rateable land by 0.00214145. 6.

Service Charges 6.1

Service charges be declared in respect of the 2015/2016 Financial Year.

6.2

Service charges be declared for the non-standard collection and disposal of refuse from or in respect of rateable land; and the collection and disposal of refuse from or in respect of non-rateable land.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 60

ADOPTION OF BUDGET FOR PERIOD 1 JULY 2015 TO 30 JUNE 2016 cont’d 6.3

The service charges be in the sums as specified in Appendix D of the Council Budget 2015/2016.

Municipal Charge 7.1

A municipal charge of $130.00 be declared in respect of the 2015/2016 financial year.

7.2

The municipal charge be declared for the purpose of covering some of the administrative costs of Council.

Interest Rate Council will, subject to Section 172 of the Local Government Act 1989, require a person to pay interest on any rates and charges which:  that person is liable to pay;  have not been paid by the dates specified for their payment; and Council will adopt a grace period and apply the penalty interest to be calculated on all unpaid rates and charges on the sixth business day following the gazetted due date for payment. The penalty interest rate is 9.5% per annum as set by the Attorney-General under the Penalty Interest Rates Act 1983, effective from 1 June 2015.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 61

6.2

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.2

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

ADOPTION OF BUDGET FOR PERIOD 1 JULY 2015 TO 30 JUNE 2016 cont’d The Budget 2015/2016 reflects the ‘Model budget’ form and has been prepared with reference to The Institute of Chartered Accountants ‘Victorian City Council Model Budget 2015/2016,’ a best practice guide for reporting local government budgets in Victoria. The budget provides for the sound provision of financial resources. The Budget is prepared in accordance with the Act and Regulations and includes financial statements being: a Comprehensive Income Statement; Balance Sheet; Statement of Changes in Equity; Statement of Cash Flows, and Statement of Capital Works. These statements have been prepared for the year ended 30 June 2016 in accordance with the Act and Regulations, and are consistent with the annual financial statements which are prepared in accordance with applicable Australian Accounting Standards. The Budget includes information about the rates and charges to be levied, the capital works program to be undertaken, the human resources required to deliver Council services, and other financial information required in order for Council to make informed decisions about its financial future. Council must have its Budget adopted by 30 June each year to ensure all its financial resources are in place to be able to deliver the works and services required for the ensuing year. CONSULTATION The annual Budget is developed within Council’s overall strategic planning framework. This framework guides the Council with information that aids in identifying community needs and aspirations over the long-term, converting these into medium (Council Plan) and short-term (Annual Budget) objectives, key directions, initiatives, activities and allocates resources in a considered manner with this information. A four year City Plan 2013-2017 has been developed through extensive community engagement and feedback. The foundation of this work has led Council to include significant areas of emphasis in its planning. On an annual basis Council reconsiders the areas of emphasis outlined for its four year plan. Public Notice Process Notice was given to the public of Council’s intention to formally: i. ii. iii.

Adopt the budget; Declare differential rates, service charges and any municipal charge; and Require interest to be charged on unpaid rates and charges;

The notice included Council’s intention to adopt the Budget at a meeting of Council on Monday, 22 June 2015. Further information about consultation and the public notice process for the Budget is contained within the attached Budget 2015/2016 document in the ‘Budget processes’ section, and in section 1 – ‘Linkage to the City Plan (Council Plan)’. The consultation and public notice process is also captured in the City Plan and Budget reports that were presented to Council at its meeting on 13 April 2015, and in the report included under separate cover in this agenda (Adoption of City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 3)).

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 62

ADOPTION OF BUDGET FOR PERIOD 1 JULY 2015 TO 30 JUNE 2016 cont’d BUDGET 2015/2016 CONTEXT The Budget 2015/2016 focuses on strengthening the long-term financial sustainability of Banyule and has been developed through a rigorous process of reviews. At the forefront of considerations is the objective of ensuring continual investment in renewing and maintaining valuable infrastructure while providing relevant services to the community. To achieve these objectives it will be necessary to increase the total amount raised from general Council rates by 4.95%. A total of $89.18 million (this excludes any supplementary rates) for 2015/2016 will be raised to maintain existing service levels, fund a number of new initiatives and continue to allocate additional funds to renew infrastructure. The Budget 2015/2016 has been devised to deliver significant capital works over the next four years. It looks to balance competing demands on providing community services, while maintaining and renewing infrastructure within the community’s capacity to pay for it. The Budget decisions also consider the Victorian Auditor-General’s annual sustainability assessment ratios for Council’s underlying result, liquidity, indebtedness, self-financing capacity, capital replacement and renewal gap ratios. The Budget 2015/2016 demonstrates Council’s commitment to continuing to manage responsibly and efficiently, and works in concert with the directives of the City Plan 2013-2017. Councillors and staff are committed to achieving these medium and longterm objectives to ensure the building of a better Banyule. Highlights of the 2015-2016 Capital Works program: 

Buildings ($25.59 million), including the building of Council administration offices and community meeting facilities in Greensborough. The Ivanhoe Civic Centre will also be redeveloped, with plans for a new community hub and library.



Council endeavours to meet the community’s sporting and recreational needs with major works funding being allocated for the completion of pavilion and associated works at Cartledge Reserve and Ivanhoe Park, and funding allocated for planning and design at Telfer Reserve.



$5.51 million will be invested in roads, streets, bridges and drainage. This will include reconstructions, roads to recovery projects, re-sheeting, bicycle, footpath and public transport infrastructure improvements.



Council will continue to improve its parks and playgrounds with an allocation of $3.70 million, including upgrading playground equipment, fencing, pathways, and open space facilities.

A number of new initiatives are also proposed to commence in 2015/2016: 

Initial investment into the development of early learning hubs at Sherbourne Road and Ivanhoe Civic Centre.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 63

6.2

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.2

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

ADOPTION OF BUDGET FOR PERIOD 1 JULY 2015 TO 30 JUNE 2016 cont’d 

Continued focus on environmental sustainability by installing approximately 180kW of solar photovoltaic panels on Council buildings ($365,000 budget in 2015-2016).

HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered to determine if it raises any human rights issues. In particular, whether the scope of any human right established by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities is in any way limited restricted or interfered with by the recommendations contained in this report. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues. The preparation and adoption of Council’s Budget actually facilitates the protection of the community’s human rights as funding for many Council projects, programs and initiatives is directly related to protecting and enhancing the human rights of the community The preparation, public exhibition and submission process associated with Council’s Budget also supports specific rights contained within the charter, including ‘Section 15: The right to freedom of expression’ and ‘Section 18: The right to take part in public life’. LEGAL CONSIDERATION Under Sections 127, 129 and 130 of the Local Government Act 1989, Council is required to prepare, exhibit and adopt an annual budget for each financial year. In accordance with the provisions of Section 223 of the Act, submitters were provided with the opportunity to be heard by Council in support of their submissions. CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS As at the conclusion of the public exhibition period, at 5.00pm on Friday, 15 May 2015, thirty-one (31) formal submissions had been received in relation to the proposed Budget and City Plan. A summary of all submissions received to 15 May 2015 was included in the report to Council at its meeting on 25 May 2015 (Item 5.1: Proposed City Plan & Budget – Consideration of Submissions Received). The submissions received by Council cover a wide and varied range of community proposals both in support and in addition to the proposed Budget and City Plan. All submissions were given full consideration by Council at its meeting 25 May 2015. This enabled Council to formally consider written submissions received regarding the Proposed Budget 2015/2016 and Draft City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 3). This separate meeting provided an opportunity for Council to receive, hear and consider the submissions in respect of Council’s intention to adopt the City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 3) and Budget 2015/2016 at a Council Meeting on 22 June 2015.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 64

ADOPTION OF BUDGET FOR PERIOD 1 JULY 2015 TO 30 JUNE 2016 cont’d Non material adjustments A summary of the consideration of the submissions received and heard at the 25 May 2015 Council Meeting is presented in a summary table attached to this report. Full copies of all submissions were made available to Councillors prior to the 25 May 2015 Council Meeting. The sum total of the submissions is not considered to present a need for material change to the Proposed Budget 2015/2016. Accordingly, commentary has been included in the Budget document to note that submissions supported by Council are to be funded during 2015/2016 from identified savings in the Budget 2015/2016 or designated reserves. In brief, the non-material adjustments are based on the following consideration of submissions for the Budget 2015/2016: 

Submissions included in the Budget, to be funded from identified savings in the Budget 2015/2016 or designated reserves: -



Submissions in support of the Budget, and that are currently funded: -

Price Park ‘off lead’ dog fence

Ivanhoe Learning Hub & Ivanhoe Library

Support for special rates and charge scheme - Greensborough No. 2

Support for Council’s draft Budget 2015/2016

Submissions not supported on this occasion but will be subject to further investigation or consultation and potential funding in future years: -



The Wellness Walk 2015 - Sponsorship Arrangements - $26,000 to be funded Environmental initiatives – group of 11 submissions - $89,000 from the Environmental Reserve Continued financial membership of NORTH Link – group of 6 submissions $15,000 one off allocation and subject to key performance indicators (subject to a further report to Council and be agreed by Council at its meeting on 6 July 2015).

Architectural Drawings - Impressionist Gallery and Education Centre ($50,000 requested be subject to legal and procurement considerations, and to be assessed via a report back to Council at a later date.) Lighting and Traffic infrastructure works (and note that part of this submission is currently funded in the Budget in terms of traffic infrastructure works) Ramu Parade Reserve, West Heidelberg

Submissions not supported on this occasion and will be deferred for consideration as part of the Budget 2016/2017: -

Environmental initiatives - to increase efforts around environmental initiatives through suggested increased borrowings St Marys Greensborough Tennis Club upgrade of lighting project

60th Anniversary of both the Bell St Mall and the Melbourne Olympics

Bellfield infrastructure and community facility improvement

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 65

6.2

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.2

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

ADOPTION OF BUDGET FOR PERIOD 1 JULY 2015 TO 30 JUNE 2016 cont’d 

Submissions not supported on this occasion: -

Ivanhoe Traders Association (ITA) Loan repayment

Comments regarding the draft City Plan (Year 3)

PROPOSED RATES AND CHARGES The Rates Levies and Annual Service Charges for the 2015/2016 rating year are contained within the attached Budget 2015/2016 and are formally declared by Council within the report recommendation. This information was also contained within the Budget report presented to Council at its meeting on 13 April 2015 (Item 6.2: Preparation of Budget for Period 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016). Council also considered and adopted the Rating Strategy at its meeting on 13 April 2015. The Rating Strategy is the method by which Council systematically considers factors of importance that informs its decisions about the rating system. The rating system determines how Council will raise money from properties within the municipality. It does not influence the total amount to be raised, only the share of revenue contributed by each property. The rating system comprises the valuation base and actual rating instruments allowed under the Local Government Act 1989 to calculate property owners’ liability for rates. As rates are a significant part of Councils revenue, a Rating Strategy is a key element in the Council exercising sound financial management. CONCLUSION The Budget 2015/2016 meets the requirements of Section 127 of the Local Government Act 1989 which requires Council to prepare a budget for each financial year. The budget includes all information required to establish:      

Banyule’s financial statements A description of services and initiatives funded by the budget as well as a Statement about how they will contribute to achieving the strategic objectives in the City Plan Key service performance indicators and targets The declaration of rates and charges The intention to charge interest on unpaid rates and charges, rates payable on rateable lands in accordance with the Cultural and Recreational Lands Act 1963 Any other information required under Section 158 of the Local Government Act 1989.

The Budget for 2015/2016 is aligned with the long-term strategies as outlined in the City Plan 2013 – 2017 (Year 3), and is in line with Council's commitment to sustainable budgeting and responsible financial management. Following the adoption of this Budget, copies of the Budget will be sent to the Minister for Local Government and will be made available to the public at Council’s service centres and on Councils website.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 66

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.2

ADOPTION OF BUDGET FOR PERIOD 1 JULY 2015 TO 30 JUNE 2016 contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d ATTACHMENTS No.

Title

Summary of Consideration of Submissions Received on the Proposed Budget 2015/2016 (and Draft City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 3))

Banyule City Council Budget 2015/16 (Under Separate Cover)

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 189

Page 67

6.3

45 SIMMS ROAD MONTMORENCY PROPOSED LICENCE - LAND ADJACENT TO MONTMORENCY SECONDARY COLLEGE

Author:

Jeff Parkes - Open Space Planning Co-Ordinator, Assets & City Services

Ward:

Hawdon

File:

F2015/1652

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Council’s 2014/2015 Capital Works Budget provides project funding for the upgrading and realignment of a section of the Plenty River Trail (Trail) which is currently underway. During the planning phase of this project it was identified that part of the Council land known as 45 Simms Road Montmorency had been fenced within the boundary of, and occupied by, the Montmorency Secondary College (School). Following recent discussions with the School Principal and the Department of Education, a Licence has been prepared to formalise this arrangement with the Minister administering the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 (Minister). It has also been identified that access to the Trail, at the end of Simms Road, could be enhanced. However, this area of land is not Council-owned land. A similar mechanism to formalise use and occupation could be facilitated by Council entering into a separate licence agreement with the Minister in relation to that part of the School land required to enhance the access to the Trail. The purpose of this report is two-fold. Firstly, for Council to consider ratifying the proposal to enter into the Licence with the Minister to formalise and facilitate the School’s continued occupation of 441m2 of the Council land; and secondly, for Council to consider entering into another Licence with the Minister with respect to the School land which would enable Council to enhance public access to the Trail. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1.

Authorise officers to continue negotiations with the Department of Education and the Principal of the Montmorency Secondary College (School) with a view to reaching an “in principle” agreement for Council to enter into a Licence with the Minister administering the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 (Minister) to facilitate better access to the Plenty River Trail at the end of Simms Road Montmorency.

Ratify the Licence between Council and the Minister in relation to 441m2 of Council owned land known as 45 Simms Road Montmorency enclosed within the fenceline of the School by resolving to affix its common seal to the Licence.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 68

6.3

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

45 SIMMS ROAD MONTMORENCY - PROPOSED LICENCE - LAND ADJACENT TO MONTMORENCY SECONDARY COLLEGE cont’d OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act) requires members of Council staff, and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council, to disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates. Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. CITY PLAN This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “enable good governance and accountability with minimal risk”. BACKGROUND Council is the owner of the land known as 45 Simms Road Montmorency, comprising the whole of the land in certificate of title volume 8868 folio 926 and having a total area of approximately 2.1ha (Council land). Council’s 2014/2015 Capital Works Budget provides project funding for the upgrading and realignment of a section of the Plenty River Trail from the rear of the Montmorency Secondary College through the Simms Road Reserve to Willinda Park bridge. During the planning phase of this project it was identified that part of the Council land had been fenced within the boundary of, and occupied by, the Montmorency Secondary College (School). The section of the Council land has, for many years, been used and maintained by the School. In discussions with the School Principal and the Education Department agreement has been reached in relation to the realignment of the fencing to allow the works associated with the Trail to proceed. The realignment of the fencing will result in part of the Council land, namely 414m2, still being fenced within the School grounds. (See “Land to be licensed to Minister for Education” shown in the Plan in Figure 1 below.) A Licence between Council and the Minister administering the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 (Minister) has been prepared to formalise this arrangement. The Licence provides amongst other things for Council to give three months written notice in the event that it wishes to terminate the Licence. HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER Victoria's Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities (the Charter) outlines the basic human rights of all people in Victoria. The Charter requires that governments, local councils and other public authorities comply with Charter and to consider relevant Charter rights when they make decisions. In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 69

6.3

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.3

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

45 SIMMS ROAD MONTMORENCY - PROPOSED LICENCE - LAND ADJACENT TO MONTMORENCY SECONDARY COLLEGE cont’d

Figure 1: Plan identifying areas to be licensed CURRENT SITUATION As part of the project planning phase, it was also identified that access to the Plenty River Trail, at the end of Simms Road, could be enhanced. However, this would involve part of the School land being available for use by Council and ultimately the public. As can be seen from the plan in Figure 1, the land areas are similar in size but not identical. A similar mechanism to formalise use and occupation of the land to enhance public access to the Trail could be facilitated by Council entering into a licence agreement with Minister. (See “Land to be licensed from Minister for Education” shown in the Plan in Figure 1 below.) At the time of writing this report this opportunity has been raised with the School and Department of Education but discussions have not yet been advanced. CONCLUSION Discussions with the School and the Department of Education should continue with a view to reaching an “in principle” agreement for Council to enter into a Licence with the Minister in relation to that part of the School land required by Council to formalise and facilitate better access to the Plenty River Trail at the end of Simms Road Montmorency. In the meantime, the proposal to enter into the Licence with the Minister to formalise and facilitate the continued occupation of that of part of the Council land should be supported by Council resolving to affix its common seal to the Licence.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 70

6.4

COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Author:

Tania O'Reilly - Manager Finance & Procurement, Corporate Services

File:

F2014/248

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Financial Assistance Grants are an important untied payment to councils from the Australian Government which are invested in essential community infrastructure and services ranging from local roads and parks to swimming pools and libraries. It is important that the level of funding provided to councils is adequate to ensure infrastructure and services are provided at a reasonable level in all communities. Financial Assistance Grants funding is not currently keeping pace with demand for services and infrastructure in local communities and the freeze of indexation will worsen this. Freezing Financial Assistance Grants at their current level until 2017-18 will result in a permanent reduction in the Financial Assistance Grants base by 13%. The Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) has called for Financial Assistance Grants indexation to be restored immediately and for the Federal Government to consider the adequacy of the quantum of Financial Assistance Grants and the indexation methodology in the future. ALGA is also calling on the local government sector to join the advocacy campaign to maintain Financial Assistance Grants by having each Council pass a resolution acknowledging the importance of the Grants program and commit to highlighting the receipt of grants received from the Commonwealth in media releases and Council publications so that the importance and impact of the grants can be more broadly appreciated. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1.

Acknowledges the importance of Federal funding through the Financial Assistance Grants program for the continued delivery of Councilsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; services and infrastructure;

Acknowledges that in 2014 -15, Banyule Council has received $4,553,241 (General Purpose - $3,769,119 and Local Roads - $935,557) through the Commonwealth Financial Assistance Grants Program; and

Ensure that this Federal funding and other funding provided by the Federal Government, under relevant grant programs, is appropriately identified as Commonwealth grant funding in Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s publications, including Annual Reports.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 71

6.4

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.4

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS cont’d OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act) requires members of Council staff, and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council, to disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates. Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. CITY PLAN This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “provide responsible financial management and business planning processes”. BACKGROUND Financial Assistance Grants are a vital part of the revenue base of all councils and this year councils will receive $2.3 billion from the Australian Government under this important program. The Government’s decision in the 2014 Federal Budget to freeze the indexation of Financial Assistance Grants for three-years beginning 2014-15 will unfortunately cost councils across Australia an estimated $925 million by 2017-18. ALGA in its 2015 Federal Budget submission called for the Financial Assistance Grants indexation to be restored immediately and for the Federal Government to consider the adequacy of the quantum of the grants and the indexation methodology in the future. DISCUSSION While the Financial Assistance Grants are paid through each State’s Local Government Grants Commission, the funding originates with the Commonwealth and it is important it is recognised as such. In correspondence forwarded to Council, ALGA have welcomed the payment of Financial Assistance Grants to local Government and acknowledged the importance of this direct funding link between the Commonwealth and local government. However, it is also noted that the level of funding provided to councils needs to be adequate to ensure infrastructure and services are provided at a reasonable level in all communities. In Victoria, with the impending introduction of rate capping likely to take effect from the 2016/17 financial year, the freezing of Financial Assistance Grants has an added impact on the overall financial position of councils in this state. ALGA and the State local government associations are now seeking the support of councils in their advocacy campaigns to have the Federal Government reverse the decision to freeze the indexation of Financial Assistance Grants. Banyule, and every other council in Australia, has been asked to pass a resolution acknowledging the importance of the Commonwealth’s Financial Assistance Grants in assisting councils to provide important community infrastructure. ALGA are also asking Council to acknowledge the receipt of Financial Assistance Grants from the Commonwealth in media releases and Council publications,

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 72

COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d including the annual report, to highlight the impact these grants have on the ability of Council to deliver on import community projects. In the case of Banyule, a total of $4,553,241 was received by way of Commonwealth Grants in 2014-15. CONCLUSION Council is being asked to join the advocacy campaign to reverse the freezing of Financial Assistance Grants. This includes passing a resolution acknowledging the importance of Financial Assistance Grants from the Commonwealth and publicising the grants received in media releases and Council publications, so that the impact of the grants can be more broadly appreciated.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 73

6.4

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.5

ADDITIONAL PAID PARKING LOCATIONS

Author:

Ana Caicedo - Traffic & Transport Team Leader, City Development

Ward:

City Wide

File:

F2015/57

6.5

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

Previous Items Council on 20 October 2014 (Item 4.1 - Paid Parking in Banyule) Council on 18 August 2014 (Item 4.4 - Additional Paid Parking Locations in Heidelberg) Council on 9 June 2015 (Item 4.1 - Draft Banyule Integrated Transport Plan) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Approximately $70,000 of savings were generated by the changes in the scope for the 2014/15 paid parking projects and a successful tender process for the supply and installation of ticket machines. This offers the opportunity to expand the paid parking systems in Banyule. The parking occupancy levels for 12 locations across the municipality have been assessed, with results showing high usage across most locations. The cost of the installation of paid parking systems in half of the locations can be covered using the savings from the 2014/15 paid parking projects. The remaining locations are estimated to generate sufficient revenue to cover the cost of installation within a 1218 month period. The Heidelberg Car Parking Reserve has sufficient funds to cover the costs of installing paid parking systems at these locations. While it is appropriate to allocate revenue from paid parking systems into reserves for parking management, it is also appropriate that a portion of such revenue be allocated to General Revenue to provide for Council’s broader services. Therefore 33% of the paid parking system revenue is proposed to be allocated to General Revenue. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1.

Installs a paid parking system to operate weekdays between 8am and 5pm on Para Road, Greensborough, at the south-east corner of the intersection with Main Street. Initial parking fees to be $1 per hour, up to $5 per day, to be managed in accordance to Council’s Rates and Charges.

Modifies parking restrictions along Poulter Avenue, Greensborough, adjacent to the Poulter Avenue Reserve, to allow parking only on the east side of the road between 8am and 5pm on weekdays.

Installs a paid parking system to operate weekdays between 8am and 5pm on the east side of Poulter Avenue, adjacent to the Poulter Avenue Reserve. Initial parking fees to be $1 per hour, up to $5 per day, to be managed in accordance to Council’s Rates and Charges.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 74

ADDITIONAL PAID PARKING LOCATIONS cont’d

Installs a paid parking system to operate weekdays between 8am and 5pm on Somers Avenue, Macleod, adjacent to Macleod College. Initial parking fees to be $1 per hour, up to $5 per day, to be managed in accordance to Council’s Rates and Charges.

Installs a paid parking system to operate weekdays between 8am and 5pm on Turnham Avenue, Rosanna, south of Station Road. Initial parking fees to be $1 per hour, up to $5 per day, to be managed in accordance to Council’s Rates and Charges.

Installs a paid parking system to operate weekdays between 8am and 5pm on Station Road, Rosanna, west of Grove Road, adjacent to the Station Road Reserve. Initial parking fees to be $1 per hour, up to $5 per day, to be managed in accordance to Council’s Rates and Charges.

Installs a paid parking system to operate weekdays between 8am and 5pm in the on-street car park on the north side of Burgundy Street, Heidelberg, north of Jika Street. Initial parking fees to be $1 per hour, up to $5 per day, and to be managed in accordance with Council’s Rates and Charges.

Installs a paid parking system to operate weekdays between 8am and 4pm in the off-street car park in Heidelberg Park, Heidelberg. Initial parking fees to be $1 per hour, up to $5 per day, and to be managed in accordance with Council’s Rates and Charges.

Installs 2-hour parking restrictions to operate weekdays between 8am and 5pm in the gravel area on the south side of Burgundy Street, opposite to Heidelberg Park.

Installs 2-hour parking restrictions to operate weekdays between 8am and 4pm, or a paid parking system in the off-street car park on Warringal Park, Heidelberg. Initial parking fees to be $1 per hour, up to $5 per day, and to be managed in accordance with Council’s Rates and Charges.

10.

Installs a paid parking system to operate weekdays between 8am and 5pm on the south-east side of Sherwood Road, Eaglemont, between Thoresby Grove and Studley Road. Initial parking fees to be $1 per hour, up to $5 per day, to be managed in accordance to Council’s Rates and Charges.

11.

Installs a paid parking system to operate weekdays between 8am and 5pm on the east side of Salisbury Avenue, Ivanhoe. Initial parking fees to be $1 per hour, up to $5 per day, to be managed in accordance to Council’s Rates and Charges.

12.

Installs a paid parking system to operate weekdays between 8am and 5pm on the south side of Norman Street, Ivanhoe, between Noel Street and Marshall Street. Initial parking fees to be $1 per hour, up to $5 per day, to be managed in accordance to Council’s Rates and Charges.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 75

6.5

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.5

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

ADDITIONAL PAID PARKING LOCATIONS cont’d

13.

Authorises the purchase of ten parking ticket machines to be installed throughout the Municipality in the 2015/16 financial year utilising the savings from the 2014/15 Capital Works Projects related to paid parking systems in Heidelberg.

14.

Authorises the use of available funds in the Parking Meter Reserves for the installation of paid parking systems in the locations approved.

15.

Transfers annually 33% of the profits (revenue minus operating expenses) of paid parking systems into Council’s Main Revenue Account.

16.

Notifies the relevant traders associations and sports clubs of the relevant paid parking system in the vicinity of their respective activity centre or sporting club location.

OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act) requires members of Council staff, and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council, to disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates. Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. CITY PLAN This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “develop and deliver best value services and facilities”. HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered to determine if it raises any human rights issues. In particular, whether the scope of any human right established by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities is in any way limited, restricted or interfered with by the recommendations contained in this report. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues. BACKGROUND Management of parking around activity centres is governed by the Banyule Activity Centre Car Parking Policy and Strategy, which was adopted by Council in November 2010. The strategy acknowledges car parking as a valued and finite commodity, and seeks a strategic approach to car parking supply and management to recognise the competing needs of different users. Furthermore, the draft Banyule Integrated Transport Plan (BITP) is a long term strategic plan that aims to give long-term direction in transport and land use decisions in the municipality. It proposes parking to be approached as a limited resource and calls for the use of different tools to manage parking demand and supply, including paid parking systems.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 76

ADDITIONAL PAID PARKING LOCATIONS contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d Council allocated $132,000 in the 2014/15 Capital Works Program Budget to install and modify paid parking systems in Heidelberg, and at its meeting on 18 August 2014 resolved to re-scope the projects to implement paid parking systems to provide a more efficient use of resources. In December 2014, a tender process took place for the supply and installation of Pay and Display Ticket Machines at different locations. This process resulted in lower costs for the installation of paid parking systems for Council, and thus, additional savings for the 2014/15 paid parking Capital Works Projects. A report to Council in October 2014, highlighted that the existing paid parking spaces in Heidelberg and Greensborough are generally well utilised, with an average occupancy of 83%. This report suggests the use of the savings from the 2014/15 paid parking Capital Works Projects for the purchase of ticket machines to be installed at different locations within the next financial year. The report was initially presented to the Council Meeting on 9 June 2015 but was deferred to the meeting on 22 June 2015. PROPOSED LOCATIONS Greensborough With an important number of medical, educational and recreational services, significant retail activity, and a busy Railway Station, the demand for all-day parking in the Greensborough Activity Centre is high. Figure 1 shows the locations where it is proposed that paid parking systems are introduced in order to better manage the demand for long-term parking and encourage the use of alternative modes of transport to travel to Greensborough.

Figure 1. Proposed Additional Paid Parking Locations in Greensborough Parking is free and unrestricted on the identified parking areas for the Greensborough Activity Centre. The parking occupancy for each parking area has been assessed and is shown in Table 1. Overall the occupancy rate for these areas is 97%.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 77

6.5

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.5

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

ADDITIONAL PAID PARKING LOCATIONS contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d Table 1. Occupancy Rates for Proposed Additional Paid Parking Areas in Greensborough Parking area (as shown in Figure 1)

Available Average number parking of occupied spaces spaces

Occupancy rate

1 2

6 34

94% 98%

5.6 33.3

It is considered appropriate to install paid parking systems in Greensborough to operate weekdays between 8:00am and 5:00pm, with a $1/hour and up to $5/day fee. Currently, there are two indented parking bays on the east side of Poulter Avenue adjacent to the Reserve (area 2) with the capacity to accommodate 11 parked vehicles. South of these parking bays, parking is only allowed on the west side of the road on weekdays (Figure 2). It is recommended that the parking restrictions be modified to allow parking on the east side of the road only, where pedestrian facilities are available.

Figure 2. Parking on the west side of Poulter Avenue, opposite to the footpath The cost of the proposed modifications to the parking arrangements in Greensborough is summarised in Table 2. Table 2. Cost estimates for proposed works in Greensborough Parking area (as shown in Figure 1) 1 2

Proposed works Installation of one ticket machine Installation of signs Installation of three ticket machines Installation of signs

TOTAL

Estimated Cost $

7,000

21,500

28,500

Macleod A mix of commuters, and staff and visitors to the Banyule Netball Stadium, Macleod College, Macleod Village and Macleod Preschool use Somers Avenue (Figure 3) to park their vehicles for long periods of time.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 78

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.5

ADDITIONAL PAID PARKING LOCATIONS contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d

Figure 3. Proposed Additional Paid Parking Location in Macleod The parking occupancy rates for Somers Avenue, north to the access point to the NETS Stadium and south of Melrose Avenue has increased from 50% in September and October 2014, to 85% in February 2015, with an average occupancy rate over the last year of 62%. In order to manage the increasing demand for parking in this location, it is recommended that a paid parking system is installed to operate weekdays between 8:00am and 5:00pm, with a $1/hour and up to $5/day fee. With approximately 55 parking spaces available on Somers Avenue, adjacent to Macleod College, the installation of four ticket machines and parking signs is estimated at $28,000. Rosanna Following recent changes to the myki fare structure, a higher demand for parking for commuters has been evident around Rosanna Railway Station. Concerns have been raised by, and a great number of residential streets in the vicinity of the Railway Station have had timed parking restrictions installed in the last three months.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 79

6.5

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

ADDITIONAL PAID PARKING LOCATIONS contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d

Figure 4. Proposed Additional Paid Parking Location in Rosanna The occupancy rate for long-term parking on Turnham Avenue, south of Station Road (area 4 in Figure 4), and on Station Road, adjacent to the Station Road Reserve (area 5 in Figure 4) is about 100% during weekdays. Table 3 shows the average occupancy rate for these areas. Table 3. Occupancy Rates for Proposed Additional Paid Parking Areas in Rosanna Parking area (as shown in Figure 4)

Available Average number parking of occupied spaces spaces

Occupancy rate

4 5

31 9

100% 96%

31.0 8.6

With the objective of better managing the existing demand for long-term parking, the installation of paid parking systems in the identified areas in Rosanna is recommended. It is proposed that long-term parking is initially charged at a $1/hour and up to $5/day fee, weekdays between 8:00am and 5:00pm. The total cost for the installation of the proposed paid parking systems in Rosanna is approximately $21,000 as detailed in Table 4. Table 4. Cost estimates for proposed works in Rosanna Parking area (as shown in Figure 4)

Proposed works

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Estimated Cost

Page 80

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

Installation of two ticket machines Installation of signs Installation of one ticket machine Installation of signs

4 5 TOTAL

14,000

7,000

21,000

6.5

ADDITIONAL PAID PARKING LOCATIONS cont’d

Heidelberg While paid parking systems in Heidelberg have been implemented around Heidelberg’s Medical Precinct, the Heidelberg Structure Plan identified an increase in parking demand at the office and commercial precinct to the east of Rosanna Road and recommended that “parking management embeds the philosophy that parking is a privilege within a highly sought after location”.

Figure 5. Heidelberg office and commercial precinct parking areas The supply for the Heidelberg office and commercial precinct parking demand is concentrated in the four car parking areas shown in Figure 5. Parking is free and unrestricted on the identified parking areas. Table 5 shows the occupancy rate for each parking area. Overall, the occupancy rate for the area is about 38%. Table 5. Occupancy rates for parking areas in the Heidelberg office and commercial precinct Parking area (as shown in Figure 5)

Available Average number parking of occupied spaces spaces

Occupancy rate

6 7 8 9

13 172 27 197

69% 60% 71% 12%

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

9.0 102.8 19.3 24

Page 81

6.5

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

ADDITIONAL PAID PARKING LOCATIONS contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d In order to better manage parking demand and to embed the philosophy that parking is a privilege (as identified in the Heidelberg Structure Plan) some paid parking systems have already been installed in Heidelberg. As highlighted in Table 5, the demand for long-term parking (over four hours of stay) is high in the areas marked 6 and 8 in Figure 5. It is considered that drivers are attracted to the on-street parking on Burgundy Street (area 6) due its proximity to the core of the Heidelberg Activity Centre. Given that the occupancy rate with the existing parking restrictions is at an acceptable level, no time restrictions are proposed at this location. It is considered appropriate to install a paid parking system to operate weekdays between 8:30am and 5:00pm, with a $1/hour and up to $5/day fee. The available kerb space allows for 13 vehicles to be accommodated, and the nature strip width allows for a ticket machine to be installed serving these spaces. The Heidelberg Park off-street car park (area 7) is well utilised during work hours by all-day parkers, and on the weekends and after work hours by people visiting the sports ground. It is recommended that the parking spaces are delineated and that six ticket machines are installed in the area. It is considered appropriate to install the paid parking system with the same fee structure as the proposed for the 13 on-street spaces on Burgundy Street (area 6). A modified end time of 4pm is considered to accommodate needs for the sports facilities in this location. Although the gravel area off Burgundy Street (area 8) has the highest occupancy rate, the parking demand is considered temporary. It is considered that the high occupancy levels are due to a private building project in the area, and that most of the cars belong to tradesmen working on the developments (see Figure 6).

Figure 6. Large vehicles in the parking area off Burgundy Street, Heidelberg (area 8, Figure 5) Given the proximity of area 8 to the shared trails and tennis courts in the area, and the low occupancy rates of area 9 it is considered appropriate to install 2-hour parking restrictions to operate weekdays between 8:00am and 5:00pm, to provide parking opportunities for visitors to the parklands and tennis courts.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 82

ADDITIONAL PAID PARKING LOCATIONS contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d

The cost of the proposed modifications to the parking arrangements is estimated at $52,000 and summarised in Table 6. Table 6. Cost estimates for proposed works in Heidelberg Parking area (as shown in Figure 5) 6 7 8 9 TOTAL

Proposed works Installation of one ticket machine Installation of signs Installation of six ticket machines Installation of signs Installation of line marking Installation of signs Installation of signs

Estimated Cost $

7,000

42,000

$ $ $

500 2,500 52,000

Eaglemont A combination of staff from the Heidelberg medical precinct and commuters park in Sherwood Road (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Proposed Additional Paid Parking Location in Eaglemont The lack of kerb on the south-east side of Sherwood Road, between Marshall Street and the southern leg of Thoresby Grove, allows motorists to park their vehicles on the road reserve. The section of road between the northern leg of Thoresby Road and Studley Road does have a kerb and a footpath is provided (Figure 8).

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 83

6.5

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.5

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

ADDITIONAL PAID PARKING LOCATIONS contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d

Figure 8. Road configuration for Sherwood Rd, Eaglemont between Marshall St and Studley Road The average occupancy rate in the area between Studley Road and Thoresby Grove (with kerb and nature strip) for the last year was 72%. It is recommended that a paid parking system is installed to operate weekdays between 8:00am and 5:00pm, with a $1/hour and up to $5/day fee. With approximately 13 parking spaces available on this section, the installation of one ticket machine and parking signs is estimated to cost $7,000. Ivanhoe With a high level of retail, education, and recreation activity in addition to two Railway Stations, the parking demand around the Ivanhoe Activity Centre is increasing.

Figure 9. Proposed Additional Paid Parking Location in Ivanhoe Parking around the Darebin and Ivanhoe Railway Stations is free and unrestricted, with an average occupancy rate of 66%. Table 7 shows the parking rates on

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 84

ADDITIONAL PAID PARKING LOCATIONS contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d Salisbury Avenue (area 11 in Figure 9), and on Norman Street, between Noel Street and Marshall Street (area 12 in Figure 9). Table 7. Occupancy Rates for Additional Paid Parking Areas in Ivanhoe Parking area (as shown in Figure 9)

Available Average number parking of occupied spaces spaces

Occupancy rate

11 12

48 18

63% 74%

30.2 13.3

The road configuration of Salisbury Avenue allows for vehicles to be parked parallel to the kerbed areas and angled parking elsewhere (Figure 10). It is proposed that the angled bays are delineated using yellow round pavement markers.

Figure 10. Road configuration for Salisbury Ave, Ivanhoe between Rockbeare Grove and Buchanan Street The installation of a paid parking system for Salisbury Avenue and Norman Street is recommended. It is proposed that the system operates weekdays between 8am and 5pm with an initial fee of $1/hour and up to $5/day. Table 8 summarises the cost of the supply and installation of the ticket machines, and related sign works. Table 8. Cost estimates for proposed works in Ivanhoe Parking area (as shown in Figure 4) 11

Proposed works Installation of four ticket machines Installation of signs Installation of yellow round pavement markers Installation of two ticket machines Installation of signs

TOTAL

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Estimated Cost

30,000

14,000

44,000

Page 85

6.5

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.5

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

ADDITIONAL PAID PARKING LOCATIONS contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d DISCUSSION The traders associations have been notified of the proposed locations of paid parking included in this report and concerns have been raised by some Traders Associations about the potential impacts on their centres. All of the locations suggested are across non-residential or private land and predominantly look to manage commuter parking associated with railway stations. In the case of the Heidelberg Activity Centre the proposed locations are also intended to help manage employee parking associated with the court complex. It is not expected that the introduction of paid parking in the proposed locations will affect visitors to the Activity Centres or the economic viability of the centres. In some locations parking may be dislocated and spill into surrounding residential areas. Should this occur it is anticipated that the affected areas would be consulted on the introduction of time restrictions. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The estimated total cost to install paid parking systems at the proposed locations is $180,500. It is recommended that the savings from the 2014/15 Capital Works Projects are utilised to purchase ten ticket machines, with the remainder of the cost being covered from funds from the Car Parking Reserves. The Reserve has sufficient funds to cover for the costs of installing paid parking systems at these locations, and it is estimated that the new paid parking systems will generate sufficient revenue to cover the cost of installation within a 12-18 month period. Currently, over 80% of the revenue from the paid parking systems in the Municipality is generated in Heidelberg. In accordance to previous Council Resolutions, these funds are transferred into the Heidelberg Car Parking Account and are used to improve parking management in the area. While it is appropriate to allocate revenue from paid parking systems into reserves for parking management in the area, it is also appropriate that a portion of such revenue be allocated to General Revenue to provide for Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s broader services. Therefore 33% of the paid parking system profit (revenue minus operating expenses) is proposed to be allocated to General Revenue. CONCLUSION The redefinition of the 2014/15 paid parking projects, and the successful tender process for the supply and installation of ticket machines, led to an efficient use of the allocated funds for Capital Works Program, and offer the opportunity to expand the paid parking systems in Banyule. The parking occupancy levels for 12 locations across the municipality were assessed, with results showing high usage across most locations. The cost of the installation of paid parking systems can be covered using the savings from the 2014/15 paid parking projects and available funds from the Parking Reserve.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 86

ADDITIONAL PAID PARKING LOCATIONS contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d It is considered appropriate that a portion of the revenue from paid parking systems be allocated to General Revenue to provide for Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s broader services. Therefore 33% of the paid parking system profits (revenue minus operating expenses) is proposed to be allocated to General Revenue.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 87

6.5

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.6

SUMMARY OF 2015 BANYULE COMMUNITY SATISFACTION SURVEY RESULTS

Author:

Allister Crawford - Senior Business Services Officer, Corporate Services

File:

F2015/167

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents a summary of highlight findings from the Office of Local Government 2015 State Wide Community Satisfaction Survey. The report summarises the key overarching results of the Survey and Council’s relative performance against Metropolitan and State-wide benchmarking. Council’s overall performance for 2015 has been very positive with an increased result in eleven (11) performance areas since 2014. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1.

Note the summary report on Banyule’s results from the 2015 Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey; and.

Publish the 2015 Community Satisfaction Survey Results report for Banyule on Council’s website.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 88

6.6

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.6

SUMMARY OF 2015 BANYULE COMMUNITY SATISFACTION SURVEY RESULTS cont’d This is the fourth survey Banyule has participated in under the new improved methodology. This follows on from 14 years of annual Community Satisfaction Surveys undertaken across Victorian local governments. A total of 400 completed interviews were achieved in Banyule City Council. Survey fieldwork was conducted in the period of 1 February – 30 March 2015. The 2014 results against which 2015 results are compared involved a total of n=400 completed interviews in Banyule City Council conducted in the period of 31 January – 11 March, 2014. ADVOCACY The information contained in the detail of the report articulates many of the key areas of concern for our community and provides important indicators for the future direction of advocacy issues for Council. The Survey also directly deals with the Community’s perception of the importance of advocacy, and Councils’ performance on behalf of the Community in the advocacy sphere. HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER Victoria's Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities (the Charter) outlines the basic human rights of all people in Victoria. The Charter requires that governments, local councils and other public authorities comply with Charter and to consider relevant Charter rights when they make decisions. In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. FUNDING IMPLICATIONS The results of the Survey are used as a tool to further inform Council regarding the views of the community around Council services and the community’s perceptions of value for money. This information helps Council form its views as to the areas of concern the community may have for the   

Increased application of resources. The balance of rates vs services The perceptions of quality and satisfaction around service provision

The information is part of a broad suite of data that helps inform our decision making and policy development. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The results of the satisfaction survey are used as a tool to further to inform Council as to the views of the community around our services. The information is part of a broad suite of data that helps inform our decision making and policy development.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 89

6.6

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

SUMMARY OF 2015 BANYULE COMMUNITY SATISFACTION SURVEY RESULTS cont’d CONSULTATION The survey captured the views of 400 residents and is a reliable and statistically valid sample of the views of the community using minimum quotas of gender within age groups, and post-survey weighting to ensure accurate representation of Banyule’s age groups and gender profile. The changed and improved methodology of the survey now has 4 years of data to compare with trends emerging for use by Council. In 2015 the “Inner Metropolitan” comparison group category was altered to “Metropolitan” Council group (or “Metro”) as part of an updated classification preference by Local Government Victoria. For 2015 this included an extra 5 Councils and has altered some comparable trend data. As in previous years, the report of Banyule’ Customer Satisfaction Survey Results has been made available to the public by being published on Banyule’s website and it is intend that this occur again for the 2015 results. DISCUSSION Banyule City Council’s 2015 Overall Performance Index rating is 69. This is 1 point higher than 2014, and not a significant shift at the overall residential level. Council’s rated Overall Performance is higher than the Metropolitan average (67) and significantly higher than the State average (60). Council’s Community Consultation Performance is also higher when compared to the Metropolitan and State average. Council has also improved its Advocacy Performance when compared to previous years which is equal to Metropolitan and higher than State averages. Whilst Customer Service Performance dropped in comparison to Banyule’s own benchmark the 2015 result continues to be high with equal to Metropolitan and higher than State average. Overall Council Direction achieved an Index of 53, a decline by 2 points relative to 2014, and on a par with the State average and below the Metropolitan average. Figure 1. Key performance Comparison by previous Years and Benchmarks Performance Measures OVERALL PERFORMANCE COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (Community consultation and engagement) ADVOCACY (Lobbying on behalf of the community) CUSTOMER SERVICE OVERALL COUNCIL DIRECTION

Banyule 2013

Banyule 2014

Banyule 2015

Metro 2015

State-wide 2015

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 90

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.6

SUMMARY OF 2015 BANYULE COMMUNITY SATISFACTION SURVEY RESULTS cont’d Figure 2. Key performance comparisons by Year, Benchmark, & Demographic Performance Measures

Banyule 2015

OVERALL PERFORMANCE COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (Community consultation and engagement) ADVOCACY (Lobbying on behalf of the community) CUSTOMER SERVICE OVERALL COUNCIL DIRECTION

69 59

vs. Banyule 2014 1 point higher 2 points higher

vs. Melbourne Metro 2015 2 points higher 1 point higher

vs. Statewide 2015

Highest score amongst

Lowest score amongst

9 points higher 3 points higher

Women

Men

Women

Men

3 points higher

Equal

3 points higher

Women

Men

5 points lower 2 points lower

Equal

3 points higher Equal

65+ year olds 18-34 year olds

Men

3 points lower

35-49 year olds

As shown in the following table, the number of people reporting having contact with Council in the last 12 months is relatively high in the context of the overall population and is on a par with other metropolitan Councils. This underlines the importance of data such as this, and Council’s ongoing service provision. Number of Respondents who have had contact with Council in the last 12 months 2015

2014

2013

2012

Have had Contact

65%

68%

64%

57%

Have not had contact

35%

32%

36%

43%

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 91

6.6

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

SUMMARY OF 2015 BANYULE COMMUNITY SATISFACTION SURVEY RESULTS cont’d The following results table summarises responses to naming “ONE best thing” about Council and “MOST need to do” to improve Council performance. Overall “ONE best thing” & “MOST needs to improve performance” Services and Issues Where Council Is Doing Best in Parks and gardens

% of responses 18

Services and Issues Where Council Needs to Improve Traffic management

Recreational/Sporting facilities Customer service Positive Community facilities

Communication

Inappropriate development Parking availability

Waste management

Roads/Street Maintenance Environmental

Public areas

Community consultation Sealed road maintenance Customer Service

Generally Good Overall / No Complaints Community/Public Events/Activities Nothing

Don’t Know

Nothing

% of responses 10

5 5

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 92

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.6

SUMMARY OF 2015 BANYULE COMMUNITY SATISFACTION SURVEY RESULTS contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d Banyuleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Index results are at equal or higher levels for most key comparators (Overall Performance, Community Consultation, Advocacy, Customer Service) for both Metropolitan and State-wide groupings. Comparing levels Banyule achieved in 2014 across the 18 Service areas, 4 are at the same level, 11 have increased and 3 have decreased, in Performance Index ratings. The table following provides this key summary. Service Area

Banyule (2015)

Banyule (2014)

Metro (2015)

State-wide (2015)

Overall Performance Community Consultation Advocacy (Lobbying) Customer Service Overall Council Direction Making Decisions (cmmty best interest) Sealed Local Roads Informing the community Local streets & footpaths Traffic management Parking facilities Enforcement of local laws Family support services Elderly support services Disadvantaged support serv. Recreational facilities Appearance of public areas Art centres and libraries Community & cultural Waste management Bus/community dev./tourism

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 93

6.6

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

SUMMARY OF 2015 BANYULE COMMUNITY SATISFACTION SURVEY RESULTS contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d General town planning policy Planning & building permits Environmental sustainability Emergency & disaster mngt Community connection * Feeling of safety *

6.3 7.7

6.2 7.7

* Tailored questions unique to Banyule, based on average rating out of 10

CONCLUSION Council continues to respond and deliver well on a State-wide and Metropolitan sector comparative basis in the Annual Community Satisfaction Survey. Council will continue to analyse the detailed information and will utilise this information to help plan for future services of importance to the community. The survey also provides Council with a strong understanding around several key advocacy issues that need to be taken up for the community, particularly in the areas of traffic management, planning, and support services. Council is able to adjust how it responds to the information that has been gathered, and will continue to seek ways in which Council can communicate effectively with the community.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 94

6.7

COMMUNITY CHEF - OFFER OF ADDITIONAL SHARES IN REGIONAL KITCHEN

Author:

John Minchinton - Co-ordinator Home Support Services (HACC), Community Programs

File:

F2014/4666

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2007, Banyule Council joined a number of other Victorian Councils to form a business enterprise to produce delivered meals under the Home and Community Care (HACC) program for eligible residents. A regional kitchen was developed and two (2) joint venture companies were formed:  RFK Pty Ltd trading as Community Chef, (the production company)  Regional Kitchen Pty Ltd, (the land and building company). Shareholding is limited to local government and Banyule is a current shareholder in both companies. Council has been offered an option to purchase an additional twenty (20) or part there of shares in the Regional Kitchen Pty Ltd (which is part of Community Chef). The purchase price of each share is $18,000 with a potential total cost of $360,000. Regional Kitchen's position of financial strength is underpinned by its land, building and plant asset base, however , cash flow and capacity to repay loans is dependent on Community Chef's top line meal orders and bottom line profitability. The 2014/15 budget was its sixth since Community Chef commenced production in November 2010. The forecast 14/15 year end sales of $9.84M are $1.46M below the budget of $11.3M for the full year and are a further $800,000 less than that achieved in the 2013/14 year. Council needs to ensure that any additional investment will continue to perform at the growth of the existing shares in the future. This is uncertain at this time and with the current environment of rate capping, committing to the allocation of unbudgeted funds would not be advisable unless the long term investment benefit was established. RECOMMENDATION That Council not purchase any additional shares in the Regional Kitchen at this time.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 95

6.7

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.7

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

COMMUNITY CHEF - OFFER OF ADDITIONAL SHARES IN REGIONAL KITCHEN cont’d OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act) requires members of Council staff, and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council, to disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates. Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. CITY PLAN This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “provide responsible financial management and business planning processes”. BACKGROUND In 2007, Banyule Council joined a number of other Victorian Councils to form a business enterprise to produce delivered meals under the Home and Community Care (HACC) program for eligible residents. A regional kitchen was developed and two (2) joint venture companies were formed:  RFK Pty Ltd trading as Community Chef, (the production company)  Regional Kitchen Pty Ltd, (the land and building company). Shareholding is limited to local government and Banyule is a current shareholder in both companies. Community Chef has now been operating for four (4) years and in that time has become a highly efficient business while also meeting the community needs in relation to Delivered Meals for HACC eligible clients. HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER Victoria's Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities (the Charter) outlines the basic human rights of all people in Victoria. The Charter requires that governments, local councils and other public authorities comply with Charter and to consider relevant Charter rights when they make decisions. In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues. CURRENT SITUATION Regional Kitchen's position of financial strength is underpinned by its land, building and plant asset base, however , cash flow and capacity to repay loans is dependent on Community Chef's top line meal orders and bottom line profitability.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 96

COMMUNITY CHEF - OFFER OF ADDITIONAL SHARES IN REGIONAL KITCHEN contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d The 2014/15 budget was its sixth since Community Chef commenced production in November 2010. The forecast 14/15 year end sales of $9.84M are $1.46M below the budget of $11.3M for the full year and are a further $800,000 less than that achieved in the 2013/14 year. This reflected the continued slide in sales to council customers and the further increase of inhouse production at Healthe Care. The new reality for Community Chef is that it is a business in transition and whilst the business will remain fundamentally committed to providing quality meals to its shareholder councils it will also focus on securing customers in the retirement village and aged care sectors, capturing a larger market share in the care package sector and exploring further opportunities in the toll manufacturing sector. This will not be an overnight transition and will require the continued support of shareholders together with support from the Victorian State Government to ensure the financial viability of the organisation for the next three years. Founding member Moreland City Council has withdrawn from the Regional Kitchen enterprise and sold their twenty (20) shares back to RFK Pty Ltd for a nominal price of $1.00. These shares are now available for all other shareholder members to purchase at $18,000 per share. The funds from this purchase of shares will help secure the financial future of the Regional Kitchen enterprise. FUNDING IMPLICATIONS Council currently has 23 shares in RFK Pty Ltd with an estimated value of $414,000. The original purchase of 20 shares in 2010 and a further 3 shares in 2013 was at a cost to council of $230,000 or $10,000 per share. Council has an option to accept the offer of additional shares or to decline the offer. The option to purchase these shares has come outside of the current budget process and is consequently unfunded. Therefore consideration needs to be made in regard to the use of General Reserves to fund this proposal. TIMELINES Each shareholder council will be notified in due course of the process for submitting an expression of interest in purchasing all or some of the available shares. CONCLUSION The purpose of the new share issues is to raise capital to enhance the financial future of RFK Pty Ltd. Council has no obligation to purchase any of the shares on offer. As a current shareholder Council is committed to the ongoing financial success of Community Chef and Regional Kitchen. In addition Council is also committed to the current operations and objectives of Community Chef in meeting the needs of our community in regard to delivered meals.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 97

6.7

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.7

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

COMMUNITY CHEF - OFFER OF ADDITIONAL SHARES IN REGIONAL KITCHEN contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d Whilst the purchase of additional shares supports the ongoing sustainability of Community Chef and Regional Kitchen and provides for business improvement opportunities to improve Council's current investment these companies, Council needs to ensure the additional investment will continue to perform at the growth of the existing shares in the future. In addition, with the current environment of rate capping, committing to the allocation of unbudgeted funds would not be appropriate at this time unless the long term investment benefit was established.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 98

6.8

COUNCILLOR REPORT ON CONFERENCES ATTENDANCE

Author:

Gabrielle Hegarty - Council Governance Liaison Officer, Corporate Services

File:

F2013/1363

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In accordance with the Councillors Resource, Expense and Entitlements Policy, Councillors are required to report on their attendance at any interstate or overseas conferences or visits. The ALGWA Biennial Conference – Step Up & Top Up and Beyond the Walls Public Library Tour was recently held in Adelaide, accordingly a report has been prepared providing feedback from the Councillors who attended. RECOMMENDATION That the Councillor Report on Attendance at Conference/Visit Requiring Interstate or Overseas Travel regarding the ALGWA Biennial Conference – Step Up & Top Up on 26 – 28 March 2015 and Beyond the Walls Public Library Tour held in Adelaide on 25 March 2015 be noted. OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act) requires members of Council staff, and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council, to disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates. Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. CITY PLAN This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “develop and deliver best value services and facilities”. BACKGROUND Under the Banyule Councillors Resource, Expense and Entitlements Policy, Councillors are required to report on their attendance at any interstate or overseas conferences or visits. Attached is the completed Councillor Report on Attendance at Conference/Visit Requiring Interstate or Overseas Travel for the ALGWA Biennial Conference – Step Up & Top Up on 26 – 28 March 2015 and Beyond the Walls Public Library Tour held in Adelaide on 25 March 2015.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 99

6.8

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.8

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

COUNCILLOR REPORT ON CONFERENCES ATTENDANCE cont’d CONFERENCE DETAILS Councillor:

Jenny Mulholland

Conference Details:

ALGWA Biennial Conference – Step Up & Top Up 26 – 28 March 2015

Councillor:

Jenny Mulholland & Craig Langdon

Conference Details:

Beyond the Walls Public Library Tour held in Adelaide on 25 March 2015

ATTACHMENTS No.

Title

Councillor Report on attendance at conference visit requiring interstate or overseas travel.

193

Photos taken from the Library Tour as part of the Conference

197

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page

Page 100

6.9

ITEMS FOR NOTING

Author:

Fleur Anderson - Environment Officer, City Development

File:

D15/79502

6.9

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

RECOMMENDATION That Council note the following minutes/reports: 1.

Banyule Environmental Advisory Committee May 2015 Notes.

The following Minutes or Reports are presented for noting: 1

Report/Committee Name: .Officer: Brief explanation:

Banyule Environmental Advisory Committee (BEAC) Fleur Anderson BEAC held its monthly meeting on 13 May 2015 at the Nellie Ibbott Room, Ivanhoe. The Notes from the meeting are in Attachment 1. The aim of BEAC is to provide Council with advice on environmental issues in Banyule. John D’Aloia (community member) chaired the meeting and Councillor Briffa attended the meeting. Councillor Craig Langdon was present between 8:50pm – 9:15pm. Six committee members attended the meeting. BEAC gave the following advice on Item 15.07 – Council Draft Budget – Implications (DK):  

BEAC encourage Council to advocate to the State Government to cease rate capping measures. Council return the Environmental Planning budget to the previous amount.

ATTACHMENTS No.

Title

Banyule Environmental Advisory Committee May NOTES 2015

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 201

Page 101

6.10

ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS

Author:

Cindy Ho - Governance Officer, Corporate Services

File:

F2014/337

6.10

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Under the Local Government Act 1989 an Assembly of Councillors is defined as: A meeting of an advisory committee of the Council, if at least one Councillor is present or; A planned or scheduled meeting of at least half of the Councillors and one member of Council staff which considers matters that are intended or likely to be: a) b)

the subject of a decision of the Council or; subject to the exercise of a function, duty or power of the Council that has been delegated to a person or committee.

In accordance with Section 80A of the Local Government Act 1989 Council is required to report as soon as possible to an Ordinary Meeting of Council a record of any assemblies of Councillors held. Below is the latest listing of notified assemblies of Councillors held at Banyule City Council. RECORD OF ASSEMBLIES 1

Date of Assembly:

13 May 2015

Type of Meeting:

Banyule Environmental Advisory Committee

Matters Considered:

    

Environmental Sustainability Grants 2014 Update (FA) Integrated Transport Plan Update ESD Tour of Ivanhoe Aquatic Council Draft Budget – Implications State Budget and its implications for Local Government

Councillors Present:

Steven Briffa Craig Langdon

Staff Present:

Daniel Kollmorgen – Manager Transport, Sustainability & Municipal Laws Fleur Anderson – Environmental Officer Arun Chopra – Manager Capital Projects

Others Present:

John D’Aloia Alan Leenaerts – Geelong Performing Arts Centre Representative Denise Fernando Maree Keenan Peter Castaldo Johnathan Thom

Conflict of Interest:

Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 102

ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS cont’d 2

Date of Assembly:

25 May 2015

Type of Meeting:

Victorian Cross Estate Macleod – Workshop No.2

Matters Considered:

Victoria Cross Estate – Improving recognition project consistent with Council Report 23 March 2015.

Councillors Present:

Steven Briffa Craig Langdon Tom Melican Jenny Mulholland

Staff Present:

Michael Hutchison – Strategic Property Projects Manager

Others Present:

Nil

Conflict of Interest:

Nil

Date of Assembly:

1 June 2015

Type of Meeting:

Councillor Briefing

Matters Considered:

Garage Sale Trail – Presentation by Megan McLean and Andrew Valder on the Program

Councillors Present:

Steven Briffa Mark Di Pasquale Craig Langdon Tom Melican Jenny Mulholland Wayne Phillips

Staff Present:

Scott Walker – Director City Development Allison Beckwith – Director Community Programs Geoff Glynn – Director Assets & City Services Gina Burden – Acting Director Corporate Services

Others Present:

Megan McLean Andrew Valder

Conflict of Interest:

Nil

Date of Assembly:

2 June 2015

Type of Meeting:

Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Intersex (LGBTI) Advisory Committee

Matters Considered:



Councillors Present:

IDAHOT (International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia) Celebrations  LGBTI Plan and Proposed Budget  Summary of Survey on Year 1 of the Committee  Advocacy Issues Craig Langdon

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 103

6.10

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.10

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS cont’d Jenny Mulholland

Staff Present:

Lisa Raywood – Manager Health & Aged Services India Mortlock – Community and Social Planner

Others Present:

Meaghan Holden Sharelle Rowe Vita Catalano Nicole Coad Rachel Jovic Karen Joy Mccoll

Conflict of Interest:

Nil

Date of Assembly:

9 June 2015

Type of Meeting:

Councillor Briefing

Matters Considered:

Items on the Council Agenda for the Ordinary Meeting of 9 June 2015 (excluding confidential items) as listed below: 2.1 2.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7

4.8 4.9 5.1 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 7.1 8.1

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Olympic Village Learning Hub - Olympic Neighbourhood House Victorian State Disability Plan - Council Submission Draft Banyule Integrated Transport Plan Ivanhoe Grammar School Development Plan 2015-2021 North East Link - Quarterly Report Proposed nine to ten storey mixed use building at 4-6 Flintoff Street, Greensborough Draft Heidelberg and Bell Street Mall Parking Plan Update on the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Banksia Redevelopment Site and Banksia Community Stadium Precinct Project Update (Former Banksia Secondary College) Proposed apartment building at 13-17 Cartmell St Heidelberg Planning Scheme Amendment C93 - Ivanhoe Activity Centre Scheduled Special Council Meeting for 22 June 2015 - change to Ordinary Council Meeting Review of Opportunities for Advertising Signs on Council Land Carbon Tax Repeal Assessment Additional Paid Parking Locations Items for Noting Assembly of Councillors 1 Kalparrin Avenue Greensborough - New Lease - Commence statutory procedures Sealing of Documents Request Meeting with the Minister for Local

Page 104

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.10

ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS cont’d Government

Councillors Present:

Craig Langdon Tom Melican Jenny Mulholland

Staff Present:

Simon McMillan – Chief Executive Officer Scott Walker – Director City Development Allison Beckwith – Director Community Programs Daniel Kollmorgen – Manager Transport, Sustainability & Municipal Laws Gina Burden – Acting Director Corporate Services Vivien Ferlaino – Coordinator Governance James Kelly – Manager Assets & Infrastructure Joel Elbourne – Manager Urban Planning & Building Joseph Tabacco – Manager Property & Economic Development Andy Wilson –Planning Team Leader Bailey Byrnes – Transport Planning Team Leader David Bailey – Engineering Services Coordinator

Others Present:

Nil

Conflict of Interest:

Nil

Date of Assembly:

10 June 2015

Type of Meeting:

Banyule Environmental Advisory Committee

Matters Considered:

     

Council Draft Budget – Update State Budget and its implications for Local Government Divestment Update Environmental Sustainability Grants 2015 – Review Guidelines Change Makers Event – Evaluation Role for BEAC members Integrated Transport Plan

Councillors Present:

Steven Briffa Craig Langdon

Staff Present:

Daniel Kollmorgen – Manager Transport, Sustainability & Municipal Laws Fleur Anderson – Environmental Officer

Others Present:

John D’Aloia Alan Leenaerts – Geelong Performing Arts Centre Representative Denise Fernando Maree Keenan Peter Castaldo Johnathan Thom Matt Hall Kate Roberts

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 105

6.10

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d

Conflict of Interest:

Nil

RECOMMENDATION That the Assembly of Councillors report be received.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 106

8.1

CAP ON NUMBERS OF ELECTRONIC GAMING MACHINES

Author:

Cr Steven Briffa

File:

F2014/492-02

TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move:

“That Council investigate the options, process and capacity for introducing a municipal cap for Electronic Gaming Machines for the whole of Banyule.”

“That Council investigate the merits of inclusion of the Banyule Electronic Gaming Machine Policy within the Banyule Planning Scheme including consideration of the suitability of the policy for the Planning Scheme, the cost, time involved, likely success in amending the Scheme and subsequent likely effectiveness of the policy.”

Explanation There are currently 10 venues operating a total of 632 Electronic Gaming Machines (EGMs) within Banyule. In 2014/15 nearly $45.5 million was lost on EGMs by the community in Banyule. The regulation of EGMs in Victoria is managed by the Victorian Commission for Gaming and Liquor Regulation (VCGLR). The VCGLR sets municipal limits for EGMs, as well as regional caps for areas identified as particularly vulnerable to harm. The regional caps set the maximum number of EGMs allowed in an area. Some of the 20 caps are based on the whole municipality, whilst others (such as Banyule’s) are based on postcode. Thus postcode 3081 has a cap of 31 EGMs, whilst the rest of Banyule is subject to the municipal limit of ten EGMs per thousand adults. A change to include all of Banyule within a capped region would specify the maximum number of allowable EGMs, thus giving greater certainty and control over EGM numbers within Banyule. Any change to Banyule’s capped region needs to be approved by the Minister for Gaming through the VCGLR. Council adopted its amended Electronic Gaming Machine Policy in June 2014. Banyule’s Electronic Gaming Machine Policy adopts a public health approach to gambling and is designed to prevent and/or minimise potential harmful social and economic impacts of gambling. Whilst the policy is aimed at guiding Council’s decision making, it has not yet undergone a process to include it within the Banyule Planning Scheme and therefore is not a formal statutory document for consideration of the planning application. Council’s capacity to make decisions would be strengthened by inclusion within the Banyule Planning Scheme, although the cost and effort involved in inclusion needs to be considered having regard to the likely effectiveness.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 107

8.1

Notice of Motion

8.1

Notice of Motion

CAP ON NUMBERS OF ELECTRONIC GAMING MACHINES cont’d

CR STEVEN BRIFFA Hawdon Ward ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 108

8.2

RAIL LINK TO DONCASTER

Author:

Cr Craig Langdon

File:

F2014/492

8.2

Notice of Motion

TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move:

“That Council write to the Premier, Minister for Public Transport and all local members strongly advocating for a rail link to Doncaster as part of the proposed Alphington Paper Mills development. The letter should indicate that as the State Government has already committed to a new bridge at the Chandler Highway and the grade separation of the Grange Road railway crossing, it would also be appropriate for the State Government to consider reopening the Fairfield Railway spur, create a station at the former paper mills and continue the railway line along the freeway to Doncaster Shopping Town.”

“That Council write to the Mayor & Councillors of the Cities of Manningham, Darebin and Yarra seeking their support for this proposal. If all are supportive a meeting be arranged with the Mayors and CEOs of the Councils to co-ordinate our advocacy and to arrange a meeting with the Minister for Public Transport.”

“All local Federal and State Members of Parliament be advised of this resolution.”

Explanation The proposed development of the Alphington Paper Mills site is a once in a generation opportunity to have a long term vision for public transport within the Cities of Banyule, Darebin, Manningham and Yarra. The proposed development will create a significantly higher density of new homes/units/apartments including a shopping precinct which can be better served by including a railway station within the site. The railway line could then be extended to the Doncaster Hill to accommodate the large number of multi-storey housing developments. This proposal could greatly reduce or at least limit the number of vehicle movements on Heidelberg Road, Chandler Highway, Eastern Freeway and Hoddle Street which are becoming more and more gridlocked.

CR CRAIG LANGDON Olympia Ward

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 109

8.2

Notice of Motion

RAIL LINK TO DONCASTER cont’d ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 110

8.3

SIMPSON BARRACKS

Author:

Cr Craig Langdon & Cr Mark Di Pasquale

File:

F2014/492

8.3

Notice of Motion

TAKE NOTICE that it is our intention to move: â&#x20AC;&#x153;That Council write to the Federal Minister for Defence, the Victorian Treasurer and all local Federal and State Members of Parliament, advising that: 1.

Council strongly oppose any future development of land within the Simpson Army Barracks precinct for residential and affordable housing purposes.

While Banyule Council fully supports affordable housing, it firmly believes that the Simpson Barracks should remain for the Defence Forces and any addition housing should only be for the defence personnel and their families.

Any surplus land within the Simpson Barracks precinct is natural bushland and acts as a wildlife corridor. Any development of this land could therefore compromise the security of the barracks and greatly damage the native bird and wildlife.â&#x20AC;?

Explanation The Victorian Treasurer on Sunday 14th June 2015 called on the Federal Government to release surplus defence land for affordable housing and Watsonia (Simpson Barracks) was listed as one possible site. Many large sections of Simpson Barracks land was sold and developed under the Hawke Government. Most of that surplus land was not natural bush land but open paddocks used by pony clubs. The large sections of bushland both on the east and west of the barracks was left untouched. With increased housing density this bushland has become more and more important to our native bird and wildlife. In more recent times the Federal Government has at some considerable expense made the site more secure and any additional housing may compromise the security of the Barracks.

CR CRAIG LANGDON Olympia Ward

CR MARK DI PASQUALE Bakewell Ward

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 22 June 2015

Page 111

ATTACHMENTS

4.2

Amendment to Permit for a new Carport at 2/1 Della Torre Crescent, Ivanhoe (P352/2013) Attachment 1 Attachment 2

4.4

Proposed Apartment Building at 13-17 Cartmell Street Heidelberg Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3

6.2

Summary of Consideration of Submissions Received on the Proposed Budget 2015/2016 (and Draft City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 3)) ..........................................................................................189

Councillor Report on Conferences Attendance Attachment 1 Attachment 2

6.9

Architectural Plans ...........................................................................123 Background Information ..................................................................165 Assessment against Higher Density Guidelines ..............................177

Adoption of Budget for Period 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016 Attachment 1

6.8

Advertised plans ..............................................................................115 Technical consideration ...................................................................119

Councillor Report on attendance at conference visit requiring interstate or overseas travel. ...........................................................193 Photos taken from the Library Tour as part of the Conference ........197

Items for Noting Attachment 1

Banyule Environmental Advisory Committee May NOTES 2015 ................................................................................................201

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 113

4.2

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 115

Attachment 1

4.2

Item: 4.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 116

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

4.2

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 117

Attachment 2: Technical consideration

TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION

4.2

Item: 4.2

REFERRAL COMMENTS Engineering The application was referred to Council’s Engineering Department for comment. The following comments were provided: o

Two or more vehicle crossings will be considered where two or more dwellings are proposed on a corner site. In assessing an application for two or more vehicle crossings for a concern site, the following criteria will be taken into account:  The vehicle crossing must not be located within 9 metres of the fence line of an intersecting street.

 As such, for the subject site, the widening of the existing crossover would not be supported. Construction The application was referred to Council’s Construction Department for comment. The following comment was formally provided:  The widening of the crossover would not be supported as it does not meet Council’s specifications. On corner lots, the crossover must be a minimum of 9 metres from the intersection of the lot boundaries. The following comment was informally provided:  The widened portion of the crossover between the property boundary and the footpath does not have Construction approval. Parks and Gardens The application was informally referred to Council’s Parks and Gardens Department for comment regarding the removal of a Weeping Bottle Brush (Callistemon viminalis) street tree that was located in close proximity to the crossover prior to its widening. No records were found stating that the removal of this street tree was granted. Building The application was informally referred to Council’s Building Department regarding clarification over the need to gain a Building Permit. It was outlined that retrospective Building approval would be required and if the building assessment found that the structure is not in accordance with the applicable building regulations, then the structure will be required to be brought up to standard before gaining Building approval. CLAUSE 22.02 RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER POLICY The subject site is located within Garden Suburban Precinct 3 within Clause 22.02 Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy. This precinct seeks to maintain and enhance the character of the area through various design and landscaping measures, including low front fencing with landscaped front gardens, landscaping the front setback to improve the garden setting and discourage car parking in front of dwellings, enhancing avenues of street trees, by designing developments within only one single width crossover and a driveway that is softened with curves and vegetation, and by ensuring carports and garages do not dominate the streetscape.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 119

Attachment 2

 Council’s Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy states the following:

4.2

Item: 4.2

Attachment 2: Technical consideration

OVERLAY PROVISIONS Schedule 1 to the Environmental Significance Overlay requires planning approval for both the construction of a fence and the shade sail carport structure. It seeks to achieve this by aiming to have 50% of site available for native vegetation, lawn and other pervious space, by maintaining the natural environment as the dominant visual element of the area, and by the effect of the development on the natural ecosystems.

Attachment 2

PARTICULAR PROVISIONS Clause 52.06 Car Parking states that ground level car parking must not visually dominate public space, that the design of car parks must take into account their use as entry points to the site, and that landscaping and trees must be planted to provide shade and shelter, and soften the appearance of ground level car parking. TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION The bin storage area and the associated fencing around it has been designed and located to incorporate into the surrounding built forms on the site and are not considered to compromise the streetscape. Due to the location and limited visual impacts of the bin storage area on the streetscape, the removal of Condition 1 (d) is considered to be acceptable. However, the proposed removal of conditions relating to the size of the carport, the need to align the car space and fencing with the existing single width crossover, and the additional concrete next to the crossover are not supported due to the following:  The double width carport structure is of greater visual dominance on the streetscape than the previously approved single width carport. The structure is considered to be contrary to the neighbourhood character objective of minimising the visual dominance of car parking facilities.  The Kenilworth Parade boundary length for the subject lot is 14.267 metres. Due to the length of this frontage, the resulting impacts on landscaping opportunities along this streetscape, and the close proximity to the Della Torre Crescent-Kenilworth Parade “T” intersection, a double width crossover for this property would be contrary to the objectives and decision criteria of Council’s Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy.  As mentioned within the Engineering and Construction referral comments, due to the location of the crossover in relation to the Della Torre Crescent-Kenilworth Parade “T” intersection (less than 9 metres), modifications to this crossover would not be supported and would be contrary to Council’s crossover requirements.  The portion of the nature strip that has been concreted without Council’s consent results in reversing turning movements within the nature strip that are considered to be unsafe with regards to sight lines, turning movements in close proximity to the intersection, and the potential for vehicle access over the kerb.  The extent of hard paving throughout portion of the site that is north of the dwelling due to the double width car parking facility, the footpaths and the bin storage area result in a reduction of pervious surfaces by approximately 37 square metres. The remaining permeable space is limited to three small garden beds that cane enables the retention of one tree but can only accommodate the planting of some small shrubs. The concreted portion of the nature strip has also resulted in the loss of a Callistemon street tree, which further compromises the streetscape. The loss of permeable space for landscaping is considered to be detrimental to the preferred vegetated streetscape and the landscaping objectives within both Council’s Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy and Schedule 1 to the Environmental Significance Overlay. Due to the presentation of this frontage towards the Della Torre

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 120

Attachment 2: Technical consideration

Attachment 2

Crescent-Kenilworth Parade “T” intersection, the loss of landscaping opportunities is considered to be visually prominent on the streetscapes for both streets.  The lack of a replacement street tree for the removed Callistemon, which was located to the west of the crossover, is also considered contrary to the preferred neighbourhood character which seeks to ensure that street trees are provided to enhance the tree streetscapes. The removal of this street tree was required to accommodate the additional concrete within the nature strip to enable vehicle access to the widened car parking area.

4.2

Item: 4.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 121

4.4

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 123

Attachment 1

4.4

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 124

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

4.4

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 125

Attachment 1

4.4

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 126

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

4.4

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 127

Attachment 1

4.4

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 128

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

4.4

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 129

Attachment 1

4.4

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 130

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

4.4

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 131

Attachment 1

4.4

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 132

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

4.4

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 133

Attachment 1

4.4

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 134

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

4.4

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 135

Attachment 1

4.4

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 136

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

4.4

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 137

Attachment 1

4.4

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 138

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

4.4

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 139

Attachment 1

4.4

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 140

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

4.4

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 141

Attachment 1

4.4

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 142

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

4.4

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 143

Attachment 1

4.4

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 144

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

4.4

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 145

Attachment 1

4.4

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 146

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

4.4

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 147

Attachment 1

4.4

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 148

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

4.4

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 149

Attachment 1

4.4

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 150

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

4.4

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 151

Attachment 1

4.4

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 152

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

4.4

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 153

Attachment 1

4.4

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 154

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

4.4

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 155

Attachment 1

4.4

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 156

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

4.4

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 157

Attachment 1

4.4

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 158

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

4.4

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 159

Attachment 1

4.4

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 160

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

4.4

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 161

Attachment 1

4.4

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 162

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

4.4

Attachment 1: Architectural Plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 163

Attachment 2: Background Information

BACKGROUND INFORMATION P1345/2014

4.4

Item: 4.4

DETAILED PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION The plans assessed in this report are the advertised plans received by Council on 25 November 2014 but including amended ground floor plan received 25 February 2014.

Basement  A double width driveway ramp provides vehicle access. The ramp is located centrally to the building and leads to a basement which provides 66 car spaces.  62 spaces are proposed for residents of the 62 apartments, with 4 visitor spaces available.  The car parking is to use double stacker and multi stacker systems to enable sufficient car parking spaces within the limited basement area.  12 bicycle spaces are provided within the basement. with 6 spaces to be provided at rails on the nature strip for visitors. Ground level – 16 dwellings  12 x 1 bedroom apartments and 4 x 2 bedroom apartments.  Four of the 1 bedroom dwellings rely on borrowed light to the bedroom and all other dwellings have windows to all habitable rooms.  Balconies of 10 - 19sqm are provided on the east, south and west sides, with terraces provided within the front (north) setback to the dwellings fronting to Cartmell Street. Level 1– 16 dwellings  12 x 1 bedroom apartments and 4 x 2 bedroom apartments.  Four of the 1 bedroom dwellings rely on borrowed light to the bedroom, and all other dwellings have windows to all habitable rooms.  Balconies of 8 - 15sqm are provided. Level 2 – 14 dwellings  9 x 1 bedroom apartments and 5 x 2 bedroom apartments.  Three of the 1 bedroom dwellings rely on borrowed light to the bedroom and all other dwellings have windows to all habitable rooms.  Balconies of 8 - 15sqm are provided. Level 3 – 10 dwellings   

4 x 1 bedroom apartments and 6 x 2 bedroom apartments. Two of the 1 bedroom dwellings rely on borrowed light to the bedroom and all other dwellings have windows to all habitable rooms. Balconies of 10 - 21sqm are provided.

Fourth level – 6 dwellings   

2 x 1 bedroom apartments and 4 x 2 bedroom apartments. All dwellings have windows to all habitable rooms. Balconies of 17-44sqm are provided.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 165

Attachment 2

The proposal comprises a 5 storey plus basement residential apartment building providing 62 dwellings with a shared single level basement car park In summary:

4.4

Item: 4.4

Attachment 2: Background Information

The building has two entrances, located roughly centrally to the site frontage and leading directly into a foyer and then to lift and stairwell. Access is also provided from the basement carpark.

Attachment 2

The proposal comprises two main buildings connected at basement level. The buildings have a street setback to Cartmell Street at ground, first level and second level 2.0m, with balconies protruding into this space. The third level is setback by 2.6m. The fourth level is setback by 4.6m, with the balcony setback by 2.0m from the street. The front section of the building is built to boundary on the east and west sides before stepping back to between 3.0m and 4.5m at the ground level, with slightly deeper setbacks at the higher levels. The rear setback is 3.0m at the basement level (which sits above ground at the rear due to the fall of land).and then stepped, with the setback increasing at each level. The buildings present a podium façade to Cartmell Street with a maximum height of 11.03m and an average height of 10.4m. The maximum overall height of the building is 19.5m which is reached at the centre of the site. The sheer wall on the east boundary close to Cartmell Street is 11.0m high and 6.5m in length. The equivalent wall on the west boundary is a maximum of 11.6m high and 6.5m in length. The building has a contemporary design with the street façade and east and west facades having a high degree of articulation using timber detailing, smooth render, stucco render, and stacked face brick. The rear of the building is stepped substantially as it rises, with a rear setback of 14.9m at the upper level. AMENDED PROPOSAL The ground floor plan was revised during negotiation with council. Increased setbacks to the balcony interfaces from the east and west boundary at the ground level were provided. CONSULTATION No public consultation meeting was held. The site is within the Heidelberg Structure Plan as implemented by the Design and Development Overlay-schedule 5. These plans and policy specifically encourage high density development and extensive public consultation occurred during the development of these controls. REFERRAL COMMENTS EXTERNAL REFERRALS External

Reason

Objection?

Condition s

Public Transport Victoria

Section 55 referral under Clause 52.36 Integrated Public Transport Planning as the proposal is for more than 60 dwellings

ENGINEERING SERVICES Council’s Engineering Services Section have reviewed the proposal and raised no major concerns. Formal comments are available on file. Standard conditions relating to access, parking areas and drainage requested should be included on any approval issued. Flooding Point Discharge

Flooding Unlikely of From North-east corner of property to existing Council Pit in front of 7-11 Cartmell Street via approximately 22m of minimum 225mm diameter outfall drain. On site detention required. Maximum permissible discharge to be based on CEXIST=0.35. Drainage system should be designed such

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 166

Attachment 2: Background Information

that roof runoff can exit the site via gravity. Clause 52.06: No. of spaces

4.4

Item: 4.4

The plans indicate that the proposal consists of (39) one-bedroom and (23) two-bedroom dwellings.

Accordingly the proposal generates a requirement for 74 parking spaces (62 residential spaces and 12 visitor parking spaces). The advertised plans indicate that a total of 66 parking spaces (62 residential spaces and 4 visitor spaces) have been provided on-site, representing a dispensation of 8 parking spaces. The site is within a Diversity Area as defined in Clause 21.06-2 of the Planning Scheme. As such, some level of parking dispensation for residential and visitor parking rates may be considered. Given the site’s location and short term parking availability for visitors within the area, some visitor parking for this development could be waivered. In view of the above, it is considered that the level of parking provided for this development is satisfactory. Please note Council has adopted a car parking policy and strategy, which will restrict residents and visitors of new developments from obtaining permits for parking. Clause 52.34: Bicycle Parking

With regards to bicycle parking Clause 52.34-3 requires 1 bicycle space per every 5 dwellings for residential use, and 1 bicycle space per every 10 dwellings for visitor use. Accordingly, the development requires (12) residential bicycle parking spaces and (6) visitor parking spaces. The plans indicate 18 bicycle parking spaces are being provided for the site. This is considered acceptable for residential bicycle spaces. Visitor bicycle parking, in the form of bicycle rails, should be provided near the main pedestrian entrance on Cartmell Street. Clause 52.34-4 of the Planning Scheme requires bicycle rails to:  Be securely fixed to a wall or to the floor or ground.  Be in a highly visible location for bicycle security (when not in a compound).  Be of a shape that allows a cyclist to easily lock the bicycle frame and wheels.  Be located to allow easy access to park, lock and remove the bicycle. It is requested that the bicycle parking locations be adjusted to be closer to the front of the carpark.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 167

Attachment 2

The one or two bedroom apartments fall under the provisions of Clause 52.06 of the Banyule Planning Scheme. Table 52.06-5 requires the following:  One space for each one or two bedroom dwelling,  One visitor space for every five dwellings (in developments of five or more dwellings)

4.4

Item: 4.4

Clause 52.06: Design

Attachment 2: Background Information

Design standard 1 – Accessways The accessway is generally in accordance with the requirements of Design Standard 1. Design standard 2 – Car parking spaces The car parking spaces are generally in accordance with the requirements of Design Standard 2 and allow vehicles to enter and exit in a safe manner.

Attachment 2

Design standard 3: Gradients The accessway gradients are generally in accordance with the requirements of Design Standard 3. Design standard 4: Mechanical parking In accordance with the Banyule Planning Scheme Clause 52.06-8, mechanical parking may be used to meet the car parking provided:  At least 25percent of the mechanical parking space can accommodate a vehicle clearance height of at least 1.8m  Car parking spaces that require the operation of the system are allocated to residents, or to commercial tenants and not to visitors of the development. The traffic report provided with the application indicates swept path diagrams and height clearance diagrams which demonstrate that the mechanical parking is generally in accordance with the requirements of Design Standard 4. Design standard 5: Urban design NA Design standard 6: Safety The development is generally in accordance with the requirements of Design Standard 6. Design standard 7: Landscaping NA Vehicle Crossings

New (or altered) crossings to comply with Council’s standards and specifications. The new vehicle crossing must be a maximum of 5.5m wide to comply with Council’s standards and specifications. The existing redundant crossing to be removed and reinstate with kerb and channel, footpath and nature strip to Council's satisfaction.

Easements

According to Council records there is a 1.83m easement along the south boundary of the site. Plans do not indicate any works over the easement.

DEVELOPMENT PLANNING ARBORIST There are no trees on the site that require a permit for removal under the provisions of the Vegetation Protection Overlay –schedule 5 (VPO5).

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 168

Attachment 2: Background Information

Council’s Arborist generally concurs with the findings of the Project Arborist.

4.4

Item: 4.4

Trees 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10 are located close to boundary within the rear yard 3/98 Hawdon Street and 100 Hawdon Street. All will be affected by the proposed basement excavation which is proposed within the Structural Root Zone (SRZ) of the trees. All these trees are smaller than 5.0m and have a low retention value.

Trees 5, 6, 7 and 10 are all listed as weed species in the Banyule Weed Management Strategy. A condition could be applied to permit to require the basement to be located outside the SRZ of all trees, however due to the low retention value and the intrusion of the SRZ into the subject site, their retention is not considered critical. Each rear yard has sufficient area for replacement vegetation to be planted COUNCIL’S PROPERTY SERVICES Standard condition requested regarding no access to Council owned property. ESD CONSULTANT To Show or Note on Plans (May form part of Condition 1 requirements) 1. Rainwater tank to include a note that it will be connected to all toilets 2. The location and sizing of the heat recovery ventilators to be indicated an annotated on the plans 3. To indicate the area that will be utilised for composting 4. All ESD features to be annotated and illustrated on the plans 5. Potential area for solar gas boosted hot water system to be shown on roof plan Suggested Improvements (should be considered) (May include as permit conditions or notes) 1. Due to limited cross ventilation options, to improve on indoor air quality, install dedicated extraction fans to all kitchens 2. The provision of a Building Users Guide, including information relevant for the building residents and management made available to the building owner and residents. 3. Given the close proximity to the train station and bike path, the number of secure bike parking should be increased to at least 1 per apartment 4. Given the close proximity to major public transport, future occupants should be encouraged to utilise public transport via note boards or within a user guide 5. Car park and common areas lighting should be fitted with sensors that provide sufficient ambient lighting. Available LED technology should be utilised. Car park sensors should include CO2 sensors to minimise mechanical ventilation requirements 6. To commit to at least 50% recycled content of concrete Other Recommended Planning Permit Conditions to include in Permit 1.

Works to be in accordance with SDA/SMP All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 169

Attachment 2

Tree 1 Nerium oleander is protected under the VPO5 due to the combined total stem diameter. The tree has a low retention rating and at 5.0m tall is a large bush rather than a tree proper. The tree is hardy and may well survive the excavation given it’s structure.

Attachment 2: Background Information

4.4

Item: 4.4

Attachment 2

Sustainability Management Plan (SMP) and STORM report prepared by Northern Environmental Design, dated 28 May 2014 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the SMP may occur without prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. Statement from qualified person Prior to the occupation of any dwelling approved under this permit, a statement from the author of the SMP report, approved pursuant to this permit, or similarly qualified person or company, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The statement must confirm that all measures specified in the SMP have been implemented in accordance with the approved plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION RESPONSE TO POLICY FRAMEWORK Indicative Residential Area Type (Clause 21.06) Diversity

Vision statement These areas typically have the following characteristics:  Within the business core of an Activity Centre.  Some residential properties along streets that immediately surround the business core of an Activity Centre. They will provide for shop-top and apartment living in higher density mixed use and residential developments. These areas include strategic redevelopment sites that provide for higher density housing. Development will make a positive contribution to the identity of the Activity Centre and the desired future character of surrounding residential neighbourhoods. In these areas people live close to train stations, transport interchanges, shops, services and nodes of employment.

Heidelberg Specialised and Major Activity Centre - (Clause 21.08-2) Built Form Objective (all)

To provide new built form that makes a positive contribution to streetscapes and urban form.

Strategies

Promote higher density development within the Burgundy Street valley, without compromising views from within the public realm, along and across the valley to the ridgelines. Promote environmentally sustainable design. Establish high quality and distinctive built form outcomes. Encourage buildings to integrate vegetation within the built form, such as terrace gardens, rooftop gardens and vegetated

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 170

Attachment 2: Background Information

facades. Ensure that the development of buildings at the interface with residential areas respect the desired future character of the residential area.

4.4

Item: 4.4

The precinct will utilise its proximity to the Heidelberg train station and transport interchange, to provide an attractive location for future residents and with cultural and entertainment activities that provide for a vibrant day time and evening economy. Objective 1

Strategies

To significantly increase the built form within the precinct, provided that views from within the public realm are retained across and along the valley to the ridgelines. Buildings should â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;fill inâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; the valley without disrupting views across and along the valley from ridgelines. Higher density housing may be provided, particularly centred around the retail areas on Mount Street and Burgundy Street.

Objective 2

To improve the image and identity of Heidelbergâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Shopping Precinct.

Strategies

Buildings should contribute to a new identity for the centre where the greening of buildings is visible from elevated vantage points. Provide a diverse range of dwelling sizes and types in higher density developments, including opportunities for affordable housing and apartments in mixed-use buildings.

The provisions of Clauses 21.04-1 Land use, Clause 21.06 Residential Areas Framework, and Clause 21.08-2 Heidelberg Specialised and Major Activity Centre clearly contemplate significant change for the subject site rather than merely minimal or moderate change. High density dwellings are encouraged The strong messages (which build upon State Policies for housing that emphasise land in and around higher order activity centres as a focus for increased housing opportunities) are amplified through the DDO5 provisions which are based in the sound strategic work undertaken as part of the Heidelberg Structure Plan process. The siting and design parameters that have been set for the subject site and surrounding area by Design and Development 5 (DDO5), particularly as to building heights, street setbacks and the maintenance of view lines are clearly expressed. If it is accepted that there is strong policy support for the proposition that the site should be intensively developed for higher density housing purposes to provide for diverse and affordable housing in an area that can make better use of existing infrastructure, then ultimately the consideration of the remaining policy issues are essentially urban design

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 171

Attachment 2

Vision Statement - The Heidelberg Central Shopping Centre Precinct will Precinct 3 - Heidelberg continue to provide convenience shopping, reinforcing and Central Shopping Centre enhancing its role as a shopping and community activity destination.

4.4

Item: 4.4

Attachment 2: Background Information

related. Consideration of the proposal should focus specifically on Clause 52.35 Urban Context report and design response for residential development of five or more storeys (including an assessment against the Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development) and the Design and Development Overlay-schedule 5.

Attachment 2

The provisions of Clause 21.08-2 and DDO5 articulate a clear vision for the subject site that necessarily represents a significant departure from the Statement of Desired Future Character set out in Clause 22.02 Residential Neighbourhood Character policy (Garden Suburban 3 precinct). In this instance, consideration of this of the Neighbourhood Character policy is of little consequence given the overarching goals of the other policies affecting the site. An assessment against Clause 22.02 has not been made. TREE REMOVAL There are no trees on the site that require a permit for removal under the provisions of the Vegetation Protection Overlay –schedule 5 (VPO5). The Arborist report submitted with the application (prepared by Tree Logic dated 26 February 2015) indicates that there will be impact on the trees located on the abutting sites to the west at 100 Hawdon St and 3/98 Hawdon St. Impacted trees are trees 1 - 10. These trees are small and only one (Tree 1 Nerium oleander) is protected under the VPO5. Trees 5, 6, 7 and 10 are all listed as weed species in the Banyule Weed Management Strategy. The Arborist Report states that Based on a review of the proposed design, neighbouring trees Tree 7 and Tree 11 are not expected to be impacted by development. All remaining neighbouring trees will be impacted by the current design with the proposed basement likely to encroach within the SRZ’s of the trees.(p2) The report goes on to state Design amendments would be required in order to retain the trees. Amendments could include the use of cantilevered slabs(ground floor) within the area of the TPZ’s, with the alignment of the basement situated outside the SRZ of the trees. Alternatively, with consent from the neighbours, affected trees could be removed and replaced with more appropriate species…(p2) Council Arborist generally concurs with the findings of the Project Arborist. Trees 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10 are located close to boundary within the rear yard 3/98 Hawdon Street and 100 Hawdon Street. All will be affected by the proposed basement excavation which is proposed within the Structural Root Zone (SRZ) of the trees. All these trees are smaller than 5.0m and have a low retention value. Tree 1 Nerium oleander is protected under the VPO5 due to the combined total stem diameter. The tree has a low retention rating and at 5.0m tall is a large bush rather than a tree proper. The tree is hardy and may well survive the excavation given it’s structure. Trees 5, 6, 7 and 10 are all listed as weed species in the Banyule Weed Management Strategy. A condition could be applied to permit to require the basement to be located outside the SRZ of all trees, however due to the low retention value and the intrusion of the SRZ into the subject site, their retention is not considered critical. Each rear yard has sufficient area for replacement vegetation to be planted

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 172

Attachment 2: Background Information

A standard condition relating to protection of the Street trees in front of the site should also be included.

4.4

Item: 4.4

BUILT FORM ASSESSMENT



The relevant Design objectives and Standards within the Design and Development Overlay 5 Heidelberg Specialised and Major Activity Centres (DDO5)



The Urban Design Principles set out at Clause 15.01-2 of the Planning Scheme



The Built Form objectives for Precinct 3 Heidelberg Central Shopping Centre as set out in Clause 21.08-2 of the Planning Scheme

The development is regarded to meet the objectives of the DDO5 despite the overall building height and podium height exceeding the Standards provided within the DDO5. An assessment against the Objectives of the DDO5 is provided within the attachment to demonstrate that the proposed building has acceptably managed to meet the objectives. The Decision Guidelines at Clause 7.0 of the DDO5 are provided below, with a summary assessment provided. Please see the assessment against the DSE Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development for further detail. Whether the proposed heights and setbacks are balanced, in relation to the preferred maximum built form of the site and adjoining sites. The proposed height and setbacks are appropriate for the site bearing in mind that this is a consolidation of three residential lots. While the adjoining sites to the side have not been developed and the site at the rear is occupied by a 4 storey (including basement) apartment building, the overall built form of the new building is similar to an approved apartment building at 3-5 Cartmell St. The building is consistent with the preferred future for the south side of Cartmell St as expressed in the DDO5 and the site’s Residential Growth Zone status. Whether building height greater than the standard provides a positive contribution to the form of the building. The upper two levels produce a softening of the upper level form of the building as they are recessed form all sides and add to the mosaic of materiality and form. The upper levels will be seen from across the Burgundy St valley, so this level of articulation and detail is important and preferred to simply a flat roof form. Whether building height greater than the standard unreasonably reduces opportunities for adjoining buildings to make effective use of natural light. The height is acceptably managed through a high level of recession at the rear and sides to the upper levels. Natural light will not be unreasonable reduced to any new adjoining buildings Whether building height greater than the standard respects the scale of surrounding development and the topography of the surrounding land. A comprehensive assessment has been made with regard to topography and public views of the Burgundy St valley within the attached report. The future development at the scale proposed is contemplated and encouraged by the DDO5.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 173

Attachment 2

As outlined immediately above, a detailed assessment against the DSE Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development is included as an attachment to this report. The assessment also incorporates commentary on the following

4.4

Item: 4.4

Attachment 2: Background Information

Whether the proposal provides for an appropriate scale of development in order to accommodate the preferred mix and intensity of use. The scale is typical for an apartment building and the required car parking within basement is handled acceptably as demonstrated within the assessment against Clause 52.06 Car parking. Whether a building height less than the preferred maximum height unreasonably reduces opportunities to achieve preferred maximum built form in the future.

Attachment 2

Not applicable Whether a building height less than the preferred maximum height unreasonably reduces opportunities for adjoining buildings to meet the preferred maximum built form. Not applicable Whether building height that is less than the preferred maximum height respects the scale of preferred maximum built form and the topography of the land. Not applicable Whether the facades of new development that is visible from nearby parklands provide treatments that are sympathetic with the parklands environment. Not applicable. Whether the development provides adequate opportunities for natural light to penetrate to lower levels of buildings. The rear of the building is very well setback and provides excellent access to natural light which is important given that this is the south side of the building and solar access is not available. Ground floor apartments 4, 5 and 6 in the east building have essentially no setback to the balcony edge from the east boundary, with the apartment wall setback 2.8 (Unit 6) and 4.5m (unit 4 and 5) from boundary. At level 1, the setbacks increase to 2.5m to balcony edge and a minimum of 4.25 to wall. At level 2 these setbacks are maintained before increasing substantially at the upper levels. Ground floor apartments 4 and 5 in west building have zero setback to the balcony edge from the west boundary, with the apartment wall setback 4.5m from boundary. At level 1, the setbacks increase to 2.2m to the balcony edge and 4.5m to the wall. At level 2, a minimum wall setback of 3.0m is provided, with only apartment 2.4 having a balcony which has a minimum setback of 2.3m. Upper levels are setback further. It is noted that ground floor setbacks were increased by the proponent after concern was raised by Council in regard to future access to light in the event of future development of adjoining sites. The setbacks provided will provide for sufficient light under current conditions. The setbacks set a reasonable precedent for adjoining development which will maintain an acceptable level of light into apartments on the lower levels. CLAUSE 52.06 ASSESSMENT

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 174

Attachment 2: Background Information

Number of spaces As the application is not consistent with the requirements contained in Clause 52.06-5 (Number of car parking spaces), a permit is required to reduce the required car parking.

4.4

Item: 4.4

No. of 1 & 2 Bedroom Dwellings (x1 space) car 62

Number of spaces required Number of car 62 spaces provided Parking shortfall 0

Visitor (1 per 5 dwellings rounded down) 12 7 5

As noted above, Council’s engineers are satisfied that the provision of car parking is suitable having regard to an assessment of the car parking demand likely to be generated by the use. A reduction in the number of required visitor spaces from 12 to 7 is considered reasonable given the availability of public transport within the Heidelberg Major Activity Centre and the benefits associated with multi-purpose trips. It is worth noting (with regard to an objection) that Council’s Activity Centre Car Parking Policy is to not issue visitor or resident parking permits for new multi dwelling developments. Car park design Council’s Traffic Engineer has also advised that the design standards of Clause 52.06 are met by the proposed layout, use of car stackers and access ramp gradient. CLAUSE 52.34 ASSESSMENT Pursuant to Clause 52.34-1, a new use must not commence or the floor area of an existing use must not be increased until the required bicycle facilities and associated signage has been provided on the land. For residents, 1 space per 5 dwellings is required. For visitors, 1 space per 10 dwellings is required. Therefore 12 residential bicycle spaces plus 6 visitor spaces must be provided. The application proposes 12 bicycle spaces within a dedicated area in the basement plus 6 spaces at 3 hoops on the nature strip in front of the building. This is considered to be an acceptable number of spaces and location for resident and visitor bicycle parking. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE DESIGN Council’s ESD Consultant assessed the plans and Sustainable Management Plan provided with the application. The ESD qualities proposed were found to be acceptable, with minor conditions to be included on permit in regard to ventilation of corridors and adherence to the SMP. It is noted that elements of the ESD referral have not been requested as they are considered to be outside the scope of a planning condition. Importantly, a condition has been included requiring an ESD assessment to

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 175

Attachment 2

Specifically, a permit is required to reduce the required number of visitor spaces by five (5) spaces based on the inclusion of three additional car parking spaces following an offer from the permit applicant to increase parking in the basement. This inclusion has been reflected in permit conditions:

4.4

Item: 4.4

Attachment 2: Background Information

be made at the completion of construction to ensure that the proposed measures have been implemented.

Attachment 2

LIVEABLE HOUSING GUIDELINES In accordance with Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Liveable Housing Guidelines a minimum of 20% of the apartments should be suitable for people with limited mobility. A condition is needed on permit for revised plans showing how this is to be achieved. WASTE COLLECTION A Waste Management Plan was submitted with the application. The Plan has been assessed and is found to be acceptable. A condition will be included on permit regarding the need for private waste collection in accordance with the Waste Management Plan. A section 173 agreement will also be required to ensure that new residents are made aware (via the land title) that Council will not provide waste collection.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 176

Attachment 3: Assessment against Higher Density Guidelines

ASSESSMENT AGAINST GUIDELINES FOR HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO.: DEVELOPMENT ADDRESS: PROPOSAL:

P1345/2014 13 - 17 Cartmell Street HEIDELBERG Multiunit development - 62 Apartments and a reduction in the standard number of car spaces required

4.4

Item: 4.4

Neighbourhood character and strategic context

1.1

Complies

A comprehensive Urban Context report has been submitted with the application. The report uses photographs from the area surrounding the site and includes diagrams and maps to accurately describe the elements specified within the Clause. The report was considered satisfactory in its original form and was a part of the advertised documents.

Complies

An architectural design response was submitted with the application. The response provides a faรงade height study in relation to the DDO5. The report also includes a design rationale demonstrating the way that the design of the built form evolved in relation to the siting constraints regarding solar access to the dwellings at the rear, street and side setbacks, division in building form to reduce visual bulk, articulation, and upper level recession. The report was considered satisfactory in its original form and was a part of the advertised documents

To ensure buildings respond creatively to their existing context and to agreed aspirations for the future development of the area. This should take the form of an urban context report.

Design Response 1.2

To provide a creative design response that is based on a clear understanding of the urban context and neighbourhood character.

Element 2: Building envelope Height and massing

2.1

To ensure that the height of new development responds to existing urban context and neighbourhood character objectives of the area.

Complies

The subject site is within Precinct Plan 3 at section 8 of the DDO5 for Heidelberg Central Shopping Centre (shown on the map on page 14 of the DDO5). Therefore Setback Standard 1 of DDO5 is relevant and a maximum height if 13m is indicated.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 177

Attachment 3

Element 1: Urban context

4.4

Item: 4.4

Attachment 3: Assessment against Higher Density Guidelines The maximum height of the proposed building is 19.5m which is reached roughly central to the site. Due to the slope of the site the building will have a maximum height of 16.5m above street footpath level. This is 3.5m higher than the 13.0m suggested for Precinct Plan 3 at section 8 of theDDO5. Clause 2.0 of the DDO5 clearly indicates that where buildings do not comply with the standards in regard to height and setbacks, then the proposal must demonstrate how the Design objectives in Clause 1.0 are met. Clause 2.0 also clearly indicates that the height and setback standards are not mandatory, but that “Buildings and works should be constructed in accordance….” This is consistent with the overall performance based system within which the Banyule Planning Scheme operates. As the height of the building is 6.5m higher than the Standard, an assessment against the design Standards of Clause 1.0 of the DDO5 is warranted. An assessment is provided below.

Attachment 3

 The building is considered to respect the preferred scale and character of the Activity Centre despite being higher than the 13.0m Standard. This is because the upper two levels are well recessed from all sides of the building and occupy the central part of the overall site. The fall of land across the site can be viewed as a significant constraint in meeting the13.0m Standard. If the building were to meet the Standard it would need to be lower at the rear of the site than at the street frontage for the Standard to be met, due to the 6.2m fall in ground level. This would result in a poor design outcome and substantially limit the density of dwellings that could be achieved.  The proposal is considered to balance the objective seeking to protect views from the public realm along and across the Burgundy St valley with the desire for increased building sizes. It would not be reasonable to protect the view of the valley from the footpath on the north side of Cartmell Street. Obviously, even a 13m high building would limit this view. The fall of land, being quite pronounced in the area, means that the view of the valley from the higher part of Hawdon Street (above the intersection with Cartmell Street) and also from Darebin St will be affected but by no means obliterated. This is easily illustrated by comparing the AHD heights of the contours for this area as follows:

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 178

At the centre of the site, where the building is highest, the AHD is 39.0 The corner of Hawdon Street and Cartmell Street is at 45.0 AHD, and the AHD along Darebin St is between 58 AHD (above Train line) and 37 AHD (at the corner of Cape St).

The Locally Significant Ridgeline runs in a line roughly from the corner of

Bell St and Heidelberg Rd towards the south east to the Burke Rd Nth/Lower Heidelberg Rd intersection. This ridgeline is at an AHD of approximately 72-76 AHD, with an occasional higher point. o

The top of the proposed building sits at 58.5AHD. This puts it approximately at footpath level in relation to Darebin St above the train line bridge. So the view to the south-east when travelling along Darebin St will be modified, but largely intact. The view directly to the south from Darebin St to the Eaglemont ridgeline will be interrupted more significantly, but the height of the distant ridgeline is some 15m higher than the top of the proposed building, so is likely to remain visible.

It is also noted that the building has separation of at least 5.5m between the east and west wings above the 10.5 m mark at street frontage. This visual break will enable glimpse views through the site to the valley and ridge beyond.

 The building has been thoughtfully designed to include a high degree of articulation, and use of multiple materials and colours that will create visually interesting building that exhibits a high standard of urban design. Each elevation is enlivened with balconies which means that the building does not present a ‘blank’ façade to any side.  The building setbacks are considered to be responsive to the streetscape and abutting land uses. The site addresses a residential area across Cartmell Street and the relationship here is managed through the use of a short street setback at ground level which will enable low scale greenery and garden areas. The separation between buildings which is quite pronounced in the front section of the building, breaks up the building mass and reduces streetscape dominance. The substantial rear setbacks have been designed to maintain solar access to the apartment building at the rear of the site in accordance with Standard B20 of Clause 55. This setback also acts to reduce the visual dominance of the building as seen from the north facing living areas and balconies of these dwellings. The site to the east is a Council carpark and is not currently a sensitive use. However appropriate setbacks are provided to the balconies of the new building which will allow for equitable future development of the carpark site. The abutments to the west are the rear yards of residential dwellings. The balance here is more difficult and must be driven by the Residential Growth Zone, DDO5 and other relevant policy. These abutments fall within the same planning controls as the subject site and future development at a similar scale is to be expected. Requiring setbacks in accordance with Clause 55 to these abutments would not be appropriate. The ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 179

4.4

Attachment 3: Assessment against Higher Density Guidelines

Attachment 3

Item: 4.4

Attachment 3: Assessment against Higher Density Guidelines

4.4

proposed wall on boundary at the front section of the building would not be considered appropriate within a General Residential area, however given the policy context and Residential Growth Zone status of all properties concerned, this type of substantial change and amenity impact is considered acceptable.  Passive surveillance of Cartmell Street will occur from apartment balconies and passive surveillance of the Council carpark to the east of the new building will be strongly enhanced due to the balconies on the east side of the building.  Sunlight and daylight access to all adjoin private open space will be achieved in accordance with Clause 55. The rear of the building has been designed to meet the Standard B20.

Attachment 3

 All living areas, windows and balconies have been designed to meet the overlooking Standard B22 of Clause 55. This is achieved through the use of highlight windows, balcony screens and wide balcony edges to limit overlooking to meet the 9.0m standard.  The ground level frontage will be occupied by dwellings, with private gardens that are separated from the street by a modest brick and steel fence. Building entrances are clearly indicated and the rythymic breakup of the fence detail will enliven the ground level interface.  Basement car parking means that the only visual impact relating to car storage is the entrance ramp and security roller door which is set below street level and is a minor element in the building façade.  The building achieves a high ESD rating as evidenced by the Sustainable Management Plan submitted with the application. Council’s ESD consultant has reviewed the SMP and found it to be accurate, with achievable outcomes.  The proposal is not an underdevelopment of the site’s potential.

2.2

To ensure new development is appropriate to the scale of nearby streets, other public spaces, and buildings.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 180

Complies

Nearby sites along Cartmell Street have not been developed as yet. Planning approval has been issued by VCAT for a 5 story development at 3-5 Cartmell Street after a refusal was issued by Council. The permitted building has a maximum height of approximately 20m.The building is similar in size and bulk to the proposal at hand, and together they are likely to establish the built form for the south side of Cartmell Street – noting that they are separated only by the at-grade Council car park.

Attachment 3: Assessment against Higher Density Guidelines The Line of site diagram within Setback Standard 1 of DDO5 indicates that levels above 16.0m should be setback sufficiently so as to be outside of view from the opposite side of the street. The diagram assumes a flat site, so in the case of this sloping site the overall height should be measured from Cartmell Street NGL at the front boundary. This indicates that the building has a relational height of between of 16.0 m at the west end and 16.7m at the east end. The encroachment above 16.0m is minor and acceptable in relation to the Setback Standard 1.

4.4

Item: 4.4

As discussed above, the proposed height is greater than the Standard specified within the DDO5 and the podium height also has a modest encroachment above the Standard. However given that the scale of the building is similar to the permitted development at 3-5 Cartmell Street and the Objectives of Clause 1 of the DDO5 are satisfied, the building is considered to be appropriately scaled in relation to the street and other buildings.

2.3

To protect sunlight access to public spaces.

Complies

Given the site’s location on the southern side of Cartmell Street, overshadowing of public spaces is not considered a key issue, noting that whilst a large part of the adjoining public land to the east will be overshadowed in the afternoon, the land is an at grade car park and will therefore not be adversely affected.

Complies

The Standard 1 of the DDO5 encourages new buildings on the south side of Cartmell Street to be built to the front boundary (ie zero lot line) with a maximum podium height of 10.0m.

Street setbacks 2.4

To respond to existing or preferred street character.

The proposed building is setback from Cartmell Street by 2.0m which increases to 5.5m above the vehicle entrance ramp. Levels 1 and 2 also have a 2.0m setback with angled balconies projecting forwards to occupy almost the entire front setback. The street podium has a maximum height of 11.3m, with an average of 10.55 m. While the podium height is slightly higher than the 10.0m encouraged by the policy, the increased height is considered acceptable for the following reasons:  The difference in height is marginal and is visually apparent only at the eastern end of each building and is the result the fall of land along the street frontage in relation to ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 181

Attachment 3

A 1.5m setback from the street is sought above 10.0m within the Setback Standard 1. The building exceeds this by providing a 2.5m setback at Level 4 and a 6.3m setback at Level 5.

Attachment 3: Assessment against Higher Density Guidelines

4.4

Item: 4.4  



Attachment 3



the ground floor level. The 10.0m Standard is not mandatory. VCAT has noted in a decision at 3-5 Cartmell Street that “the subject site is on sloping terrain……The average height of the podium is about 10.25m. One of the difficulties with the standard is that it does not allow for sloping terrain. As such a degree of judgement is required. In my view the degree to which the height of the podium exceed the 10 metres is minimal and of no particular consequence from an urban design or streetscape viewpoint”. It is reasonable to accept this view in regard to the current application given that the average podium height proposed is 10.55m. The façade is highly articulated with timber detailing, and the oblique view demonstrates that the angled balconies will result in a visually rhythmic pattern that softens what otherwise might be a sheer façade. The separation between the two buildings above the vehicle ramp entrance acts to offset any potential for the extra height to create façade dominance by providing a substantial visual break in the podium facade

Relationship to adjoining buildings 2.5

To ensure building separation supports private amenity and reinforces neighbourhood character.

Complies

There is no adjoining building to the east which is an at-grade Council carpark. The building has been designed with side setbacks that incorporate balconies. Development of the site to the rear has already occurred. The abutments to the west are still traditional residential dwellings in garden surrounds. Balconies are sufficiently separated from boundary to enable equitable development of the abutments The building is sufficiently setback from the boundary for reasonable amenity to be maintained. As discussed elsewhere in this report, existing neighbourhood character consideration cannot be made due to the Zone and policy controls encouraging high density development.

2.6

To ensure areas can develop with equitable access to outlook and sunlight.

Complies

See above

2.7

To ensure visual impacts to dwellings at the rear are appropriate to the context.

Complies

The substantial rear setbacks have been designed to maintain solar access to the apartment building at the rear of the site in accordance with Standard B29 of Clause 55. This pronounced setback also acts to reduce the visual dominance of the building as seen from the north facing living areas and balconies of these dwellings. The rear elevation of the building is articulated by use of balconies and small projecting ‘verandahs’ above living area doors The visual break in the centre of the building will also assist in reducing the dominance of the overall structure.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 182

Attachment 3: Assessment against Higher Density Guidelines It is noted that residents within the Central Heidelberg Precinct should expect new buildings of this size to be developed in close proximity.

4.4

Item: 4.4

2.8

To maximise informal or passive surveillance of streets and other public open spaces.

Complies

Passive surveillance of Cartmell Street will occur from apartment balconies and passive surveillance of the Council carpark to the east of the new building will be strongly enhanced due to the balconies on the east side of the building.

2.9

To maximise residential amenity through the provision of views and protection of privacy within the subject site and on neighbouring properties.

Complies

All living areas, windows and balconies have been designed to meet the overlooking Standard B22 of Clause 55. This is achieved through the use of highlight windows, balcony screens and wide balcony edges to limit overlooking to meet the 9.0m standard. Excellent resident amenity will be provided by provision of generous sized balconies to all apartments, providing views from all sides of the building.

Wind protection 2.10 To ensure new tall buildings do not create adverse wind effects.

Complies

The building is not considered tall enough to create adverse wind effects on the nearby private or public land. Down drafts and wind tunnel effects are unlikely.

Complies

Parapet roof forms at each level where recession is provided are interspersed with small â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;verandahâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; details above the living areas where they adjoin balconies. Detailed design regarding roof plant should be a conditional requirement of any permit granted.

Roof forms 2.11 To treat roof spaces and forms as a considered aspect of the overall building design.

Element 3: Street pattern and street-edge quality Street pattern and street edge integration 3.1

To create walkable areas within a safe and interesting public setting.

N/A

3.2

To closely integrate the layout and occupation patterns of new development with the street.

Complies

Ground level windows and doors/gates provide connections between the building and the street thereby promoting active frontages.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 183

Attachment 3

Views to and from residential units

4.4

Item: 4.4 3.3

To ensure car parking does not dominate the street frontage.

Attachment 3: Assessment against Higher Density Guidelines Complies

Car parking is to be provided at basement level. Save for the vehicle entrance and security roller door, the car park will not be visible from the street.

The main building entrances are clearly defined and provide an appropriate transition from the street.

Building entries 3.4

To create street entrances with a strong identity that provide a transition from the street to residential interiors.

Complies

3.5

To ensure car park entries do not detract from the street.

Complies The car park entry is appropriately positioned and designed. It forms a minor element in the facade of the building.

Attachment 3

Front fences 3.6

To avoid creating inactive frontages as a result of fencing private open spaces.

Complies

A fence is proposed along the Cartmell Street frontage to enable provision of seclude private open space (SPOS) for the ground level apartments which are oriented to the street. The fence is broken up into brick and steel railing sections. While this does privatise the frontage, the option would be a zero lot line, whereby any windows addressing the street would likely always be heavily screened or curtained. Using the space as SPOS will mean that the area will be activated by the presence of humans. This is particularly the case as the area faces north and will have excellent solar access.

3.7

To ensure that front fences respect and contribute to the neighbourhood character.

Complies

Fence is high enough to protect the SPOS, but not so high as to create an impenetrable visual barrier to the building.

Element 4: Circulation and services Parking layout 4.1

To provide adequate, safe and efficiently designed parking layouts.

Complies

Council Traffic Engineer has assessed the car parking arrangements and found them to be acceptable. Ramp grades, use of car stackers and pedestrian safety are all acceptable.

4.2

To provide safe and convenient access between car parking and bicycle areas and the pedestrian entry to buildings.

Complies

Internal lift and stairwells are provided to the basement car park. The pedestrian entry from Cartmell Street is roughly centrally located to the building frontage and will be close to the visitor bicycle parking.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 184

Attachment 3: Assessment against Higher Density Guidelines

Circulation spaces 4.3

To create shared internal spaces that contribute positively to the experience of living in higher density development.

Complies

The interior design has not been demonstrated however given the quality of the building design it is likely that a similar high standard will make for attractive communal spaces. The foyer and corridor areas are reasonably generous.

4.4

Item: 4.4

4.4

To minimise running and maintenance costs.

Complies

A comprehensive Sustainable Management Plan has been submitted with the application. This has been assessed as suitable by Councils ESD consultant and will be endorsed as a part of any permit that may issue. Adherence to the SMP will ensure that costs are minimised and water and energy conserved.

4.5

To minimise water use.

Complies

4.6

To incorporate provision for site services in the building design to ensure good function and ease of service and maintenance.

Complies

A Waste Management Plan (WMP) has been provided and is generally considered satisfactory. A WMP to Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s satisfaction could be a requirement of any conditional permit granted. It is noted that an area has been set aside in the basement for the storage of bins. Details concerning the provision of mail boxes and meter boxes could also be a requirement of any permit granted. Mail boxes are shown close to the entrance of the east building, but none are shown within the west building.

Element 5: Building layout and design Dwelling diversity 5.1

To provide a range of dwelling sizes and types in higher density residential developments.

Complies

A mix of one and two bedroom apartments is proposed.

Complies

The apartment layout makes the most of the building articulation to access natural light and a northern aspect where possible. The strong treatment of the east and west side of the building results in activation of these facades which is much preferred to a simple

Building layout 5.2

To optimise the layout of buildings in response to occupantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; needs as well as identified external influences and characteristics of a site.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 185

Attachment 3

Site services

Attachment 3

4.4

Item: 4.4

Attachment 3: Assessment against Higher Density Guidelines arrangement of projecting balconies on a sheer wall.

5.3

To create functional, flexible, efficient and comfortable residential apartments.

Complies

Dwelling layouts are functional and practical and will provide an appropriate level of comfort for their intended occupants. The larger dwellings are also flexible in their layouts. The use of large sliding doors to bedrooms in the one bedroom apartments results in good flexibility in terms of enlarged living areas when necessary.

5.4

To ensure that a good standard of natural lighting and ventilation is provided to internal building spaces.

Complies

All bedrooms and living areas have good access to natural light and ventilation. It is noted that some bedrooms in the one bedroom apartments rely on sliding partitions and/or glazed doors to make use of daylight available to adjoining living areas. This is an accepted approach and should assist in providing reasonable levels of internal amenity. It is noted that this only occurs within one bedroom apartments

5.5

To provide adequate storage space for household items.

Complies

Storage areas are provided within basement and include storage cages at the end of car spaces and within a storage room containing individual cages.

Complies

The building has been thoughtfully designed to include a high degree of articulation, and use of multiple materials and colours that will create visually interesting apartment building that exhibits a high standard of urban design.

Design detail 5.6

To promote buildings of high architectural quality and visual interest.

Each elevation is enlivened with balconies which means that the building does not present a ‘blank’ façade to any side. The podium façade detail fronting to Cartmell Street is repeated along the east and west elevation, creating a visually consistent building when viewed from the oblique angle. These are highly articulated with timber detailing, and the angled balconies will result in a visually rhythmic pattern that softens what otherwise might be a sheer façade. The rear of the building is significantly stepped as it rises and the recession at the uppermost levels will soften the attenuation. This is particularly important given the valley views towards the building from the ridgeline above the south side of Burgundy St, and from higher points along Darebin St.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 186

Attachment 3: Assessment against Higher Density Guidelines

4.4

Item: 4.4

Element 6: Open space and landscape design

6.1

To ensure access to adequate open space for all residents.

Complies

Each dwelling is provided with either a terrace or balcony. The smaller single bedroom dwellings are provided with a minimum of 8.square meters of SPOS. The larger dwellings are generally provided with more than the minimum, with between 17sqm-44 sqm typical.

6.2

To ensure common or shared spaces are functional and attractive for their intended users.

Complies

Basement, foyer areas, lifts and stairwells will be shared. This is consistent with other similar developments and the spaces appear to be functional in size. The interior design has not been demonstrated however given the quality of the building design it is likely that a similar high standard will make for attractive communal spaces.

6.3

To allow solar access to the private and shared open spaces of new high density residential units.

Complies

The constraints imposed by high density apartment layout results in some dwellings facing towards the south. However all private open spaces will have access to some morning or afternoon sun.

6.4

To integrate the design of shared and private open spaces into the overall building design and façade composition.

Complies

A combination of recessed balconies and terraces are proposed with some variation in balustrade detail. The strong timber component to the north, east and west elevations is considered a strong design element which integrates form and function. All are integrated into the overall building design and façade composition and will meet the privacy requirements of future occupants.

6.5

To provide for greenery within open spaces.

Complies

Opportunities for landscaping/greenery are limited given the extensive building footprint that is proposed. A run of hardy trees across the rear of the site is proposed within the drainage easement. While planting on easement is not typically encouraged, in this case the benefits of the trees is larger than the potential short term loss due to removal for drainage works. Ground level terraces in the Cartmell Street frontage and balconies above could be used for the planting of small trees, shrubs and climbing plants in planter boxes as part of an integrated landscape design. Setback Standard 1 of the DDO5 indicates that vegetation should be provided on balcony edges and facades at each level in accordance with Section 5.0 of the DDO5. This section specifies that the Landscape Plan must show  All vegetation within the proposed areas of landscaping.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 187

Attachment 3

Private and communal open space

Item: 4.4

Attachment 3: Assessment against Higher Density Guidelines

4.4

   

Vegetation within elevated levels of the development. A preference for native and indigenous vegetation Use of stormwater No weed species.

A landscape plan for ground level has been provided, however a plan showing planting beds that are integrated with the balcony edges is required. Climbing plants on trellis is encouraged as a modest contribution to creating a building with a green façade. The ESD plan indicates that stormwater is to be used for garden irrigation. The requirement for a detailed landscape plan, including on elevated levels can be addressed by condition of any permit granted.

Attachment 3

Public open space 6.6

To create public open space appropriate to its context.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 188

N/A

Summary of Consideration of Submissions Received on the Proposed Budget 2015/2016 (and Draft City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 3)) Submission

Summary

The Wellness Walk 2015 Sponsorship Arrangements.

Submission on behalf of Austin Health

Comment

The submission is a request for Sponsorship (by Banyule City Council) of ‘The Wellness Walk 2015’ in the form of a cash contribution of $25,000 and in-kind support valued at $18,000 plus $1,000 allocation towards cleaning 2.

6.2

Attachment 1: Summary of Consideration of Submissions Received on the Proposed Budget 2015/2016 (and Draft City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 3))

Submission from a member of the community.

Price Park ‘off lead’ dog fence

Submission from the President, Friends of Ivanhoe Library

Ivanhoe Learning Hub & Ivanhoe Library

Submission from a member of the community.

Lighting and Traffic infrastructure works

Submission supported, and the requested $26,000 cash contribution be funded from Budget savings to be identified throughout 2015/2016.

Currently funded The proponent requests that Council consider additional fenced dog parks, specifically at Price Park Viewbank. The proponent also suggests Council could investigate other funding opportunities to enable additional fenced dog parks. Funding of a dog off lead area at Price park is currently with in the draft budget 2015-2016.

The submission is presented in support of a program initiative within the draft City Plan which currently sees the support of the Ivanhoe Learning Hub together with Ivanhoe Library ($300,000 included in the draft Budget 2015-2016).

Submission is in support of a key initiative included in the draft City Plan: Price Park ‘off lead’ dog fence ($50,000 budgeted in 2015-2016).

Currently funded (Note: This submission has been forwarded to the relevant Manager to consider appropriate methods to keep the Friends of Ivanhoe Library involved.)

The submission is a request for the following works to be included in the proposed Budget: 4(a) Installation of a public light in the right of way between Upper Heidelberg Road and Norman Street, Ivanhoe.

4(b) Reconstruction and widening of the t-intersection of Lambourne Road and Kenmare Street, Watsonia.

Item 4(a) Submission not supported on this occasion, and further consultation and investigation be undertaken by Council. Item 4(b) Currently funded (Note: The capital works plan includes ‘Redesign and reconstruction of traffic calming infrastructure on Kenmare Street, Watsonia, at the intersection with Lambourne Rd’ with a budget of $20,000 in 2015/2016.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 189

Attachment 1

Item: 6.2

6.2

Item: 6.2 5.

Attachment 1

Attachment 1: Summary of Consideration of Submissions Received on the Proposed Budget 2015/2016 (and Draft City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 3)) Submission from a member of the community.

Ramu Parade Reserve, West Heidelberg

Submission from the Chairperson, Heidelberg School Art Foundation

Architectural Drawings - Impressionist Gallery and Education Centre

The submission is a request for improved safety of Ramu Parade Reserve, West Heidelberg, suggesting it requires lighting and maintenance, as it appears to be rundown.

The submission is a request for additional Council funding in the Budget - towards the National Architectural Competition to be conducted by the Australian Institute of Architects. It is expected the competition will cost $175,000, the proposed funding is $100,000 from Council and $75,000 from the Foundation. (Note: Council allocated $50,000 in its 2014/2015 Budget toward the development of Architectural drawings for the proposed Impressionist Gallery and Education Centre to be established in Yarra Flats, Heidelberg)

Submission from the President, Greensboroug h Chamber of Commerce

Support for special rates and charge scheme Greensborough No. 2

Submission on behalf of the Australian Greens Victoria, Banyule Branch

Environmental initiatives

9 - 19. Eleven (11) Submissions from various individuals representing interested environmental groups

Environmental initiatives

Submission not supported on this occasion, and further consultation and investigation be undertaken by Council in 2015/2016

Submission not supported on this occasion, and further consultation and investigation be undertaken by Council in 2015/2016, and:  The 2014/2015 unexpended funds of $50,000 be utilised in 2015/2016 (ie. no further carry forward be permitted)  The additional $50,000 requested be subject to legal and procurement considerations, and be assessed via a report back to Council at a later date.

Currently funded

The submission is presented in support of a program initiative within the draft Budget which currently sees the support of the Special Rates and Charges - Greensborough No. 2 (89868) ($237,780 budgeted in 20152016).

The submission is to increase efforts around environmental initiatives through suggested increased borrowings

This group of submissions is based on concerns that Council has reduced its budget for environmental sustainability initiatives (by $100,000) the request is to reinstate and increase efforts in the area of environmental sustainability for Banyule.

Submission not supported on this occasion, and be deferred for consideration as part of the Budget 2016/2017

Submission supported to the value of $89,000* to be funded from Budget savings to be identified throughout 2015/2016 or environmental reserves (established from the carbon tax repeal budget savings in 2014/2015) (*Note: The $100,000 has been adjusted to remove an $11,000 component related to greenhouse emission offsets.)

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 190

20 - 25. Six (6) Submissions from various individuals representing interested groups

BCC continued financial membership of NORTH Link

26. Submission from the President of St Marys Tennis Club

St Marys Greensborough Tennis Club upgrade of lighting project

This group of submissions is based on concerns that Council has not continued its $15,000 membership of NORTH Link (for 2015/2016)

St Marys Greensborough Tennis Club wishes the upgrade of lighting project to be considered for funding in the current draft Budget 2015/2016.

27. Submission from the Centre Coordinator Ivanhoe Traders Association (ITA) on behalf of the ITA

ITA Loan repayment

28. Submission from a member of the community.

Comments regarding the draft City Plan (Year 3)

The ITA seeks financial support to fore-go the interest component of a capital works debt for the upgrade of the Ivanhoe Street scape (previously completed) to the value of $149,692

The submission suggests the City Plan is a balanced document, however proposes some alternative narrative. It suggests other P’s, providing a “basis for evaluating actual performance, rather than the City plan document. They are: Pragmatism, Progress”. It also uses some examples to support this alternative, suggesting specific cases where the submitter believes Council could have achieved better outcomes. Examples cited are: Ivanhoe Major Activity Centre Structure Plan Process, 107-109 Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe, 8 Donaldson Street, Ivanhoe, Waterdale Assisted Living, Ivanhoe.

Submission supported, and the requested $15,000 be funded from Budget savings to be identified throughout 2015/2016 as a one off contribution and subject to selection criteria (to be agreed by Council at its meeting on 6 July 2015)

Submission not supported on this occasion, and be deferred for consideration as part of the Budget 2016/2017 (Note: This submission is aligned with a key initiative included in the draft City Plan: ‘Prepare a City Wide Tennis Strategic Plan for Council consideration and pending adoption, prepare an implementation plan by June 2016’. This will help inform capital priorities for tennis clubs throughout Banyule.)

Submission not supported on this occasion

Submission not supported on this occasion, and no changes be made to the draft City Plan.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 191

6.2

Attachment 1: Summary of Consideration of Submissions Received on the Proposed Budget 2015/2016 (and Draft City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 3))

Attachment 1

Item: 6.2

6.2 Attachment 1

Item: 6.2

Attachment 1: Summary of Consideration of Submissions Received on the Proposed Budget 2015/2016 (and Draft City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 3))

29. Submission from the President Watsonia Traders Association on behalf of the WTA

Support for Council’s draft Budget 2015/2016

30. Submission from the Centre Coordinator Bell St Mall Traders Association (BSMTA) on behalf of the BSMTA

60th Anniversary of both the Bell St Mall and the Melbourne Olympics

31. Submission on behalf of the Bellfield Residents Action Group (BRAG).

Bellfield infrastructure and community facility improvement

Currently funded

The submission is in support of Council’s draft Budget 2015/2016. It highlights the importance of the Special Rate scheme the Watsonia Motor Show and Family Day, and thanks Council for its support. It also highlights recent improvements to the area and thanks Council for these.

Next year marks the 60th Anniversary of both the Bell St Mall and the Melbourne Olympics - consider as part of 2015/2016 Budget to set aside funds for a joint project in this area.

The submission expresses ‘disappointment in the lack of any funds or immediate plans to provide much needed infrastructure in Bellfield’. It includes mention of the school site sales and development and the need for improvement to community facilities in the area. The submission acknowledges Council’s allocation to further plan the development of Bellfield and requests that BRAG and other Bellfield residents can be part of the planning process.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 192

Submission not supported on this occasion, and be deferred for consideration as part of the Budget 2016/2017

6.8

Attachment 1: Councillor Report on attendance at conference visit requiring interstate or overseas travel.

Attachment 1

Item: 6.8

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 193

Attachment 1: Councillor Report on attendance at conference visit requiring interstate or overseas travel.

Attachment 1

6.8

Item: 6.8

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 194

6.8

Attachment 1: Councillor Report on attendance at conference visit requiring interstate or overseas travel.

Attachment 1

Item: 6.8

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 195

Attachment 1: Councillor Report on attendance at conference visit requiring interstate or overseas travel.

Attachment 1

6.8

Item: 6.8

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 196

Photos Taken From Library Tour as part of the Conference

6.8

Attachment 2: Photos taken from the Library Tour as part of the Conference

Attachment 2

Item: 6.8

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 197

Attachment 2: Photos taken from the Library Tour as part of the Conference

Attachment 2

6.8

Item: 6.8

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 198

6.8

Attachment 2: Photos taken from the Library Tour as part of the Conference

Attachment 2

Item: 6.8

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 199

Attachment 2: Photos taken from the Library Tour as part of the Conference

Attachment 2

6.8

Item: 6.8

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 200

Attachment 1: Banyule Environmental Advisory Committee May NOTES 2015

BANYULE ENVIRONMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

6.9

Item: 6.9

Community Representatives:

John D’Aloia (Chair) Alan Leenaerts (GPAC Rep), Denise Fernando, Maree Keenan, Peter Castaldo, Jonathan Thom

Council Officers:

Fleur Anderson, Daniel Kollmorgan, Arun Chopra

Councillor Representative: Cr Steve Briffa, Cr Craig Langdon (Arrived 8:50pm) Apologies

Matt Hall, John Milkins, Kate Roberts

1. ESD Tour of Ivanhoe Aquatic (Arun Chopra, Manager Capital Projects) 2. Confirmation of April meeting notes AL, DF 3. Disclosures of Interest NIL 4. Matters arising from previous meetings 14.09 Environmental Sustainability Grants 2014 Update (FA) Murundaka Co-housing has withdrawn their project from the awarded grant pool and will return the monies. There was a disconnect between the intent of the application with a focus on food production permaculture principles and the actual Verge trial participants which were almost solely focussed on indigenous plantings. Murundaka were apologetic but felt their energies were best used elsewhere in the community. They do not intend to be part of the trial. Restrictive trial guidelines that were not suited to best horticultural practice were cited as reasons for not participating in the trial. 15.01 Integrated Transport Plan Update (DK) Council will be briefed on the ITP on 9 June 2015 followed by a Council report the draft ITP will go on public exhibition after this for further community consultation. DK spoke of a range of tools being available to deal with parking issues. One strategy includes increasing car drivers discomfort e.g. through restricted parking opportunities to lead to an increase in public transport use. 5. New Business 15.07 – Council Draft Budget – Implications (DK)

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 201

Attachment 1

MEETING NOTES 13 May 2015 7:00 pm

6.9

Item: 6.9

Attachment 1: Banyule Environmental Advisory Committee May NOTES 2015

Council is about to consider the draft budget. The Environment budget has been restructured in how it is allocated. To retain the full 350K earmarked for solar PV at Watermarc and the Operations Depot 100K will be directed away from operating / community programming budgets and into this direct action measure.

Attachment 1

In 2016-17 the State government is proposing to cap local government rates at CPI which will impact on Council services. BEAC raised concerns about:  Council committed to considering the 700K for solar PV over two years in the 14/15 budget.  Loss of community engagement and decreases in services being used to cover Council’s costs of operating buildings.  Loss of social capital and momentum in the community. Environmental economics shows that the return of investment for community programming is high. BEAC advised that Council to:  Encourage the State Government to cease rate capping measures.  Return the Environmental Planning budget to the previous amount.  That PV can be installed at any time when the capital is available. They advocated to retain operating/community program budgets over the solar PV installation. Members were reminded that there are a number of opportunities to feed into the draft budget process:  Submissions are open until 15 May 2015  Request to heard at Council meeting on Monday 25 May. Actions 15.08 - State Budget and its implications for Local Government (AL) To be held over until next meeting.

Meeting Finished 9:15 pm Contact Fleur Anderson on 9457 9828 for further information Next meeting: 10 June 2015 Rosanna Meeting Room 2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 22 JUNE 2015 Page 202