Banyule City Council 20 July 2015 Ordinary Meeting Agenda by Banyule City Council

Ordinary Meeting of Council Council Chambers, Service Centre 275 Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe 20 July 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 6 July 2015

Disclosure of Interests Nil 1. Petitions 1.1 Anthony Beale Regional Family Playspace ............................................................. 3 REPORTS: 2. People – Community Strengthening and Support Nil 3. Planet – Environmental Sustainability 3.1 Urban Forest Plan................................................................................................... 7 4. Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment 4.1 Development Contribution Schemes for land developers ...................................... 13

AGENDA (Contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d) 4.2 4.3

Council response to the "Better Apartments" Discussion Paper ............................ 18 Further consideration of trees to be removed as part of approved Aged Care Development at 250 Waterdale Road, Ivanhoe ................................... 28

5. Participation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Community Involvement in Community Life Nil 6. Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely 6.1 Clarification of Previous Council Report on Insurance........................................... 33 6.2 14 Ivanhoe Parade Ivanhoe - Proposed sale of land - Hearing Submissions ......................................................................................................... 35 6.3 Scouts Association of Australia Victorian Branch - Lease ..................................... 39 6.4 Assembly of Councillors ........................................................................................ 43 7. Sealing of Documents 7.1 Sealing of Documents .......................................................................................... 49 8. Notices of Motion 8.1 Review of Council Committees ............................................................................. 51 8.2 Planning and Public Consultation Meetings - Public Participation Guidelines............................................................................................................. 53 8.3 Mayoral Duties and Attendance 16 March - 30 June 2015 .................................... 54 8.4 Indian Myna Birds ................................................................................................. 59 8.5 Business Awards .................................................................................................. 60 8.6 Naming of Pavilion at Seddon Reserve Ivanhoe ................................................... 61 9. General Business 10. Urgent Business Closure of Meeting to the Public That in accordance with Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989, Council close the Meeting to members of the public and adjourn for five minutes to allow the public to leave the Chamber prior to considering the following confidential matter 11. Confidential Matters 11.1 Contractual matters 11.2 Contractual matters 11.3 Contractual matters 11.4 Contractual matters 11.5 Contractual matters

Matters Discussed in Camera That all confidential matters and reports related to the above items remain confidential unless otherwise specified. Closure of Meeting

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 2

1.1

Petitions

1.1

ANTHONY BEALE REGIONAL FAMILY PLAYSPACE

Author:

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

Ward:

Beale

File:

F2015/167 & D15/84500

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A petition with 61 signatures has been received. The petition prayer is as follows: â&#x20AC;&#x153;We the undersigned residents, who reside near the proposed play space, request that the following be addressed by Banyule City Council. We are very concerned at the construction of any size skate park within the park. Due to the problems experienced at other skate parks in the area, e.g. closeness to housing, possibility of drug deals and the calling of Police, and a necessity of CCTV cameras etc., we would like the following issues addressed. Noise of skates over concrete will be heard streets away. Problems with car parking with the lack of any increased parking areas. Residents already contend with the overflow during weekends from sporting events. Young families need to feel safe and secure in their local environment. The need for public toilet facilities in the immediate area and not relying on the availability of the sports pavilion. Graffiti issues will be a big concern. We request that Banyule City Council give the above concerns serious attention with consultation with the petitioners below.â&#x20AC;? RECOMMENDATION That: 1.

Council receives and notes the petition.

Officers continue to investigate options for creating additional informal match day parking at Anthony Beale Reserve.

The adequacy of the adjacent unisex toilet to service the Anthony Beale Regional family play space be monitored.

Council proceed with the construction of the Regional Family Play space at Anthony Beale Reserve, including the proposed small section of junior skate elements.

The primary petitioner be notified of this report.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 3

1.1

Petitions

ANTHONY BEALE REGIONAL FAMILY PLAYSPACE cont’d BACKGROUND Council has allocated funding in the 2014/15 and 2015/16 capital works budget to construct a Regional Family Play space at Anthony Beale Reserve, St Helena. Consultation has been ongoing over the past 12 months. Plans are currently being finalised for preparation for tendering. It is planned for construction of the facility to commence later in 2015. DISCUSSION Skate Element The plans for a family play space at Anthony Beale Reserve include a few simple learner level skate elements to provide opportunities for young children and beginners to try out their scooters and skate boards while the rest of their family enjoy the other facilities. At the moment this element is being shown as part of Stage 2, however, depending on tender prices received, it may form part of the first stage. It is considered though, that this is not the type of facility which will attract serious skaters. To put the matter in context, the skate elements make up less than 10% of the facilities proposed, to describe it as a skate park is misleading. It is a family play space which has a few skate elements. The petition refers to problems experienced at other skate parks. Banyule has two major skate facilities, one at Greensborough and the other at Heidelberg West. In general the behaviour of skate park users at both of these sites has been good and Council has experienced no major problems. There is also an inference in the petition linking skate parks with drug deals. There is no experience to support this view, particularly in the case of Banyule’s skate facilities. Council’s experience has been to the contrary; particularly with facilities such as those proposed for Anthony Beale Reserve, as the environment created by this type of play space will almost certainly attract the attendance of family groups on a regular basis, which generally has the effect of discouraging any anti-social behaviour. Car Parking There are 95 designated car parking spaces available on-site to cater for proposed regional family play space. This is expected to adequately cater for the play space for a majority of the time. However on Sundays during the football season there are junior football matches held on both ovals at the Reserve. The parking demand on these days exceeds the capacity of the available on-site car parking facilities and parking spills into the surrounding streets. Residents are concerned that the new play space will add to this problem on Sundays during the football season. This is likely to be the only time when car parking will be an issue. Council’s experience is that people tend to manage in these situations though selfregulation. For instance Council was faced with a similar situation at Warringal Park when the Possum Hollow Regional Play space was built, as parking capacity was already exceeded on match days there as well. However the situation hasn’t been any worse on match days since the regional play space opened over two years ago. Never the less, options for informal overflow parking match days is being investigated at Anthony Beale Reserve.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 4

ANTHONY BEALE REGIONAL FAMILY PLAYSPACE contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d Public Toilets There is an accessible unisex toilet under the pavilion adjacent to the playground. At the moment this is only unlocked on match days. Once the regional family play space is built, it is proposed that this facility will be fitted with a change table and be open for use every day during daylight hours. The adequacy of this facility will be monitored. ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 5

1.1

Petitions

3.1

URBAN FOREST PLAN

Author:

Peter Benazic - Manager Parks & Gardens, Assets & City Services

File:

F2015/5224

3.1

Planet – Environmental Sustainability

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of the Urban Forest Plan is to provide a clear strategic direction that underpins the sustainable management of Banyule’s’ street trees and park trees. The City Plan identifies the development of this Plan as a priority objective which is consistent with the views expressed by the Banyule community. The Urban Forest Plan responds to the community desire for ongoing stewardship of trees. The Plan articulates the multitude of benefits that trees provide for the community. It also identifies a number of challenges and provides clear and ambitious objectives to sustain Banyule’s tree population through targeted actions. Trees evoke a range of divergent views from the community and as a result this plan has endeavoured to capture the sentiment of residents and stakeholders groups. The feedback collected from the community through a thorough and extensive consultation process has been generally positive. Council has been complimented on the development of the strategic approach to the important community asset its trees. The feedback also identified some areas of improvement. The Plan identifies 11 goals that will support implementation to ensure that Banyule’s Urban Forest continues to thrive, provides ongoing environmental benefits, and meets the expectation of the Banyule community. Council’s website will include a copy of the Plan and associated material on the management of Banyule’s Urban Forest. RECOMMENDATION That Council adopt the Urban Forest Plan (attached) 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 “protect and enhance our natural environment”. This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to Protect and plant trees and appropriate vegetation:

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 7

3.1

Planet – Environmental Sustainability

URBAN FOREST PLAN cont’d The Plan aims to meet the key initiatives which are:    



Raise community awareness of Banyule’s Urban Forest. Finalise and implement an Urban Forestry Policy and Strategic Plan to improve the quality and quantity of the City’s urban forest. Work towards further establishing and building the profile of urban forestry in Banyule and supporting action on canopy enhancement in the public and private realm. Inspect and protect the treed environment in public places through Council’s Parks and Gardens service area, including collection of scientific data on the City’s public realm trees to assist the maintenance and protection of our urban forest. Work with the Banyule community to broaden understanding of the benefits and importance of the Urban Forest and increase connection to them

BACKGROUND The vision for the Urban Forest is to “enhance our dynamic urban forest so that it continues to provide community health benefits and contributes towards neighbourhood character for current and future generations” This vision is consistent with Councils City Plan Vision. The City of Banyule’s Urban Forest is currently a thriving diverse mix of exotics, natives and indigenous remnant vegetation. There is an estimated 65,000 street trees in Banyule. There are also over 50,000 park trees in maintained open space areas and over 110,000 reserve trees in remnant vegetation stands and native areas of significance that Council manages. The Plan identifies that there are increasing complexities in an ever changing urban environment. Issues such as increasing urban density, rising levels of customer service expectation, aging infrastructure, increasing litigious activity, extreme climate events, cultural diversity, threats to biodiversity, rising costs of resources are considered in this Plan. Council and the community acknowledge the positive impact that urban trees, parks and bushland reserve have on Banyule’s unique character. The Plan aims to strengthen environmental stewardship which is consistent with Council’s Planet Policy Frameworks. Specifically, the importance of living landscapes in providing basic ecosystem amenities such as clean air, clean water, shelter and habitat. To ensure that the Plan had the appropriate rigour and factual content, a stratified sample inspection of Banyule’s street tree population was undertaken using an internationally recognised software tool. A total of 11,604 trees were examined, noting their size, health and maturity. The analysis of the data determined that the tree population was in a generally good state of health, trees were generally structurally sound and there was a diverse spread of tree life expectancies. The results of the detailed inspection indicated that Eucalyptus species and other natives specie are dominant in the city landscape. The information also provides a basis for calculations for economic values trees provide across a number attributes such as carbon storage, energy offsets etc.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 8

URBAN FOREST PLAN cont’d

Through an understanding of the state of the existing urban forest, a series of goals have been developed to meet the proposed vision for Banyule’s Urban Forest. The proposed goals are ambitious, yet achievable through complementary programs of tree planting, routine maintenance and community engagement. The implementation of these goals will lead to the sustainable management of one of Banyule City Council’s most valuable assets. The goals are as follows:           

Increase canopy cover in public land Encourage an increase in canopy cover on private land Increase environmental benefits of urban forest Improve health of urban forest Improve biodiversity Raise the profile of the urban forest within Council Maintain and Improve Urban Character Improve community engagement with the urban forest Improve establishment rate of new tree plantings Improve species selection Apply World Best Practice

These goals will be successful though a series of actions working towards definable measures and achieved within the current budget parameters. In conjunction with the development of the Plan a number supporting operational procedures were also reviewed. Council is cognisant of the need to ensure that public safety considerations were met and are supported through the appropriate operational procedures. This occurs in conjunction with two (2) year routine safety and maintenance inspections of all street trees. 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. FUNDING IMPLICATIONS Funds for tree maintenance activities which support the Urban Forest Plan are included within the operating budget. A graduated capital works funding program will be submitted for consideration in the Council Budget for tree planting and establishment. Relevant grants pertaining to greening projects will also be sought from Federal and State government agencies as they become available.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 9

3.1

Planet – Environmental Sustainability

3.1

Planet – Environmental Sustainability

URBAN FOREST PLAN cont’d CONSULTATION There has been extensive consultation undertaken on the Plan including:  Two presentations to Banyule Environment Advisory Committee  Two Community Information Meetings on the draft Plan  Two Community Information Meetings on the operational procedures  Publication of the draft Plan and the operational procedures on Council’s website  Promotion of the draft Plan in the local newspaper in the Mayor’s column  Surveys of the community at Council events Overall approximately 230 community members have been directly engaged in the above process. The Urban Forest Plan was presented to the Banyule Environment Advisory Committee (BEAC) in late 2014 for expert and community feedback and discussion. The Plan was circulated for feedback to relevant Council departments to ensure it was congruent with organisational policies. The community were invited to attend two public forums to participate in feedback sessions. The social media platform was also used to encourage feedback opportunities and promote Council’s plan. The Plan was also promoted on Council’s web page with a facility for community feedback. Officers also undertook an in-field information collection process in which two hundred surveys were conduct during council events. A common feedback response is reflected in the following comment; “I commend the concept of an Urban Forest Strategy and agree with the range of community benefits specified in the draft document. The idea of managing all the trees within the municipality in one integrated strategy is sound and will enhance the amenity of Banyule” This comment was consistently echoed throughout the consultation process. The consultation process also revealed that the community understood the concept of habitat creation and encouraged the use of dead trees for this purpose in appropriate locations. There was comment regarding identifying greater engagement and promotion with volunteers for greening activities. Whilst the feedback regarding benefits of trees was generally positive there was also comment provided regarding the issues that trees create. One comment requested additional consideration to “help residents when they are impacted by injury and damage caused by trees”. Issues such as leaf and bark drop and branch drop created significant concern for some members of the community. Distortion to street infrastructure was also highlighted as a concern by some people and has been the subject of petition to council in recent times. Comment regarding excessive tree size and the potential for damage was also raised. The in-field survey data found that 99% people considered it was important that Banyule maintained trees in parks and streets; there was strong support for continued tree planting in both parks and streets. In relation to tree size, 69% of those surveyed had a preference for medium to large trees. There was mixed response to species selection with 44% of respondent’s preferring native trees to exotic trees, and 47% preferring that Council use both native and exotic. In relation to tree nuisance issues, 19% of the respondents identified leaf drop as an issue,

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 10

Planet – Environmental Sustainability

3.1

URBAN FOREST PLAN cont’d 29% damage to footpaths was a concern, and 43% indicated that there were no issues of concern. Feedback was also received regarding strengthening community participation in tree planting activities to create greater community ownership. The importance of local providence species was mooted to ensure that local fauna establishment opportunities were optimised. Consultation was also undertaken for the 16 operating procedures that support the maintenance activities for the Urban Forest. The procedures were provided to the Banyule Environment Advisory Committee (BEAC) for comment prior to undertaking two public meetings. In general, Council was commended for providing the opportunity for public comment on the internal procedures. The views provided in the consultation process were mixed with differing opinions on tree size, safety perceptions, species selection and leaf and twig litter generated by trees. Comments were raised regarding the customer service processes offered by Councils insurer when damage occurs by trees. The area of most contention was Council process for considering tree removal requests. Previously the decision was made by the Arborist and endorsed by the Parks Manager. The procedure now provides opportunity for escalation and further consideration. The procedure is as follows: Tree Removal Request Process  Customer service request received.  Tree inspected by the Council Arborist and resident advised of outcome.  If the resident is not satisfied with decision they trigger an appeal process.  Parks & Gardens Manager reviews the Senior Arborist decision and may call for an. Independent assessment report and resident advised of outcome.  If the matter is not resolved it is referred to Director of Assets and City services for a final determination. It is suggested that this information be provided to residents in a brochure and on the Council website. CONCLUSION The Urban Forest Plan clearly demonstrates Council’s ongoing commitment to the natural environment. The development plan has incorporated in-depth analysis and contemporary thinking to demonstrate the broad values that trees provide for the liveability of the City and for its citizens and wildlife. Whilst trees are traditionally valued for their amenity and environmental attributes, the Plan clearly demonstrates the broader value and benefits of trees. The extensive consultation process has in broad terms endorsed the intended actions proposed for the implementation of the Plan.

ATTACHMENTS No.

Title

Urban Forest Plan

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 64

Page 11

4.1

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTION SCHEMES FOR LAND DEVELOPERS

Author:

David Cox - Strategic Planning Co-ordinator, City Development

File:

F2014/4172

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report informs Council about funding schemes that may help to partially fund council infrastructure from contributions collected from land development. These schemes can be pursued after a Council adopts a long-term plan for scheduling and timing of future works. With such a plan in place, with projected costs and delivery dates known, Council is then positioned to create a scheme for the projected ‘growth component’ of future works. This growth component will be funded from developer contributions that are collected over time. Preliminary investigation reveals that these funding schemes must be created, reviewed and operated from well-considered growth projections, through a governance structure and with corporate accounting practices to monitor the collection of monies and enable construction of specified works that are in a scheme. After a scheme has been created and approved by Council, it can then be enforced if it is included in the planning scheme. Moving forward, the feasibility of creating any specific scheme can be further considered by Council after a ‘Strategic Framework for Contribution Schemes’ has been prepared. High level cost benefit analysis could then be prepared for each of the scheme options detailed in the Strategic Framework for Contribution Schemes’ so that Council can elect which schemes should be pursued. RECOMMENDATION That Officers develop the following for further consideration by Council: 1.

A Strategic Framework for Contribution Schemes’ in 2015/16, to inform future decision making for schemes in Banyule.

A cost/benefit analysis to test the viability of, and provide direction on, which contribution schemes should be pursued.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 13

4.1

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.1

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTION SCHEMES FOR LAND DEVELOPERS cont’d CITY PLAN The City Plan has a key direction to “Maintain and improve Banyule as a great place to live”. This is coupled with an initiative to “Consider options for amendments to the planning scheme to provide a basis for development contributions for community facilities, infrastructure, etc.” This note makes progress on this initiative. BACKGROUND There are various funding mechanisms available to Council for community facilities, open space facilities, transport infrastructure, drainage infrastructure and for public land. A list is shown below:       

General Rates Differential Rates Special Rates and Charges Conditions on Permits Agreements Development Contribution Plans Infrastructure Contribution Plans

     

Open Space Levies Parking Precinct Plans (Case-in-lieu) Direct User Charges and Fees Grants Asset Sales Borrowings

Council already uses most of these mechanisms and on others has started work for: 1.

Parking Precinct Plans. A plan is being prepared for the Heidelberg Activity Centre. This transport plan will consider future car parking contributions by developers, to help fund specified infrastructure in the plan. Refining requirements for Open Space Levies. A reviewed Open Space Strategy is being prepared. The new strategy will include information to underpin Council’s shift to a specified rate/s for open space levies.

In this list there are two ‘contribution scheme’ mechanisms that have not been previously explored in Banyule. These are Development Contribution Plans (DCPs) and Infrastructure Contribution Plans (ICPs). More on these is given below. Development Contribution Plans and Infrastructure Contribution Plans In metropolitan Melbourne’s established suburbs (such as in Banyule), where redevelopment happens rather than greenfield development, DCPs and ICPs are tools to help partially fund future infrastructure. In these suburbs, the proportion of total infrastructure cost that can be collected from development, through these tools, is relatively small. This is because these tools have to be linked with an area’s rate of change, as a proportion of total development that has already occurred. Consequently they are only useful when coupled with other funding tools that collectively cover the full cost of future infrastructure. For Banyule, the rate of redevelopment has been relatively low in comparison to most other established municipalities. This means that Banyule’s ability to collect contributions will be less in comparison to most other councils. Both mechanisms are tied with legal, governance and accounting implications that would oblige Council to make long-term funding commitments to specific infrastructure in a specified future year. Both tools can only be enforced if they are imbedded in the Planning Scheme. This requires a Planning Scheme Amendment, with public exhibition of the proposed plan and a Planning Panel to consider submissions.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 14

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTION SCHEMES FOR LAND DEVELOPERS cont’d

The main difference between the two tools is that DCPs can have locally-tailored development contribution rates, for infrastructure that is specified and committed to by Council. ICPs can only be used in Government specified locations, such as the LaTrobe National Employment Cluster (NEC), and will apply standardised contribution rates. These rates would be set by the Government. The Government is continuing work for setting up ICPs, with legislative change anticipated in 2015. This change will then support creation of ICPs, in-line with recommendations given by the Government’s Standard Development Contributions Advisory Committee and involving the Metropolitan Planning Authority (MPA) for NECs across metropolitan Melbourne. Potential Infrastructure Contribution Plans in Banyule The Government’s metropolitan planning strategy, Plan Melbourne, has introduced NECs as priority places for redevelopment and employment growth. For Melbourne’s Northern Region, the LaTrobe NEC is in parts of Banyule and Darebin. In Banyule’s part of the LaTrobe NEC, future growth that is serviced by infrastructure contributions could: help regenerate Heidelberg West; continue to support the Heidelberg Activity Centre, and promote further employment clustering for medical and allied industries around the major hospitals. The MPA are currently preparing a land use and transport framework for the LaTrobe NEC. A draft framework is expected in mid-2015. Recent discussion with the MPA is also revealing that their future work will consider setup and rollout of an ICP for the LaTrobe NEC into the Banyule and Darebin planning schemes. This highlights the need to continue work with:  

MPA, to support the creation of a framework for the LaTrobe NEC. Darebin Council, to appreciate Community Infrastructure demand and supply for the NEC.

Doing this will position Banyule to consider an ICP Framework for the LaTrobe NEC. Considering Development Contribution Plans in Banyule The potential for any future DCP in Banyule, to enable funding for future infrastructure, is dependent on projections for future development. These projections are important because development contributions can only levy new development over time – not existing development. Early analysis shows that, at best, 15% of total cost may be fulfilled from collected development contributions. The remainder would need to be funded through other funding mechanisms. Because the accountability requirements for creating and operating a DCP are rigorous, Council’s ability to introduce DCPs will need to be coupled with a clear longterm commitment for construction of nominated infrastructure at a specified future year. To achieve this, Council will need to make a commitment that extends beyond a 12 month annual budget and possibly beyond a 4 year timeline. Without evidence of a commitment, a Planning Panel would not recommend support for a DCP and the Minister for Planning would not support a DCP being introduced into the Banyule Planning Scheme.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 15

4.1

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.1

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTION SCHEMES FOR LAND DEVELOPERS cont’d Where to Next – Creating a Strategic Framework Whilst DCPs have been used by Councils in Melbourne’s growth corridors, where developer contributions can help fund new urban infrastructure, most establishedarea Councils do not have DCPs. To make progress for Banyule, the following could be done:    

Progress discussion with other established-area Councils, to appreciate their DCP learnings. Broad-brush growth estimates prepared for different parts of Banyule Outline of 10 year infrastructure/asset aspirations listed Outline of key governance, legal, auditing, accounting and resourcing implications for creation and operation of DCPs prepared.

Doing this will inform a ‘Strategic Framework for Development Contributions’ (The Strategic Framework). The Strategic Framework would consider alternative ways to use contribution schemes in Banyule and would be informed by some high-level cost/benefit analysis to test the viability of different scheme options for: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Targeted growth locations only (e.g. Activity Centres) Preferred infrastructure/asset type only (e.g. Libraries) Preferred infrastructure/asset item only (e.g. drainage upgrade priority) Combinations of the above, such as preferred infrastructure with a high-growth Activity Centre.

With an adopted Strategic Framework in place, Council would then be positioned to consider a preferred approach for preparing contribution schemes in Banyule. This process is outlined in figure 1. The Government’s legislative progress for ICPs illustrates that progress on a Strategic Framework will require input from the MPA as well.

Cost Benefit Analysis

Strategic Framework Broad brush Growth estimates Outline 10 year infrastucture /assett plan Outline governance, legal, auditing, accoutning and resource implications

Seek consultant input to outline high level costs and returns to Council for different contribution scheme options.

Prepare contribution scheme based on preferred option/s 1

•Targeted Growth location only (eg. Activity Centre)

•Preferred infastucture/asset type (eg. Libraries)

•Preferred infrastructure/asset type (eg. Drainage upgrade)

Figure 1: Outline of process

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 16

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTION SCHEMES FOR LAND DEVELOPERS cont’d

CONCLUSION DCPs and ICPs are funding mechanisms for future infrastructure commitments. These schemes may help to partially fund future infrastructure. A Strategic Framework can be created to inform future decision for contribution schemes in Banyule. ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 17

4.1

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.2

COUNCIL RESPONSE TO THE "BETTER APARTMENTS" DISCUSSION PAPER

Author:

Jackie Bernoth - Co-ordinator Development Planning, City Development

File:

F2015/1890

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The State Government’s Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) is currently seeking feedback on the Better Apartments Discussion Paper. The Discussion Paper has arisen from the increasing importance of apartments as part of Melbourne’s mix of housing, and discussions in relation to the quality of apartment buildings being built, with a particular emphasis on the amenity of future residents of the dwellings they contain. In particular, feedback is sought on the need to provide for:              

Daylight Sunlight Space Outlook Natural Ventilation Noise Outdoor space Adaptability Landscape Universal Design Energy and resources Waste Car parking Entry and circulation

These issues overlap with Council’s previous work in relation to Livability, Environmentally Sustainable Design, and Integrated Transport. From a resident amenity point of view it is also considered that ‘outlook’ and ‘outdoor space’ are of key significance. This report recommends that Council consider lodging a submission to the DELWP in relation to each of the 14 issues identified, outlining: 

The need for more performance-based assessment of future resident amenity in relation to apartments in the Planning Scheme,



That the issues of ‘outlook’, ‘outdoor space’, ‘universal design’, ‘energy and resources’ and ‘car parking’ are considered to impact most significantly upon the amenity of apartment residents, and



That ‘adaptability’ is the least significant.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 18

COUNCIL RESPONSE TO THE "BETTER APARTMENTS" DISCUSSION PAPER cont’d RECOMMENDATION That Council make a submission to the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning in relation to each of the 14 issues identified in the Better Apartments Discussion Paper, outlining: 

The need for more performance-based assessment of future resident amenity in relation to apartments in the Planning Scheme,



That ‘adaptability’ is the least significant.

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 “maintain and improve Banyule as a great place to live”. BACKGROUND It is anticipated that between 2011 and 2051, Melbourne’s population will almost double. This population increase comes with the challenge of providing appropriate housing to meet the needs of future households. Apartments are an important and growing component of the mix of housing available in the city. The State Government’s Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) indicates that “since 2009, Melbourne has experienced successive years of record apartment approvals and development”, with apartments making up nearly a third of all new dwellings approved across the state. The graph below, from the Better Apartments Discussion Paper, identifies that the number of high rise apartments approved has, since 2012, been greater than the number of new dwellings in growth areas.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 19

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

COUNCIL RESPONSE TO THE "BETTER APARTMENTS" DISCUSSION PAPER cont’d

Figure 1: Annual approvals of dwellings by type, Melbourne 2001-2014 (Source: ABS Building approvals, cat.no. 8731.0) Concurrent with this growth, there has been discussion and concern in relation to the quality of apartment developments across the state. Victorian Planning Schemes each include specific requirements for the assessment of single dwellings, multidwelling developments up to four storeys in height, and taller developments. The assessment of each type of development varies in detail, with the most specific assessment detailed in relation to multi-dwelling developments. There is less specific guidance in relation to multi-level developments, with the existing Higher Density Design Guidelines seeking to promote well designed higher density housing through objectives relating to:      

Urban context Building envelope Street pattern and street-edge quality Circulation and services Building layout and design Open space and landscape design.

Previous VCAT decisions and the standard practices of councils have sought to address the perceived lack of quantative guidance in the Guidelines by effectively applying selected Standards of Clause 55 (ResCode) to apartment developments. For example, there is often discussion as to whether developments are afforded appropriate daylight access daylight by comparison with the corresponding ResCode requirement. More locality-specific matters such as front and rear boundary setbacks are often specified in Overlay controls that apply to individual activity centres. DELWP has identified the potential need for more guidance in the assessment of apartment buildings, and in particular the level of amenity afforded to residents of these buildings. As a first step in the preparation of a policy, assessment tool or guidelines it has produced the Better Apartments Discussion Paper, and is seeking input from the development industry, design professionals, councils, apartment residents and the wider community about how to improve the overall standard of internal apartment amenity.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 20

COUNCIL RESPONSE TO THE "BETTER APARTMENTS" DISCUSSION PAPER cont’d The following information from the Discussion Paper outlines its aim and scope: This discussion paper focuses on how we can ensure the spaces within an apartment match peoples’ needs and expectations during different phases of their lives. The paper provides a summary of issues related to the design and amenity of apartments and what we can potentially do to make ‘better apartments’. In particular, the purpose of the discussion paper is to: 

Provide a context to apartment living and discuss key issues



Focus on the internal design, amenity and functionality of apartments and apartment buildings



Consider other issues that affect amenity for those living in apartment buildings.

At this stage the discussion is centred on the amenity of all new apartments regardless of the number of apartments in a development or the height of a building. The Discussion Paper identifies the need for any outcome/product arising from the feedback to be implemented in a practical way, and as such feedback is also sought in relation to the form of the final product or outcome. It is anticipated that the final product may include one or a combination of the following approaches: Approach Regulatory based

Performance based

Policy based

Market based

Possible planning outcome Mandate minimum standards within planning schemes. Alternatively, or in addition, there may be a requirement to consider modifications to building regulations. This may also be in conjunction with design review and achieving design excellence. State Policy and Provision. Objectives, standards and decision guidelines (for variation to standards). A ‘ResCode’ for apartments. This may include an incentive based system (such as a ‘code assess’ framework) that helps to streamline the approvals processes. Revise Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development document or similar guide to good practice with some standards and best practice. A reference document in the Planning Scheme. Customer focused with more information to buyers to allow them to compare products. Work with the market to encourage good design. An apartment buyers’ or consumers’ guide and a publication defining good design.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 21

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

COUNCIL RESPONSE TO THE "BETTER APARTMENTS" DISCUSSION PAPER cont’d The Discussion Paper seeks feedback on 14 issues which impact upon resident amenity:              

Daylight Sunlight Space Outlook Natural Ventilation Noise Outdoor space Adaptability Landscape Universal Design Energy and resources Waste Car parking Entry and circulation

Feedback is to consider the relative importance of each matter, the issues that should be considered in developing any additional Planning tools, and the type of tools that might be appropriate. KEY ISSUES In preparing a submission in response to the Discussion Paper the issues of ‘outlook’, ‘outdoor space’, ‘universal design’, ‘energy and resources’ and ‘car parking’ are considered to impact most significantly upon the amenity of apartment residents. Livability, Environmentally Sustainable Development and Integrated Transport overlap with the latter of these issues to a large degree and are also of significant importance to Banyule. Council has sought to address each matter in recent years. The Discussion Paper offers the opportunity for Council to seek greater weight for some of these existing measures, as well as contributing constructively to the Statewide discussion through its own experience. OUTLOOK A key aspect of the draft submission is that it is essential that at least one living area of each apartment be provided with a pleasant outlook, with there being a greater need for outlook than privacy between multi-level buildings. OUTDOOR SPACE It is considered that each apartment should be provided with access to private open space, with the amount of space provided linked to either the apartment’s floor area, or the number of bedrooms provided. The draft submission also outlines that developers should be encouraged to supply communal space within buildings, or public space at ground level in order to encourage greater quality of life and social interaction, as well as catering to a more diverse group of residents. Space should be allocated on a per-apartment or % of floor area model, with the type of space to be dictated by the market (or by policy

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 22

COUNCIL RESPONSE TO THE "BETTER APARTMENTS" DISCUSSION PAPER cont’d where there are policies in place for the provision of public space at ground level of some sites). LIVABILITY Since 2013 Council has been implementing its Livable Housing Project which requires the inclusion of basic livability features within developments of 3 or more dwellings. The project is implemented by Council’s Development Planning Unit through the planning process. The specific guidelines are based on the work of Livable Housing Australia and others and are consistent with the principles of universal design. For developments consisting of 3 – 9 dwellings Banyule asks for a minimum of one dwelling which incorporates Council’s Livable Housing Guidelines. For developments of 10 or more, Council asks that a minimum of 20% of the dwellings incorporate the Guidelines. Since beginning implementation, this project has been successful in influencing change amongst the development community and is resulting in an increased stock of dwellings that incorporate universal design principles. It is estimated that in the 2013/2014 financial year a minimum of 22.46% (118) dwellings within multiunit development applications incorporated universal design principles through responding to Council’s Livable Housing Guidelines. This project demonstrates that better housing outcomes can be achieved within multiunit developments through the provision of clear information and requirements for universal design. However, elevation of the policy through State government policy or specific Planning controls would provide greater weight to the need to construct dwellings that are usable for a range of ages and abilities. The Discussion Paper themes of Adaptability and Universal Design link well with Council’s current policies in relation to livability. They are outlined as seeking to address the following issues: Adaptability:

Apartment buildings will last a long time but are difficult to modify once built

Universal Design:

Apartments are not suited to people of all ages and abilities

Council’s submission to the Discussion Paper should highlight the benefits of Universal Design, as currently implemented through its Livable Housing Project. Whilst there is some overlap between the two themes, it is considered that the Universal Design component should be pursued to a greater extent than that of Adaptability, in that apartment developments should be designed to suit a variety of future occupants at the outset, rather than simply offering the potential of modification in the future. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Council has sought to amend the Banyule Planning Scheme to introduce an Environmentally Sustainable Development local planning policy. Amendment C73 was exhibited concurrently with similar amendments to the planning schemes of the Cities of Yarra, Moreland, Port Phillip, Stonnington and Whitehorse from 28 February to 29 April 2013.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 23

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

COUNCIL RESPONSE TO THE "BETTER APARTMENTS" DISCUSSION PAPER cont’d The State Government-appointed Independent Panel / Advisory Committee (PAC) found the proposed Local Policy has strong legislative and policy support. It also recognised that a Statewide approach would be the most effective way to achieve the greatest sustainability outcomes, however the local approach is to be supported in the interim. Council resolved to adopt the Local Policy at its meeting on 19 May 2014 in line with the recommendations made by the PAC. The Local Policy has now been submitted to the Minister for Planning, where it has been awaiting approval for some 13 months, with Council’s Development Planning staff implementing the policy in the interim. Environmentally Sustainable Development is an underlying factor in Discussion Paper themes of Daylight, Sunlight, Natural Ventilation, Landscape, Car Parking and Energy and Resources. There is significant overlap between a number of these themes, and there may be some opportunity for measures to address these issues to be combined. It is appropriate that Council’s submission to the Discussion Paper identify Council’s commitment to this area and the need for the inclusion of policies and measures relating to Environmentally Sustainable Development to be included in the Planning Scheme. Key positions in this regard are that: 

Environmentally Sensitive Design should be specifically referenced in the Planning Scheme, as outlined in the Panel report to Amendment C73 to the Banyule Planning Scheme. Such policies have the benefit of improved thermal comfort for residents, as well as reduced energy and resource use (ie. reduced whole-of-life cost).



Consideration should be given to: o

The inclusion of mandatory resource and energy efficiency measures within the Planning Provisions. It is considered appropriate to require an average energy rating of at least 6 stars, with consideration given to requiring a higher energy rating. This may incorporate either a requirement for a higher average rating where more than 30% of dwellings perform poorly, or through a minimum requirement for 6 stars rather than the current average requirement for 6 stars.

A need for improved ventilation to apartments.

The provision of daylight and natural ventilation to communal areas.

INTEGRATED TRANSPORT Council has identified a number of challenges facing the Banyule community now and into the future. These challenges, as outlined in Council’s draft Integrated Transport Plan, have the potential to impact on our environment, community, health and wellbeing, and will affect the way we live and choose to travel. They are:         

Population growth Ageing population Accessibility and social inclusion Cultural and linguistically diverse communities Health and wellbeing Climate and the environment Safety Congestion Parking

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 24

COUNCIL RESPONSE TO THE "BETTER APARTMENTS" DISCUSSION PAPER cont’d There is a strong correlation between these challenges and the need for the Better Apartments Discussion Paper and its themes. It is appropriate that Council’s submission to the Discussion Paper outline the need to support alternatives to reliance upon motor vehicles for transportation, and key points to be included in the submission are that the Planning Scheme should:   



Reflect the benefit of providing parking for smaller vehicles, such as motorised scooters, motorbikes and mopeds; Encourage greater use of shared vehicles; Incorporate the potential for a lower provision of car parking to be offset by a corresponding increase in bicycle parking. In this respect, it is considered that the requirement for resident bicycle parking contained in Clause 52.34 is too low, and that a combined bicycle and parking requirement should be considered. Have reference to any Integrated Travel Plan prepared by municipal Councils.

ADDITIONAL MATTERS In addition to these issues, key aspects of the Draft Submission detailed in Attachment 1 are as follows:  



Designers should be encouraged to maximise sunlight access to dwellings and communal spaces as far as possible. A regulation similar to Standard 22 to Clause 55.05-6 (but modified to include application of the 9m separation as it relates to distance above a neighbouring property) should be utilised as being an appropriate measure of privacy expectations of single/multi dwelling developments adjoining proposed apartment buildings. Use of shared air conditioning units, with appropriate baffling, rather than individual units located on balconies is a matter that could be regulated or encouraged through the Planning Scheme, and would increase the amenity of balcony areas as well as adjoining rooms. Whilst there has been discussion about the introduction of minimum apartment sizes, introducing a minimum apartment size is not necessarily advantageous, and there is concern as to whether all designers are capable of making small spaces work. As a result, and in order to further aims in relation to Universal Design and negate specific requirements for Adaptability, it is considered more appropriate to mandate a mixture of apartment sizes, with no specified minimum size. Increased apartment development results in increased reliance upon private contractors for the collection of waste. This is not Council’s preference in relation to either service delivery or its overall aims to reduce the level of waste sent to landfill. Greater consideration of the location of waste facilities, including facilities for the storage of hard waste, and the amount of space for them should be incorporated early in the design process. Council would support provisions which encourage the use of shared 240L bins, rather than larger bins, so as to facilitate Council collection. Provisions for residents moving in/out, and trade access for repairs and renovations should be incorporated within regulatory controls, and in particular that lifts and/or stairwells need to be designed to allow for convenient transportation of furniture and renovation material. It is appropriate that a minimum lift size be stipulated.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 25

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

COUNCIL RESPONSE TO THE "BETTER APARTMENTS" DISCUSSION PAPER cont’d RELATIVE SIGNIFICANCE OF ISSUES In making a submission to the Discussion Paper, Council will be required to specify at least one, and up to five, issues which are both most important and least important. Whilst all issues are considered to be of relevance, and warrant detailed comments, it is considered that the ‘most important’ and ‘least important’ issues are as follows: Most important issues     

Outlook Outdoor space Universal Design Energy and resources Car parking

Least important issues 

Adaptability

TYPES OF CONTROL Many of the issues raised in the Discussion Paper warrant additional control through either Regulation or Performance-based standards which would function in a similar manner to the Standards in ResCode. In some instances, however, it may be sufficient to provide more general guidance (Policy-based controls), or allow market forces to continue to apply. Examples are as follows: Regulatory based: Performance based: Policy based: Market based:

Energy efficiency standards Sunlight access, private open space provision Daylight access The type of communal open space provided

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 26

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.2

COUNCIL RESPONSE TO THE "BETTER APARTMENTS" DISCUSSION PAPER cont’d 2015. Officers anticipate that further detailed feedback on any resultant tool or policy would be sought in 2016. CONCLUSION Council has the opportunity to lodge a submission in relation to the Better Apartments Discussion Paper. Submissions from Council are due by 31 July 2015. A submission on behalf of Banyule Council will be prepared and submitted by this date in line with issues raised in this report and the associated attachment.

ATTACHMENTS No.

Title

Draft submission to the Better Apartments Discussion Paper

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 100

Page 27

4.3

FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF TREES TO BE REMOVED AS PART OF APPROVED AGED CARE DEVELOPMENT AT 250 WATERDALE ROAD, IVANHOE

Author:

Joel Elbourne - Manager of Urban Planning & Building, City Development

Ward:

Olympia

File:

P484/2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the Council meeting of 12 August 2013, Council resolved to Adopt Planning Scheme Amendment C86 and submit an adopted Amendment C86 and Planning Permit P484/11 to the Minister for Planning for approval in relation to a proposed Residential Aged Care Facility development. Council also resolved that an independent, appropriately qualified and experienced arborist be commissioned to confirm or otherwise, whether two trees at 250 Waterdale Road, Ivanhoe are structurally sound and worthy of retention. An assessment of the trees has been undertaken by a second Development Planning Arborist and a review of the trees by an independent consulting arborist has also been commissioned with a tree assessment report being provided on 29 May 2015. Based on the independent assessment, and a further assessment involving exploratory excavation, it is considered that the removal of the trees is appropriate. It is also considered that the trees should not be retained having regard to the building footprint of the approved development. RECOMMENDATION That Council note the independent consulting arborist advice and results of an exploratory excavation in relation to two trees known as 629 and 638 at 250 Waterdale Road, Ivanhoe and that the removal of these trees is appropriate and consistent with the Planning Panel decision and Council’s resolution of 12 August 2013.

Planning Permit Application:

C86 and P484/11

Development Planner:

Mr Joel Elbourne

Address:

250 Waterdale Road IVANHOE

Proposal:

Residential Aged Care Facility, reduction to the standard bicycle parking requirements, associated vegetation removal and works within 5 metres of protected vegetation.

Existing Use/Development:

Residential Aged Care Facility

Applicant:

Vasilios Tzirkas

Zoning:

General Residential Zone – Schedule 2

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 28

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

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

Overlays:

4.3

FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF TREES TO BE REMOVED AS PART OF APPROVED AGED CARE DEVELOPMENT AT 250 WATERDALE ROAD, IVANHOE contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d Vegetation Protection Overlay (Schedule 5) Environmental Significance Overlay (Schedule 4) Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 10) Notification (Advertising):

N/A

Objections Received:

N/A

Ward:

Olympia

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 At the Council meeting of 12 August 2013, Council resolved to Adopt Planning Scheme Amendment C86 and submit an adopted Amendment C86 and Planning Permit P484/11 to the Minister for Planning for Approval. The approval gave permission for a the development of a Residential Aged Care Facility, reduction to the standard bicycle parking requirements, associated vegetation removal and works within 5 metres of protected vegetation. In the resolution, Council also resolved that an independent, appropriately qualified and experienced arborist be commissioned to confirm or otherwise, whether trees 629 and 638 are structurally sound and worthy of retention. An assessment of the trees has been undertaken by a second Development Planning Arborist and a review of the trees by an independent consulting arborist has also been commissioned with a tree assessment report being provided on 29 May 2015.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 29

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF TREES TO BE REMOVED AS PART OF APPROVED AGED CARE DEVELOPMENT AT 250 WATERDALE ROAD, IVANHOE cont’d SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

Figure 1: 250 Waterdale Road and Surrounds PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Residents who have taken an interest in the Panel process and these two trees in particular have been notified in relation to this meeting item. PLANNING CONTROLS The two trees are protected by the Vegetation Protection Overlay (Schedule 5). As the trees are believed to be planted, it is unlikely that they are protected under Clause 52.17 of the Banyule Planning Scheme.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 30

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.3

FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF TREES TO BE REMOVED AS PART OF APPROVED AGED CARE DEVELOPMENT AT 250 WATERDALE ROAD, IVANHOE cont’d TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION Tree 629 – River Red Gum Table 1 below outlines the range of assessments that have been carried out in relation to tree 629 throughout the assessment and approval process. Assessment Consulting Arborist Report submitted with application (report date 22 Sep 2011) Council Development Planning Arborist 1 Council Development Planning Arborist 2

Independent Consulting Arborist commissioned by Council (report date 29 May 2015)

Health -

Structure Retention Comment Value Good condition.

Good

Fair

Medium

Tree 629 needs a 5m clearance to be successfully retained.

Medium

Low useful life expectancy (ULE) given several structural issues. Buttress expansion over the kerb, the large wound on the eastern side of the trunk, and the canopy weighting over the car park and entrance to the west limit the tree’s ULE. Structural condition is poor because the stem leans acutely in the direction of Waterdale Road and there was no visible indication that supporting roots exist at the tension side of the stem where paving and kerbing were removed by recent site works.

Medium

Table 1: Various assessments of tree 629 Based on a retention value of medium, the officer position is that the trees can be removed and that replacement planting approved as part of the landscaping plan will appropriately compensate for the loss of these trees. Notwithstanding this position, a further investigation has occurred to understand whether the trees could be retained having regard to the location of their roots and the development footprint supported by the Planning Panel, Council and the Minister for Planning. The applicant commissioned an independent consulting arborist to carry out an exploratory dig on 7 July 2015. In a report prepared on 7 July 2015 it was advised that in relation to tree 629 that: Unfortunately a massive root of 20cm thickness was intercepted in the zone where the basement is proposed. It was following a Telstra PVC pipe, under the previously existing carpark. Given the tree`s prominent lean over Waterdale Road, one cannot responsibly remove such a root on the tension side of the lean yet remain confident of the tree`s ongoing structural stability. Furthermore the loss of such a root is likely to lead to debilitative health decline. I therefore believe that the tree must be removed.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 31

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF TREES TO BE REMOVED AS PART OF APPROVED AGED CARE DEVELOPMENT AT 250 WATERDALE ROAD, IVANHOE cont’d This is contrary to the evidence of the applicant’s consulting arborist in relation to tree 629 who is quoted in the Planning Panel Report as noting: it is highly likely they could be retained successfully under this proposal if desired In summary it is considered that based on this independent assessment and a further assessment based on an exploratory excavation, the removal of tree 629 is appropriate having regard to its retention value and the building footprint of the approved development. The removal of the tree is therefore consistent with the Planning Panel condition and Council’s recommendation. Tree 638 – River Red Gum The independent consulting arborist advised that the tree’s overall health was assessed as “Good” but its structural condition was assessed as “Poor” and the retention value as low. It was advised in the report that: The Structural condition is Poor because the stem leans acutely in the direction of Waterdale Road and there was no visible indication that supporting roots exist at the tension side of the stem where paving and kerbing were removed by recent site works. The stem had expanded over the kerbing and a section of concrete kerbing remains embedded in the base of the stem. The tree was allocated a Low Retention Rating because of the stem’s lean, the malformed base of the stem, and the seeming absence of structural roots at the tension side of the leaning stem. Consequently, in my opinion this tree should be removed. It is considered that based on this independent assessment of tree 638 as being of poor structure and low retention value, that its removal is appropriate and consistent with Planning Panel condition and Council’s recommendation. CONCLUSION Based on the independent assessments undertaken it is considered that the removal of trees 629 and 638 is acceptable. ATTACHMENTS No.

Title

Independant review of trees - Tree Dimensions

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 116

Page 32

6.1

CLARIFICATION OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL REPORT ON INSURANCE

Author:

Angela Johnson - Manager Human Resources, Corporate Services

File:

F2015/167

6.1

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to provide further detail and clarification on a statement made in a previous report submitted to the Council meeting of 25 May 2015 titled “Responding to the MAV initiative to join a Proposed Local Government Workers’ Compensation Mutual Scheme”. It appears the 25 May report may have implied that insurers Jardine Lloyd Thompson Australia (JLTA) do not have experience in WorkCover, which is incorrect. This report seeks to clarify the matter and amend the statement on the public record. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1.

Officially acknowledges and records the information provided in the 25 May 2015 Council report relating to the Proposed Local Government Workers’ Compensation Mutual Scheme, which referenced the experience of Jardine Lloyd Thompson Australia (JLTA) in the WorkCover arena, related only to JLTA’s experience in Victoria.

Notes JLTA has WorkCover experience nationally in Australia; and

Informs JLTA of Council’s recorded clarification in relation to this matter.

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 As part of the examination of the Municipal Association Victoria’s (MAV) proposed Workcare Scheme, the report to Council on 25 May 2015 included statements in relation to Jardine Lloyd Thompson Australia’s (JLTA) experience in the Victorian WorkCover industry, but failed to specify ‘Victoria’. As a consequence the report may have inferred a lack of WorkCover experience on the part of JLTA in Australia which

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 33

6.1

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

CLARIFICATION OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL REPORT ON INSURANCE cont’d is incorrect. It is Victoria only where JLTA do not have a current WorkCover Agent’s licence. HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues. DISCUSSION JLTA recently contacted Council after the 25 May 2015 report was brought to their attention. JLTA’s concerns were that the report contained broad statements that may mislead in the public domain. JLTA have been contacted in relation to Council’s proposed clarification and are satisfied the matter will be appropriately reflected in Council’s record. The clarification does not change the substance of the original report nor the recommendation. CONCLUSION The information provided in the 25 May 2015 Council report relating to the Proposed Local Government Workers’ Compensation Mutual Scheme referenced the experience of JLTA in the WorkCover arena. By not specifying clearly that the statement of JLTA’s experience related only to Victoria it may have inadvertently implied that the lack of experience was national, rather than state only. By Council acknowledging the potentially misleading statement in its official record the matter will be satisfactorily clarified. ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 34

6.2

14 IVANHOE PARADE IVANHOE - PROPOSED SALE OF LAND - HEARING SUBMISSIONS

Author:

Jeanette Kringle - Property Co-ordinator, City Development

Ward:

Griffin

File:

F2014/5858

Previous Items Council on 6 July 2015 (Item 1.2 - 14 Ivanhoe Parade Ivanhoe - Proposed sale of land - Petition) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Council owns the land and improvements known as 14 Ivanhoe Parade Ivanhoe (subject land), which is currently the interim location for the Hatch Contemporary Arts Space known as “The Hatch”. It is also being utilised by some private and community organisations, including U3A and Heidelberg Greek Senior Citizens, for a range of activities including community hall and office space hire. Public Notice of Council’s intention to sell the subject land was given in the “Heidelberg Leader” on 26 May 2015, with written submissions on the proposal invited in accordance with section 223 of the Act. The statutory submission period of 28 days closed on 23 June 2015. However, due to the heightened interest surrounding this matter, the submission period was extended to 3 July 2015. The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the 76 written submissions received, including one petition. Eight submitters, including the primary petitioner, have requested to be heard, before a meeting of Council, in support of their written submissions. All submitters have been advised of Council’s intention to consider the written submissions, and to hear from those submitters who have requested to be heard, at its Ordinary Meeting of 20 July 2015. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1.

Receives, hears and notes the submissions in respect of Council’s intention to sell the Council owned land and improvements known as 14 Ivanhoe Parade Ivanhoe (subject land) pursuant to Sections 189 and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989,

Having considered the 76 written submissions received, and heard from the eight submitters, will decide whether or not to proceed with the sale of the subject land at its Ordinary Meeting of 3 August 2015.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 35

6.2

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.2

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

14 IVANHOE PARADE IVANHOE - PROPOSED SALE OF LAND - HEARING SUBMISSIONS 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 “develop and deliver best value services and facilities”. 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. In particular, Section 20 (Property Rights) which provides that “A person must not be deprived of his or her property other than in accordance with law”. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues because Section 189 of the Act gives Council the legislative power to sell land. Section 223 of the Act also provides an opportunity for any person to make a written submission with respect to such proposal. BACKGROUND Council owns the land and improvements known as 14 Ivanhoe Parade Ivanhoe (subject land), shown highlighted in the plan in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Locality Plan

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 36

14 IVANHOE PARADE IVANHOE - PROPOSED SALE OF LAND - HEARING SUBMISSIONS cont’d The subject land is currently the interim location for the Hatch Contemporary Arts Space known as “The Hatch”. It is also being utilised by some private and community organisations, including U3A and Heidelberg Greek Senior Citizens, for a range of activities including community hall hire and office space. LEGAL CONSIDERATION LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1989 - STATUTORY PROCEDURES Prior to selling land, section 189 of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act) provides that Council must give public notice of its intention to do so and obtain a valuation. Section 223(1)(b) of the Act provides that a person may, within 28 days of the date of publication of the public notice, lodge a written submission regarding the proposal to sell land. Where a person makes a written submission to Council requesting that he or she be heard in support of the written submission, Council must permit that person to be heard before a meeting of Council, giving reasonable notice of the day, time and place of the meeting. Public Notice of Council’s intention to sell the subject land was given in the “Heidelberg Leader” on 26 May 2015, with written submissions on the proposal invited in accordance with section 223 of the Act. The statutory submission period of 28 days, closed on 23 June 2015. Due to the heightened interest surrounding this matter, the submission period was extended to 3 July 2015. SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED 76 written submissions, including one petition, were received. Councillors have received copies of the written submissions under separate cover. Eight submitters, including the primary petitioner, have requested to be heard in support of their written submissions, before a meeting of Council. The petition was presented to Council at its Ordinary Meeting on 6 July 2015 and Council resolved to consider the petition as a submission. All submitters have been advised of Council’s intention to consider the written submissions, and to hear from those submitters who have requested to be heard, at its Ordinary Meeting of 20 July 2015 ISSUES The main issue raised in the submissions appears to relate to the relocation of the existing users. Other issues raised in the submissions include:  Doubts as to Council’s commitment to the Ivanhoe Community Hub  Deferring a decision until the Ivanhoe Community Hub is completed  Retention for future community uses  Loss of hall hire opportunities in Ivanhoe

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 37

6.2

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.2

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

14 IVANHOE PARADE IVANHOE - PROPOSED SALE OF LAND - HEARING SUBMISSIONS cont’d CURRENT SITUATION The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the 76 written submissions received, including one petition, and to hear from those submitters who have requested to be heard. Following the consideration of the written submissions received, and hearing from the submitters that included a request to be heard in their written submission, Council must then decide on a date for a future meeting at which Council will determine whether or not to sell the subject land. DISCUSSION The giving of public notice of Council’s intention to sell does not compel Council to sell the land. Council is merely complying with its statutory obligations under the Act to give public notice and to hear and consider written submissions on such a proposal before deciding, at a future meeting of the Council, whether or not to sell the subject land. Council’s long-term goal is to create a new community learning hub in Ivanhoe which will include a purpose built arts facility. The Ivanhoe Community Hub is a significant element of the Ivanhoe Civic Precinct Masterplan. The desire to progress the Ivanhoe Civic Precinct Masterplan and the Ivanhoe Community Hub has influenced Council’s decision to consider the sale of the subject land. Tenders calling for the appointment of an architechtural consultant to design the Ivanhoe Community Hub was advertised in the “The Age” on Saturday 11 July 2015, with the following timelines: Request for Tenders closing date

11 August 2015

Engagement of Architect

September 2015

Phase 1 - Planning & Concept Design

September 2015 – March 2016

CONCLUSION The desire to progress the Ivanhoe Civic Precinct Masterplan and the Ivanhoe Community Hub has influenced Council’s decision to consider the sale of the subject land. Having considered the written submissions received, and heard from the submitters that included a request to be heard in their written submission, Council must now fix the date, time and venue at which it will make its determination, on whether or not to sell the subject land. Council should support the proposal to decide on whether or not to sell the subject land at its Ordinary Meeting on 3 August 2015. ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 38

6.3

SCOUTS ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIAN BRANCH - LEASE

Author:

Andrea Turville - Property Officer, City Development

File:

F2013/1262

6.3

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Scouts Association of Australia Victorian Branch (Scouts) constructed 10 scout hall buildings on land owned by Council across the municipality many years ago. The buildings are owned by the Scouts and the land on which each of the buildings is constructed, has been separately leased to the Scouts by Council. The leases have now expired and in lieu of the most recent individual leases for each of the ten properties, it is now proposed that Council consolidate the expired leases into a new single lease for a term of five (5) years commencing 1 July 2015. This report seeks to initiate the statutory processes associated with the giving of public notice of Council’s intention to grant to the Scouts a new lease. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. Acknowledge that The Scouts Association of Australia Victorian Branch (“Scouts”) are seeking to enter into a new lease in respect of scout hall buildings constructed on Council-owned land at: Yandell Reserve 37 St Helena Road Greensborough Rossi Park 48 Ford Street Ivanhoe Chelsworth Park 18 Irvine Road Ivanhoe Willinda Park 21A Talbot Street Greensborough AK Lines Reserve 10 Peters Street Watsonia Telfer Reserve 20 Noorong Avenue Bundoora De Winton Park 1 Grove Road Rosanna Donaldsons Creek Reserve 49 Hawker Street Ivanhoe Petrie Park 16 Mountain View Road Montmorency Alma Play Park 10 Para Road Lower Plenty in locations generally in accordance with the plans in Attachment 1 (“subject sites”). 2. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer and/or the Director City Development to finalise negotiations to grant a new lease to the Scouts for the term of five (5) years commencing 1 July 2015 for the purpose of providing and promoting community, cultural, sporting, recreational and similar activities associated with the aims of the scouting movement from the subject sites. 3. In accordance with sections 190 and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act), authorise the commencement of the statutory procedures to give public notice of Council’s intention to grant to the Scouts a new Lease and inviting written submissions from the public on the proposal in the “Heidelberg Leader” and the “Diamond Valley Leader” on 28 July and 29 July, 2015, respectively.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 39

6.3

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

SCOUTS ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIAN BRANCH - LEASE cont’d

4. Receive written submissions on the proposal, and hear from persons who have made a written request to be heard in person or by a party representing them as specified in their submission and in accordance with the Act, at its ordinary meeting of Council on 21 September 2015 beginning at 7.45 pm to be held in the Council Chambers, 275 Upper Heidelberg Road Ivanhoe. 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 The Scouts Association of Australia Victorian Branch (Scouts) constructed scout hall buildings on land owned by Council on a number of sites throughout the municipality many years ago. The buildings are owned by the Scouts and the land is leased to the Scouts by Council. The leases have now expired and need to be renewed. The scout hall buildings are located at: Yandell Reserve Rossi Park Chelsworth Park Willinda Park AK Lines Reserve Telfer Reserve De Winton Park Donaldsons Creek Reserve Petrie Park Alma Play Park

37 St Helena Road Greensborough 48 Ford Street Ivanhoe 18 Irvine Road Ivanhoe 21A Talbot Street Greensborough 10 Peters Street Watsonia 20 Noorong Avenue Bundoora 1 Grove Road Rosanna 49 Hawker Street Ivanhoe 16 Mountain View Road Montmorency 10 Para Road Lower Plenty

Attachment 1 to this report (“subject sites”) provides further information in relation to each of the sites specified above. The Scouts is a non-profit organisation, incorporated by Royal Charter and by the Scout Association Act 1932 (Vic) as amended by the Scout Association Act 1983 (Vic). The majority of its funding is derived from fees, fund-raising activities and support from the local community. Between 2011 and 2015 the Victorian Government supported Scouts Victoria by providing funds for a range of activities and facility improvements. This included funding to: - improve existing buildings and facilities - train volunteers

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 40

SCOUTS ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIAN BRANCH - LEASE cont’d -

encourage more young people from multicultural communities to join develop new facilities at Gilwell Park Camp

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 the Charter and 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. In particular, Section 20 (Property Rights) which provides that “A person must not be deprived of his or her property other than in accordance with law”. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues because Section 190 of the Act gives Council the legislative power to lease land owned and vested in Council’s name. Section 223 of the Act also provides an opportunity for any person to make a submission with respect to such proposal. CURRENT SITUATION The Scouts are seeking to enter into a new lease with Council to provide security of tenure and to clarify maintenance responsibilities, which were not clearly addressed in previous lease agreements. TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION The scout hall buildings were originally constructed by the Scouts with agreement by the former Councils of Diamond Valley, Eltham and Heidelberg. The structures were built on Council-owned land with the understanding that the buildings would be transferred to Council in the event of: 1. The expiration of the Lease; 2. Voluntary abandonment of the site; or 3. Serious breach of the Lease. The proposed five (5) year lease, commencing 1 July 2015, would also provide an entitlement to use, in common with the public, any car parking areas immediately adjacent to the subject sites. LEGAL CONSIDERATION It is proposed that Council enter into a new, consolidated, lease with the Scouts. Such a proposal triggers the need to give public notice under sections 190 of the Act. Council is obliged to invite submissions from members of the public in accordance with the Section 223 of the Act.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 41

6.3

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.3

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

SCOUTS ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIAN BRANCH - LEASE cont’d POLICY IMPLICATIONS PUBLIC NOTICE Council’s Official Newspaper Policy provides that: “The Heidelberg Leader and/or Diamond Valley Leader and/or the Heidelberg and Valley Weekly, where appropriate be appointed as Council’s official newspapers for the purpose of providing public notice except where circumstances may be deemed appropriate to use The Age and/or the Herald/Sun for particular public notices.” For the purposes of giving public notice for this proposal, it is noted that the “Diamond Valley Leader” and the “Heidelberg Leader” are the newspapers that are generally circulated within the areas covering the whole of the municipality. CONCLUSION Commencement of the necessary statutory procedures associated with granting a new five (5) year lease, along with establishing greater clarity in relation to maintenance responsibilities, should be supported. ATTACHMENTS No.

Title

Scout site plans

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 122

Page 42

6.4

ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS

Author:

Cindy Ho - Governance Officer, Corporate Services

File:

F2015/337

6.4

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:

15 April 2015

Type of Meeting:

Banyule Disability and Inclusion Advisory Committee (BDIAC)

Matters Considered:

Items as listed in the Banyule Disability and Inclusion Advisory Committee Minutes of the meeting 15 April 2015  Previous minutes  Disability Action Plan  Local Report Watch  Council presentations

Councillors Present:

Craig Langdon Jenny Mulholland

Staff Present:

Theonie Tacticos – Team Leader Community & Social Planning Lisa Raywood – Manager Health, Aged Services & Community Planning Shawn Neilsen – Community & Social Planner Helen Parker – Community & Social Planner Arun Chopra – Manager Capital Projects Kate Chapel - Greensborough Office Project Officer Ana Caicedo – Traffic & Transport Team Leader

Others Present:

Nil

Conflict of Interest:

Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 43

6.4

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS cont’d 2

Date of Assembly:

29 June 2015

Type of Meeting:

Councillor Briefing

Matters Considered:

2016 Kindergarten Ratio Changes

Councillors Present:

Mark Di Pasquale Craig Langdon Tom Melican Jenny Mulholland Wayne Phillips

Staff Present:

Simon McMillan – Chief Executive Officer Allison Beckwith – Director Community Programs Joseph Tabacco – Acting Director City Development Gina Burden – Acting Director Corporate Services Geoff Glynn – Director Assets & City Services Joel Elbourne – Manager Urban Planning & Building Roberta Colosimo – Coordinator Early Childhood Services

Others Present:

Nil

Conflict of Interest:

Nil

Date of Assembly:

29 June 2015

Type of Meeting:

Councillor Briefing

Matters Considered:

 

Future Planning Application at 37-69 Bell Street – Discussion on mixed use planning (Aged care, medical centre, child care centre) Yarra Valley Water Site - 421 Upper Heidelberg Road

Councillors Present:

Mark Di Pasquale Craig Langdon Tom Melican Jenny Mulholland Wayne Phillips

Staff Present:

Simon McMillan – Chief Executive Officer Joseph Tobacco – Acting Director City Development Nick Helliwell – Major Developments Planner

Others Present:

Luke Chamberlin – Tract Consulting Jess Noonan - Tract Consulting Steve Calhoun - Tract Consulting Sarah Buckeridge – Hayball Architect Antony Elcheik - Developer Charmaine Dunstan – Traffix Group

Conflict of Interest:

Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 44

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

Date of Assembly:

6 July 2015

Type of Meeting:

Councillor Briefing

Matters Considered:

6.4

ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS cont’d

Items on the Council Agenda for the Ordinary Meeting of 6 July 2015 (excluding confidential items) as listed below: 1.1 1.2 2.1

2.2 3.1 4.1 5.1

5.2

5.3 6.1

6.2 6.3 6.4 7.1 8.1 9. -

Redevelopment of Cartledge Reserve 14 Ivanhoe Parade Ivanhoe - Proposed sale of land - Petition Performance measures associated with Council's membership to NORTH Link 2016 Early Childhood Sector Ratio Changes Garage Sale Trail Economic Development Plan Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee - Appointment of members Multicultural Advisory Committee Recommendations Requiring Endorsement Webcasting of Council Meetings 22 and 24 Peters Street, Watsonia Proposed Sale of Land - Hearing of submissions Councillor Motions - Status Update Assembly of Councillors Items for Noting Sealing of Documents Open Space at 24 Trist St, Watsonia General Business Hansel and Gretel 2015 Victorian Tour 2015 Sports Achievement Awards and Club Recognition Night Young Frankenstein Performance Acknowledgement of John (Jack) William Mullane

Councillors Present:

Mark Di Pasquale Rick Garotti Craig Langdon Tom Melican Jenny Mulholland

Staff Present:

Simon McMillan – Chief Executive Officer Allison Beckwith – Director Community Programs Geoff Glynn – Director Assets & City Services Gina Burden – Acting Director Corporate Services Joseph Tabacco – Acting Director City Development Vivien Ferlaino – Coordinator Governance

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 45

6.4

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS cont’d Daniel Kollmorgen – Manager Transport, Sustainability & Municipal Laws Joel Elbourne – Manager Urban Planning & Building Ben Smith – Coordinator Economic Development Theonie Tacticos – Team Leader Community and Social Planning

Others Present:

Nil

Conflict of Interest:

Nil

Date of Assembly:

13 July 2015

Type of Meeting:

Confidential Councillor Briefing

Matters Considered:

Contractual Matters

Councillors Present:

Mark Di Pasquale Craig Langdon Tom Melican Jenny Mulholland Wayne Phillips

Staff Present:

Others Present:

Nil

Conflict of Interest:

Nil

Date of Assembly:

13 July 2015

Type of Meeting:

Confidential Councillor Briefing

Matters Considered:

Contractual Matters

Councillors Present:

Mark Di Pasquale Craig Langdon Tom Melican Jenny Mulholland Wayne Phillips

Staff Present:

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 46

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.4

ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS cont’d Others Present:

Nil

Conflict of Interest:

Nil

Date of Assembly:

13 July 2015

Type of Meeting:

Councillor Briefing

Matters Considered:

    

Councillors Present:

Mark Di Pasquale Craig Langdon Tom Melican Jenny Mulholland Wayne Phillips

Staff Present:

Geoff Glynn – Acting Chief Executive Officer Scott Walker – Director City Development Gina Burden – Acting Director Corporate Services Darren Bennett – Manager Leisure Recreation & Cultural Services Russell Darling – Manager Operations Joel Elbourne – Manager Urban Planning & Building Joseph Tabacco – Manager Property & Economic Development James Kelly – Manager Assets & Infrastructure Peter Benazic – Manager Parks & Gardens Paul Fitzgerald – Tree Care Supervisor Roberta Colosimo – Acting Manager Youth & Family Services Ben McManus – Coordinator Leisure & Cultural Services Frances Giannotti – Coordinator Youth & Community Partnerships Karen Molinaro – Community Liaison & Support Officer

Others Present:

Nil

Conflict of Interest:

Nil

Movies in the Park Program Urban Forest Plan Update Community Information Services Update Hatch Update Services Profiles – Waste Management and Asset management

RECOMMENDATION That the Assembly of Councillors report be received.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 47

6.4

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS cont’d ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 48

7.1

SEALING OF DOCUMENTS

Author:

Andrea Turville - Property Officer, City Development

Ward:

Olympia

File:

F2013/1008 x F2013/1070

7.1

Sealing of Documents

RECOMMENDATION That the Common Seal of the Banyule City Council be affixed to the Deed of Renewal and Variation of Lease between Banyule City Council and Noahs Ark Incorporated for the Premises located at 9-11 Altona Street, Heidelberg Heights for the term of five (5) years commencing 1 January 2015 and ending 31 December 2019. The following documents require the affixing of the Common Seal of Council: 1

PARTY\PARTIES: .OFFICER: FILE NUMBER: DOCUMENT: ADDRESS: WARD: BRIEF EXPLANATION:

Banyule City Council and Noahs Ark Inc Andrea Turville F2013/1008 x F2013/1070 Deed of Renewal and Variation of Lease 9-11 Altona Street, Heidelberg Heights Olympia Council is the owner of premises located at 9-11 Altona Street, Heidelberg Heights which is leased by Noahs Ark Incorporated. Noahs Ark provides early childhood intervention services for children with special needs, and offers resources and support for families in Banyule and surrounding municipalities. Council originally granted a lease for five years with three options of five years each. Noahs Ark has exercised its option for one of the two remaining five year terms. Ratification of the proposal, to renew and vary the lease, is required by Council resolving to affix Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Common Seal to the Deed of Renewal and Variation of Lease.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 49

8.1

REVIEW OF COUNCIL COMMITTEES

Author:

Cr Steven Briffa

Ward:

Hawdon

File:

F2014/492

8.1

Notice of Motion

TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move:

“That: 1.

All Council Committee delegate positions become vacated annually; a) b) c)

Preference be given to Councillors that have not previously been a delegate or substitute of the committee, In the event that no new Councillor is seeking appointment, the position be offered to the past Councillor delegate, Councillors holding board positions associated with a committee should be re-nominated to enable the Councillor to maintain their board position for the duration of their appointment on the board.

A review of all Committees is undertaken prior to the Council Meeting 16 November 2015 to ensure relevance and future need.”

Explanation Every year Council appoints a delegate and a substitute for a number of committees at its Mayoral Election meeting. In providing an opportunity for all Councillors to gain training and development and greater understanding of the variety of roles performed across Banyule – it is recommended that these committee representative positions are vacated annually to enable an opportunity for any Councillor to be a delegate or substitute. Councillors who hold board positions such as the Municipal Association of Victoria and Metropolitan Waste Management Group Board are required to be appointed as delegates of the Committee and should be re-nominated to allow them to fulfil their board appointments. The Committees should be reviewed annually to ensure they are still required and relevant, meet current Community needs and are appropriately resourced. This is to occur before the meeting of Council being held on the 16 November 2015 to allow for accurate appointments to Committees at that meeting.

CR STEVEN BRIFFA Hawdon Ward

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 51

8.1

Notice of Motion

REVIEW OF COUNCIL COMMITTEES cont’d

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 52

8.2

PLANNING AND PUBLIC CONSULATION MEETINGS - PUBLIC PARTICIPATION GUIDELINES

Author:

Cr Jenny Mulholland

File:

F2014/4228

8.2

Notice of Motion

TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move:

“That Council receive a report regarding ways to implement suitable public participation guidelines for Planning or generic Public Consultation meetings similar to the provisions in the Banyule City Council Governance Local Law No. 2 (2015).” Explanation This motion is presented to Council in response to concerns arising from a recent planning consultation meeting that resulted in a number of concerns due to the behaviour of some attendees. A set of guidelines for managing future meetings of this type would be useful for both Officers and Councillor. The guidelines and report back to Council should address the following      

In appropriate and disrespectful reference to Council staff and Councillors Interjecting and disruptive behaviour The need to order withdrawal of inappropriate remarks The need to close a meeting as a result of unruly behaviour Access to information by the public regarding planning applications Ongoing training and development for staff and Councillors relating to conflict resolution and the conduct of public meetings

CR JENNY MULHOLLAND Griffin Ward ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 53

8.3

MAYORAL DUTIES AND ATTENDANCE 16 MARCH - 30 JUNE 2015

Author:

Cr Craig Langdon

File:

F2014/492

8.3

Notice of Motion

TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move:

“That Council notes the report from the Mayor on the meetings he has attended from 16 March – 30 June 2015.” Explanation Below is a summary of the various meetings I have attended, including Council Meetings, Council Briefings, Advisory Committee meetings and Community meetings and events. Council Meetings Council Briefings Cemetery Trust 23 March 2015 16 March 2015 13 April 2015 13 April 2015 30 March 2015 1 June 2015 27 April 2015 20 April 2015 11 May 2015 4 May 2015 25 May 2015 18 May 2015 9 June 2015 1 June 2015 22 June 2015 29 June 2015 + Note: Leave of Absence was taken during the period of 31 March to 7 April 2015 (inclusive). Other Council Related Meetings: 16 March 2015 17 March 2015 18 March 2015 23 March 2015 25 March 2015 26 March 2015 30 March 2015

8 April 2015

9 April 2015

10 April 2015 13 April 2015

Strategic Property Group Banyule White Ribbon Action Team Greensborough Project Community Consultative Committee Planning Discussion Banyule Disability and Inclusion Advisory Committee Shop 48 Community Hub Bell St Banyule Mayoral Community Ball 2015 meeting Beyond the Walls Libraries Tour - Adelaide 3081 Connect Meeting Heidelberg West Meeting with Fiona Patton Meeting with Officers from Simpsons Barracks Planning meeting Melbourne Metro Mayors Resilience Strategy Meeting Banyule Environmental Advisory Committee Cemetery Trust presentation Community Garden & Nature Strip Planting meeting Office of Geographic Names review of guideline workshop Metropolitan Local Government Waste Forum Banyule Age Friendly City Advisory Committee Banyule Community Safety Working Group meeting Cemetery Trust Meeting

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 54

MAYORAL DUTIES AND ATTENDANCE 16 MARCH - 30 JUNE 2015 cont’d 14 April 2015

15 April 2015

16 April 2015

17 April 2015 19 April 2015 21 April 2015 22 April 2015

23 April 2015

24 April 2015

25 April 2015

27 April 2015 28 April – 30 April 1 May 2015 4 May 2015 5 May 2015 7 May 2015 13 May 2015 14 May 2015 15 May 2015 18 May 2015 19 May 2015

20 May 2015 21 May 2015

One Flintoff Project Advisory Group LGBTI Advisory Committee Meeting Olympic Village Learning Hub Tour Planning meeting Planning meeting Institute of Health & Management Celebration of Registration presentation Disability and Inclusion Advisory Committee Vic Roads meeting Greensborough Sporting Club meeting MAV Metro Mayors, CEO & Reps Forum (Municipal Association of Victoria) Meeting Leisure and Cultural Services Planning meeting ANZAC Day Service– Cherry St Macleod Banyule Volunteers Assessment Panel Exhibition opening to honour ANZACs Hatch Arts Space Recollection & A Camera on Gallipoli Hatch Arts Space Planning meeting x2 Austin Health Anzac Day Observance Planning meeting Volunteer Award briefing Viewbank College ANZAC Day Assembly Service Jaga Jaga School’s Ceremony ANZAC Centenary Planning meeting Planning meeting ANZAC Day Services Simpsons Barracks Dawn Service Heidelberg RSL Montmorency Eltham RSL West Heidelberg RSL Ivanhoe RSL ANZAC Mass St Bernadette’s Older Adult Education - Olympic Village Proposal Discussion Local Government Conference Darwin Babarrbunin Beek Meeting Shop 48 Community Hub Bell St Banyule Community Safety Group meeting Planning meeting Meeting re Nature strip Garden Project Heidelberg West Cricket Club Lone Pine Tree Planting Ceremony at Warringal Cemetery Ivanhoe Aquatic Fitness Centre meeting Metro East MAV Reps Mayor & CEO meeting (Municpal Banyule Environmental Advisory Committee meeting Babarrbunin Beek Meeting Banyule Celebrates its Volunteers Awards Planning meeting Parking Discussions Planning meeting Meeting Fiona Patten MP Meeting with Mayor Cr Helen Coleman Nillumbik Banyule White Ribbon Action Team meeting Planning meeting Banyule Disability Inclusion Advisory Committee meeting Melbourne Northern Metro Mayor & CEO meeting Banyule Sport Achievement Awards meeting

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 55

8.3

Notice of Motion

8.3

Notice of Motion

MAYORAL DUTIES AND ATTENDANCE 16 MARCH - 30 JUNE 2015 cont’d 22 May 2015 25 May 2015 26 May 2015 27 May 2015 28 May 2015 29 May 2015 2 June 2015 3 June 2015

4 June 2015 9 June 2015 10 June 2015

11 June 2015

14 – 17 June 2015 18 June 2015 19 June 2015

22 June 2015 24 June 2015 25 June 2015

Infrastructure Works meeting Heidelberg West Audit Committee Meeting VC Estate Macleod Reconciliation Week Flag Raising Planning meeting and Presentation with Residents Planning meeting Planning meeting Shop 48 Community Hub Bell St Planning meeting LGBTI Advisory Committee meeting Ivanhoe Girls School Development meeting Ivanhoe Aquatic morning tea – Celebration Phase 1 opening Planning meeting Planning meeting Banyule Volunteer Awards meeting with Winner Maria Welsh Youth & Community Services meeting Storm water Harvesting Project meeting Community Development Grants Meeting Banksia Community Stadium Update Banyule Environmental Advisory Committee Meeting Banksia Community Reference Group meeting Community Development Grants meeting Planning meeting VC Estate site meeting Multicultural Advisory Committee National General Assembly of Local Government Conference Parking site inspection Planning application discussion Shop 48 Community Hub Bell St Planning meeting Austin Health Meeting One Flintoff Greensborough Office Darebin Creek Management Committee meeting Car parking dispensation meeting

Community Meetings/Events 16 March 2015 17 March 2015 19 March 2015 20 March 2015

21 March 2015

22 March 2015 24 March 2015 27 March 2015 28 March 2015 29 March 2015 8 April 2015

Cornerstone Solutions Kintala Dog Club Taste of Harmony Bell St Mall St Pius Community Garden National Day against Bullying Launch Latitude Tour Multicultural Sports Celebration at Shelley Park St Bernadette’s Twilight Fete Viewbank Tennis Club Open Day Twilight Sounds Petrie Park/Rattray Park Reserve Master Plan Community Drop in Kids Arty Fest Parade & Festival Macleod Village Little Libraries Liveable Housing meeting Diamond Valley Relay for Life Movies on the Move – Ford Park Relay for Life Closing Ceremony Neighbour Day Street Party 4 Visits Watsonia Library Refurbishment Launch

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 56

MAYORAL DUTIES AND ATTENDANCE 16 MARCH - 30 JUNE 2015 cont’d 9 April 2015 10 April 2015 11 April 2015

12 April 2015 13 April 2015 14 April 2015 16 April 2015 18 April 2015 19 April 2015

21 April 2015 23 April 2015 24 April 2015 26 April 2015 1 May 2015 3 May 2015 5 May 2015 6 May 2015 7 May 2015 9 May 2015 10 May 2015 11 May 2015 12 May 2015

15 May 2015 17 May 2015 18 May 2015 19 May 2015

21 May 2015 22 May 2015 23 May 2015 24 May 2015 26 May 2015 27 May 2015

28 May 2015 29 May 2015 1 June 2015

Banksia Community Stadium Community Reference Group and Stadium Tour Photo with winner of the Nude Food competition Lions Club BBQ Yulong Reserve Multipurpose Facility Opening Addressing Graffiti in Diamond Village Shopping Centre – community Mural launch Nature Play Week – Launch of New Play ground Friends of Plenty River Working Bee Tour of Old Banksia Basketball Stadium Tour of Olympic Village Learning Hub Children and Family Centre Greensborough Sporting Club – netball courts Opening of the Doris Walker Centre Ivanhoe Girls Grammar Morning tea Springthorpe Retirement Village Watsonia RSL Ivanhoe RSL Anzac Day Commemoration Service Anthony Beale Regional Family Play Space Information session Berry Street – Special Foster Care Event Ivanhoe RSL Darebin Parkland Management 20 Anniversary Celebrations West Ivanhoe Roosters Football Game th Lower Plenty Dance Group 25 Anniversary Dinner Open House Celebrations Macleod ANZAC public program Hatch City Plan and Budget Information Community Session Darebin Creek Management Committee Meeting City Plan and Budget Information Community Session Meeting with Local Laws and resident Olympic Village Primary School Ivanhoe Aquatic Gala Open Day Yarra Valley Hockey Club Lunch and Women’s Day Bellfield Community Garden Ivanhoe Aquatic meeting community meeting Olivia Newton John Cancer and Wellness Centre Tour Meeting Olympic Village Olympic Adult Education AGM Lions Club IDAHOT Cocktail Event & Flag raising event Build a Billy Cart free family event Education Week Charles La Trobe College Banyule & Nillumbik Industry and Education Breakfast Austin Health Celebrate Appreciate and Remember – Rep Hospital Greensborough Project Community Consultative meeting st Alice House 1 Birthday Celebrations Arts Advisory Committee meeting Interview for Weekly Review Lions BBQ BRAG Banksia Resident Action Group Meeting Build a Billy Cart Free Family Event Ivanhoe Grammar School RIG meeting Meeting re: Verge Gardens National Simultaneous Story Time Guest Reader AGM Contact Community Centre Banyule Business Network Breakfast Heidelberg West RSL consultation meeting Ivanhoe RSL Community Safety Working group

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 57

8.3

Notice of Motion

8.3

Notice of Motion

MAYORAL DUTIES AND ATTENDANCE 16 MARCH - 30 JUNE 2015 cont’d 3 June 2015 4 June 2015 5 June 2015 18 June 2015

21 June 2015 23 June 2015 24 June 2015 25 June 2015 26 June 2015

27 June 2015 28 June 2015 29 June 2015

30 June 2015

Darebin Gala Business Lunch Northern Business Achievement Awards Breakfast Mercy Hospital 10 Year Anniversary Celebrations Trash Talk – ways to tackle illegal rubbish workshop Exhibition of Visual Art St Pius X School Ivanhoe Girls Opening of the Confucius Classroom Youth Foundation Circle of Support meeting Banyule and Darebin Sustainable Homes and Communities Leaders Program Darebin Creek Community Planting Day Lion’s BBQ Impressionist Lab Art Gallery Presentation Banksia Stadium meeting Banyule Sports Achievement Awards Reclaim the Streets Graffiti project launch Presentation Sherbourne Primary School The Edward Kenna VC Story Austin Health Ivanhoe RSL Sugar Glider Box Launch Lion’s BBQ West Ivanhoe Football Club Football Ground Breaking Ceremony Blue Cross Peer Connection 10 Year Celebration

Hansel & Gretel with Auslan Shadow Interpreters - Opera Australia Community & Members Macleod Recreation Focus Group Session Planning Meeting

The listing of these events does not cover the numerous meetings I have with the CEO and other staff, nor does it include meetings with individual constituents. The meetings listed usually include various staff and/or a number of community / residents. Council-related meetings and community meetings have been separated. I have endeavoured to attend all meetings for the entire time they were conducted but it was not always possible.

CR CRAIG LANGDON Olympia Ward ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 58

8.4

INDIAN MYNA BIRDS

Author:

Cr Craig Langdon

Ward:

Olympia

File:

F2014/492

8.4

Notice of Motion

TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move:

“That Council Officers prepare a report for consideration by Council on possible options for dealing with the treatment of Indian Myna Birds. The report should include:  Examples of approaches used by local and other sectors of government; and  Suggested options and costs for possible eradication programs.” Explanation Council is concerned with the Myna Bird population in the City of Banyule. There is growing apprehension regarding the impact of the introduced species on the local fauna. The species is considered a significant environmental threat to Banyule’s ecology because they:       

Are territorial and not afraid of humans. Seek out nesting hollows which they take over from native birds and animals, Are aggressive and noisy Kill the chicks of other birds or destroy their eggs Block the entries to hollows Defend several nests during the breeding season Raise two broods of young every year

While not specially a local government problem, it would be worthwhile exploring what, if anything, councils or other sectors of government are doing about this issue, identifying whether there are suitable eradication programs available and the associated costs involved.

CR CRAIG LANGDON Olympia Ward

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 59

8.5

BUSINESS AWARDS

Author:

Cr Craig Langdon

File:

F2015/167

8.5

Notice of Motion

TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move:

â&#x20AC;&#x153;That: 1.

Officers investigate the feasibility of establishing a Mayoral Business Awards program for delivery in early November 2015.

A report outlining the outcomes of the officer investigation be submitted to Council for consideration.â&#x20AC;?

Explanation Banyule is a well-established middle-ring suburban area that contains a broad diversity of businesses, including vibrant shopping precincts, manufacturing hubs and specialist clusters of health industries. Council does not currently offer a localised business achievement awards program that enables the community to acknowledge and celebrate the achievements of local employers, and their contribution to the prosperity of our City. Consistent with the draft Economic Development Plan which is currently on public exhibition, the establishment of a localised awards program will enable Council to appropriately acknowledge the innovation, economic resilience and vibrancy of our local economy.

CR CRAIG LANGDON Olympia Ward ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 60

8.6

NAMING OF PAVILION AT SEDDON RESERVCE IVANHOE

Author:

Cr Craig Langdon

File:

F2015/167

8.6

Notice of Motion

TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move:

“That Council: 1.

Officers investigate the naming of the pavilion at Seddon Reserve Ivanhoe in the name of John (Jack) Mullane for his service to the West Ivanhoe community and the greater region.

Authorise the Ward Councillor to write to the West Ivanhoe Sporting Club, St Bernadette's Church and School and surrounds, informing them of this consideration and inviting submissions on the matter.

Receive a report outlining any submissions received and the outcomes of the officer investigation.”

Explanation Jack Mullane was born on July 13th 1922 and passed away on June 21st 2015. At the recent funeral service held at St Bernadette's Church and later at the West Ivanhoe Football Club reception, hundreds of local residents paid tribute to his life. Many had untold stories of his tireless work within the community. Jack was founding member of the West Ivanhoe Roosters Football Club and coach of the Roosters Senior Team, holding the position for 19 years between 1959 and 1978. He was the founding member of both the St Bernadette's Church and Primary School, with commitment extending over 50 years. Jack was heavily involved in the school’s finance committee, board and as a maintenance assistant, in his retirement. Owing to his active, long standing role in the history of the school and its sports including football, cricket, netball and tennis, St Bernadette’s have named a race in his honour called "the Jack Mullane Mile". Jack and his wife Sheila also opened their Ford Street house to the boys at St Vincent's Orphanage during the school holidays, and both where involved with the St Vincent De Paul Society for well over twenty years.

CR CRAIG LANGDON Olympia Ward

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 61

8.6

Notice of Motion

NAMING OF PAVILION AT SEDDON RESERVCE IVANHOE cont’d

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 20 July 2015

Page 62

ATTACHMENTS

3.1

Urban Forest Plan Attachment 1

4.2

Council response to the "Better Apartments" Discussion Paper Attachment 1

4.3

Draft submission to the Better Apartments Discussion Paper ........ 100

Further consideration of trees to be removed as part of approved Aged Care Development at 250 Waterdale Road, Ivanhoe Attachment 1

6.3

Urban Forest Plan ........................................................................... 64

Independant review of trees - Tree Dimensions............................. 116

Scouts Association of Australia Victorian Branch - Lease Attachment 1

Scout site plans ............................................................................. 122

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 63

Attachment 1

3.1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 64

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

3.1

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

Attachment 1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 65

Attachment 1

3.1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 66

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

3.1

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

Attachment 1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 67

Attachment 1

3.1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 68

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

3.1

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

Attachment 1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 69

Attachment 1

3.1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 70

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

3.1

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

Attachment 1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 71

Attachment 1

3.1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 72

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

3.1

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

Attachment 1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 73

Attachment 1

3.1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 74

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

3.1

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

Attachment 1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 75

Attachment 1

3.1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 76

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

3.1

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

Attachment 1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 77

Attachment 1

3.1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 78

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

3.1

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

Attachment 1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 79

Attachment 1

3.1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 80

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

3.1

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

Attachment 1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 81

Attachment 1

3.1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 82

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

3.1

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

Attachment 1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 83

Attachment 1

3.1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 84

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

3.1

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

Attachment 1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 85

Attachment 1

3.1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 86

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

3.1

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

Attachment 1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 87

Attachment 1

3.1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 88

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

3.1

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

Attachment 1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 89

Attachment 1

3.1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 90

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

3.1

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

Attachment 1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 91

Attachment 1

3.1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 92

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

3.1

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

Attachment 1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 93

Attachment 1

3.1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 94

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

3.1

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

Attachment 1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 95

Attachment 1

3.1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 96

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

3.1

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

Attachment 1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 97

Attachment 1

3.1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 98

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

3.1

Attachment 1: Urban Forest Plan

Attachment 1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 99

4.2

Item: 4.2

Attachment 1: Draft submission to the Better Apartments Discussion Paper

BETTER APARTMENTS DISCUSSION PAPER ATTACHMENT 1: ISSUES AND BASIS OF SUBMISSION

Attachment 1

Daylight Issue

Potential Impact

Relevant factors to consider

Lack of adequate natural light within the apartment

Quality of life Increased energy usage due to need for artificial light

Distance to neighbouring property Depth of apartment and distance to windows Height of ceilings Size and position of window in room Vertical position of apartment in building Reliance upon ‘borrowed’ light

Questions to consider

 What spaces within apartments are the most important in terms of access to daylight?  Do you think daylight should be required in secondary spaces such as corridors and bathrooms?

Basis of submission

The most important spaces within apartments with respect to daylight are the living rooms and kitchens, and bedrooms in studio apartments and apartments with two or more bedrooms. Daylight is considered to be less important to bedrooms of single bedroom apartments. There is benefit in having daylight access to common hallways from an amenity and environmentally sustainable design perspective, however this is not considered to be critical to hallways within apartments, or to bathrooms. Regulation to provide greater guidance than the existing Higher Density Guidelines, such as a ratio between depth of apartment, ceiling height, window area and level in building, is considered to be appropriate, although potentially difficult to quantify.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 100

Sunlight Issue

Potential Impact

Relevant factors to consider

Lack of controlled sunlight access to apartments

Ability to enjoy warming sun Thermal comfort Increased energy use due to artificial light, heating and cooling Peak energy demand Climate change adaptation

Building/apartment orientation Apartment aspect(s) Building separation Size and height of windows External shading

Questions to consider

 Should there be rules to ensure a majority of apartments receive sunlight?  Are there other options that can provide for thermal comfort?

Basis of submission

Designers should be encouraged to maximise sunlight access to dwellings and communal spaces as far as possible. This can be achieved through building and apartment layout and the use of secondary windows for south-facing rooms. Sunlight access is more readily demonstrated without complicated calculations than daylight access, and as such may be more suited to a regulatory control. Shadow diagrams or calculations supplied with an application should include shadow cast by reasonably anticipated development on adjoining lots (eg. Construction to the envelope outlined in any relevant Design and Development Overlay, or the apartment guidelines as a whole), rather than existing shadows alone. No more than 30% of dwellings should have sole-south facing open space and living areas. A regulatorybased approach is appropriate, with there being provision that where more than 30% of dwellings have sole south-facing open space or living areas this must be accompanied by a greater overall energy efficiency/greenstar rating than ordinarily required (eg. 7 star average rather than 6 star). It should also considered whether all apartments should have a minimum 6 star rating, rather those with poor orientation being permitted to reduce the average rating for the building as a whole. Suggested tool: Regulatory/Performance based

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 101

4.2

Attachment 1: Draft submission to the Better Apartments Discussion Paper

Attachment 1

Item: 4.2

Attachment 1

4.2

Item: 4.2

Attachment 1: Draft submission to the Better Apartments Discussion Paper

Space Issue

Potential Impact

Relevant factors to consider

Apartments are too small or poorly planned

Household diversity Internal amenity Flexibility of use Inadequate storage

Apartment size Apartment layout and flexibility Ceiling heights Storage (built in and external)

Questions to consider

 Do we need to set minimum apartment sizes in Victoria?  Do we need to increase minimum ceiling heights for apartments in Victoria?  Should larger developments be required to include different types of apartments catering to different types of households?

Basis of submission

Whilst there has been discussion about the introduction of minimum apartment sizes, Introducing a minimum apartment size is not necessarily advantageous, and there is concern as to whether all designers are capable of making small spaces work. The introduction of a minimum in a regulatory setting has a number of potentially negative consequences:  A proportion of developers will seek to develop to the minimum only;  Designers with more developed skills in apartment layout may have the potential to design good apartments in smaller sizes than less skilled designers – a regulation may not allow for the exercise of this skill;  It has the potential to reduce the range of apartment sizes offered, by effectively setting a benchmark for apartment size;  The minimum size of apartment which is appropriate may differ from setting to setting, based upon the level of communal facilities provided, open space and other recreational facilities in the vicinity, level of vibrancy of the location (and therefore need to rely upon apartment kitchens for cooking and food storage), and the demographics of the area.  The minimum size of apartment which is considered to be appropriate is likely to change over time, and may result in a perception that some dwellings are sub-standard in future, in a similar manner to the way changes in minimum room sizes to nursing home facilities have rendered some buildings unfit for the purpose for which they were built.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 102

Attachment 1: Draft submission to the Better Apartments Discussion Paper

As a result, and in order to further aims in relation to Universal Design and negate specific requirements for Adaptability, it is considered more appropriate to mandate a mixture of apartment sizes, with no specified minimum size. A regulation which sought to outline that no more than 20% of apartments within a development have a footprint of a specified (moderately small) floor area, and would alleviate the concerns outlined.

4.2

Item: 4.2

Suggested tool: Regulatory/Performance and Market based

Issue

Potential Impact

Relevant factors to consider

Achieving a quality outlook from all apartments

Quality of life Surveillance of the street Privacy of neighbours Privacy of resident

Apartment orientation and aspect Distance to your neighbour Relationship to street and other public spaces Future development on adjacent sites

Questions to consider

 What are the essential qualities of a good outlook?  Should living spaces be treated differently to other spaces within an apartment in regard to outlook?

Basis of submission

It is essential that at least one living area of each apartment be provided with a pleasant outlook. This may be achieved through planting at close proximity (eg. Planter boxes built into balconies), and broader distance views. It is considered that there is a greater need for outlook than privacy between multi-level buildings. A regulation similar to Standard 22 to Clause 55.05-6 (but modified to include application of the 9m separation as it relates to distance above a neighbouring property) should be utilised as being an appropriate measure of privacy expectations of single/multi dwelling developments adjoining proposed apartment buildings. Suggested tool: Performance based

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 103

Attachment 1

Outlook

Attachment 1

4.2

Item: 4.2

Attachment 1: Draft submission to the Better Apartments Discussion Paper

Natural Ventilation Issue

Potential Impact

Relevant factors to consider

Lack of adequate natural ventilation of apartments

Health and wellbeing Thermal comfort Increased energy loads for heating and cooling Internal air quality and condensation

Operable windows to outside for all habitable rooms Room depth and relationship to ceiling height (to achieve effective air change) Cross ventilation (dual or multiple aspect) Ability to control air movement Size and position of windows in rooms

Questions to consider

 How can access to fresh air in an apartment be improved?

Basis of submission

The use of openable windows (eg. Openable windows above entry doors) to communal hallways would allow additional ventilation of apartments through these. This may need to be implemented through ‘smart’ systems to ensure appropriate sound insulation and fire rating. Secondary (openable) windows to all possible rooms would assist in ventilation, as well as daylight access to south facing rooms. Consolidation of sites would allow ‘0’ and “H’ type building shapes which improve ventilation. Suggested tool: Regulatory/Performance based

Noise Issue

Potential Impact

Relevant factors to consider

External noise Acoustic privacy

Sleep disturbance Health and wellbeing Privacy

Façade design Building orientation/internal planning Proximity to noise source (principally transport related)

Questions to consider

 Are you aware of any major issues relating to noise transfer between apartments?  What are the main sources of noise that can impact apartment occupants?

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 104

Basis of submission

Attachment 1: Draft submission to the Better Apartments Discussion Paper

Noise sources that can impact upon apartment occupants are located within the building (immediate neighbours and those in the corridor), from building services and from activities external to the site. Noise can have a significant impact upon health and wellbeing, and noise transfer should be restricted by regulation. The Planning Scheme provisions may not have a significant role to play in this regulation, however.

4.2

Item: 4.2

Double glazing for energy efficiency purposes has a role to play in the reduction of external noise, and there are existing controls in the Building Code in relation to insulation between properties. It is considered that there is a need to provide appropriate acoustic treatments, exclusive of floor coverings, etc., plus well-fitting windows with double glazing.

Outdoor Space Issue

Potential Impact

Relevant factors to consider

Access to outdoor spaces from apartments

Quality of life Social interaction and safety Household diversity (especially households with children) Noise

Balcony provision and size Sunlight and wind Landscaped roofs Distinction between private, communal and public outdoor space Tree planting

Questions to consider

 What types of shared outdoor spaces do you think apartment developments should provide (eg. Play spaces, roof terraces, productive gardens, swimming pools)  Should all apartments have balconies?  Is the size of a balcony important to you?  Is it acceptable for air conditioning units to be located on apartment balconies?

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 105

Attachment 1

Use of shared air conditioning units, with appropriate baffling, rather than individual units located on balconies is a matter that could be regulated or encouraged through the Planning Scheme, and would increase the amenity of balcony areas as well as adjoining rooms.

4.2

Item: 4.2

Basis of submission

Attachment 1: Draft submission to the Better Apartments Discussion Paper

Each apartment should be provided with access to private open space, with the amount of space provided linked to either the apartment’s floor area, or the number of bedrooms provided. In addition, developers should be encouraged to supply communal space within buildings, or public space at ground level in order to encourage greater quality of life and social interaction, as well as catering to a more diverse group of residents. Space should be allocated on a per-apartment or % of floor area model, with the type of space to be dictated by the market (or by policy where there are policies in place for the provision of public space at ground level of some sites). Air conditioning units should not be located on balconies, so as to maximise both the usable space and the amenity of these areas.

Attachment 1

Suggested tool: Regulatory and Market based

Adaptability Issue

Potential Impact

Relevant factors to consider

Apartment buildings will last a long time but are difficult to modify once built

Future value and use Sustainability

Size and layout of apartments Ceiling heights Flexibility of building floor plate

Questions to consider

 Should buildings be designed to be adaptable in future?  Should certain floors be designed for a variety of uses?  What are the important features of adaptable buildings?

Basis of submission

The change in acceptable standards over time is an important consideration in determining that a minimum floor area is not an appropriate standard to be introduced in a regulatory sense. The development of apartment buildings which include a range of apartment sizes, as well as the provision of appropriate framing to allow for grab-rails to be retrofitted to bathrooms without later structural change, will address many of the issues of adaptability. However:  Where a high proportion of small (single-bedroom) apartments are proposed, layouts should allow for two or more apartments to be combined into a single larger apartment at a future date.  Apartments on the lower levels of buildings should have minimum floor-ceiling heights which allow for their

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 106

4.2

Attachment 1: Draft submission to the Better Apartments Discussion Paper potential use for office or other commercial space. Suggested tool: Performance/Market based

Attachment 1

Item: 4.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 107

Attachment 1

4.2

Item: 4.2

Attachment 1: Draft submission to the Better Apartments Discussion Paper

Landscape Issue

Potential Impact

Relevant factors to consider

Intensive urban development affects the landscape

Climate change mitigation and adaptation Urban heat island effect Ground permeability and stormwater management Quality of public realm

Natural landscape context Tree canopy protection/provision Deep soil planting Water Biodiversity Potential for roof gardens

Questions to consider

 Should all apartments require some form of landscaped area?  Should this vary for low, medium or high rise buildings?

Basis of submission

The nature of what is appropriate landscape space will vary from site to site and building to building, and it is not considered necessary for all apartments to have some form of landscaped (as opposed to open space) area. However developments should address the issues associated with high levels of site coverage by:  The provision of appropriate landscaping within any boundary setback areas;  The provision of roof gardens where no, or minimal, ground level landscape space is provided;  The planting of street trees where appropriate. Suggested tool: Performance based

Universal Design Issue

Potential Impact

Relevant factors to consider

Apartments are not suited to people of all ages and abilities

Household diversity Social equity Accessibility

Ageing population Children in apartments Movement and access Size and layout Adaptability

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 108

Questions to consider

 Should all apartments, or a percentage of apartments, be designed for everyone, regardless of age or ability?

Basis of submission

Since 2013 Banyule has been implementing its Livable Housing Project which requires the inclusion of basic livability features within developments of 3 or more dwellings. The project is implemented by the statutory planning team through the planning process. The specific guidelines are based on the work of Livable Housing Australia and others and are consistent with the principles of universal design. For developments consisting of 3 – 9 dwellings Banyule asks for a minimum of 1 dwelling which incorporates Council’s Livable Housing Guidelines. For developments of 10 or more, Council asks for a minimum of 20% of dwellings which incorporate the guidelines. Since beginning implementation this project has been successful in influencing change amongst the development community and is resulting in an increased stock of dwellings that incorporate universal design principles. It is estimated that in the 2013/2014 financial year a minimum of 22.46% (118) dwellings within multiunit development applications incorporated universal design principles through responding the Council’s Livable Housing Guidelines. This project demonstrates that better housing outcomes can be achieved within multiunit developments through the provision of clear information and requirements for universal design. Given the current provisions contained within the Disability (Access to Premises — Buildings) Standards 2010 already require some universal access to the entrance of apartments contained within multistorey developments, Council would recommend that universal design elements be extended to a greater number of apartments than is currently provided for and include features within the apartment themselves. Livable Housing Australia’s design guidelines provide a sound suite of detailed design guidelines that could be incorporated within new apartments. At a minimum Council recommends that the following features be incorporated within all new apartments (with regulations being consistent with relevant design standards outlining the specific dimensions and requirements to respond to these principle features):  An accessible path of travel from the street or parking area to and within the entry level of a dwelling.  Doors, corridors and living spaces that allow ease of access for most people on the entry level.  A bathroom, shower and toilet that can be used by most people, with reinforced wall areas for grabrails at a later date. In addition, a broader suite of universal design features based of the guidelines of Livable Housing Australia be ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 109

4.2

Attachment 1: Draft submission to the Better Apartments Discussion Paper

Attachment 1

Item: 4.2

Attachment 1: Draft submission to the Better Apartments Discussion Paper incorporated in a minimum of 25% of new apartments. Type of control: Regulatory based

Attachment 1

4.2

Item: 4.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 110

Energy and Resources Issue

Potential Impact

Relevant factors to consider

Design of apartment buildings affects household energy and resource consumption

Climate change mitigation and adaptation Thermal comfort Whole-of-life cost

Orientation Natural light and ventilation Façade design Material selection Building systems Individually metering for services

Questions to consider

 What environmental issues are important to residents?  Should every apartment have individual metering of their utilities (e.g. gas, electricity, water)?  Should all apartments be required to meet a minimum industry standard in addition to the building regulations?

Basis of submission

Council considers that Environmentally Sensitive Design should be specifically referenced in the Planning Scheme, as outlined in the Panel report to Amendment C73 to the Banyule Planning Scheme. Such policies have the benefit of improved thermal comfort for residents, as well as reduced energy and resource use (ie. reduced whole-of-life cost). As detailed in relation to daylight and ventilation, consideration should be given to:  The inclusion of mandatory resource and energy efficiency measures within the Planning Provisions. It is considered appropriate to require an average energy rating of at least 6 stars, with consideration given to requiring a higher energy rating. This may incorporate either a requirement for a higher average rating where more than 30% of dwellings perform poorly, or through a minimum requirement for 6 stars rather than the current average requirement for 6 stars.  A need for improved ventilation to apartments.  The provision of daylight and natural ventilation to communal areas. Type of control: Regulatory/Performance based

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 111

4.2

Attachment 1: Draft submission to the Better Apartments Discussion Paper

Attachment 1

Item: 4.2

4.2

Item: 4.2

Attachment 1: Draft submission to the Better Apartments Discussion Paper

Waste Issue

Potential Impact

Relevant factors to consider

Household waste management is reliant on building-wide systems

Amount of waste sent to landfill Excess of organic waste in landfill Increased consumption through lost recycling opportunities

Space for sorting and recycling waste Waste collection logistics Opportunities for recycling organic waste on site

Questions to consider

 How should waste be collected from apartment buildings?  Should sorting facilities be provided for recycling and where?

Attachment 1

Suggested submission

Increased apartment development results in increased reliance upon private contractors for the collection of waste. This is not Council’s preference in relation to either service delivery or its overall aims to reduce the level of waste sent to landfill. Sorting facilities and separate bins for recycling should be provided in locations where they are most convenient to residents. For example, if waste chutes are provided, separate general waste and recycling chutes should be provided and clearly signed. Greater consideration of the location of waste facilities and the amount of space for them should be incorporated early in the design process, and Council would support provisions which encourage the use of shared 240L bins, rather than larger bins, so as to facilitate Council collection. Council offers residents two annual hard rubbish collections, which may be booked at any point in the year. In a suburban setting this results in the periodic deposit of larger items on the naturestrip for a period of up to a week where a collection is booked by a resident. The implication of this service for larger developments is that the naturestrip outside an apartment building may be utilised for the storage of hard waste on a rotating but near-permanent basis. This is not considered to be appropriate, and therefore it is Council’s view that storage facilities should be provided within the land for the accumulation of larger items for hard waste collection. These facilities should be located in close proximity to the main vehicular access point to the site, with separate pedestrian access provided for ease of access for refuse collection. Type of control:

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 112

Car Parking Issue

Potential Impact

Relevant factors to consider

Impact of on-site car parking provision on building design

Public realm and pedestrian amenity Loss of interaction with streetscape due to podium (above ground) car parking Noise and air pollution Visual impact of podium car parks

Active and sustainable transport use Convenience, security, safety and accessibility Ventilation Maximum rates and car-share schemes Underground versus above ground parking Floor to floor heights and ability to retrofit Safe, secure bicycle parking Visitor parking

Questions to consider

 How important is a car space in an apartment?  Can alternatives to car parking provision offer improved solutions? If so, what?

Suggested submission

The importance of a car space is dependent upon the location of the apartment building with respect to public transport and facilities, the provision of alternative means of transport, and the size of the apartment. It is considered that whilst the existing Planning Scheme controls provide a mechanism to address the issue of car parking satisfactorily, policy and Clause 52.06 should:  Reflect the benefit of providing parking for smaller vehicles, such as motorised scooters, motorbikes and mopeds;  Encourage greater use of shared vehicles;  Incorporate the potential for a lower provision of car parking to be offset by a corresponding increase in bicycle parking. In this respect, it is considered that the requirement for resident bicycle parking contained in Clause 52.34 is too low, and that a combined bicycle and parking requirement of a similar overall rate to that currently required for parking spaces in Clause 52.06 would be appropriate.  Have reference to any Integrated Travel Plan prepared by municipal Councils. Type of control: Regulatory and Performance based

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 113

4.2

Attachment 1: Draft submission to the Better Apartments Discussion Paper

Attachment 1

Item: 4.2

Attachment 1

4.2

Item: 4.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 114

Attachment 1: Draft submission to the Better Apartments Discussion Paper

Entry and Circulation Issue Poorly-defined entrances Inactive building frontages Long internal corridors

Potential Impact Poor security or sense of address Poor internal amenity Visibility and safety

Relevant factors to consider Number of dwellings per floor per core Incidental stair use to encourage active living and reduced energy consumption Natural light and ventilation to circulation spaces Management of residential mail Residents moving in/out Trade access for repairs and renovations

Questions to consider

 Should designated areas be provided for on-site loading?  Should apartment building lobbies be clearly visible from the street?  Should internal corridors have views out and provide daylight?

Suggested submission

The provision of appropriate entries, internal corridor lengths and management of residential mail are matters that are currently addressed appropriately through the market, and additional prescription is not required, although market factors could be strengthened through appropriate policy provisions. It is considered however that:  Provisions for residents moving in/out, and trade access for repairs and renovations should be incorporated within regulatory controls, and in particular that lifts and/or stairwells need to be designed to allow for convenient transportation of furniture and renovation material. It is appropriate that a minimum lift size be stipulated.  Convenient access, and potentially natural light, be provided to stairs so as to encourage their general (rather than emergency-only) use.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 115

4.2

Attachment 1: Draft submission to the Better Apartments Discussion Paper

Attachment 1

Item: 4.2

Attachment 1: Independant review of trees - Tree Dimensions

Attachment 1

4.3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 116

4.3

Attachment 1: Independant review of trees - Tree Dimensions

Attachment 1

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 117

Attachment 1: Independant review of trees - Tree Dimensions

Attachment 1

4.3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 118

4.3

Attachment 1: Independant review of trees - Tree Dimensions

Attachment 1

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 119

Attachment 1: Independant review of trees - Tree Dimensions

Attachment 1

4.3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 120

4.3

Attachment 1: Independant review of trees - Tree Dimensions

Attachment 1

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 121

Attachment 1: Scout site plans

Attachment 1

6.3

Item: 6.3

1st/2nd Greenhills – Yandell Reserve – 37St Helena Road, Greensborough

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 122

Attachment 1: Scout site plans

Attachment 1

6.3

Item: 6.3

10th Ivanhoe – Rossi Park – 48 Ford Street, Ivanhoe

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 123

Attachment 1

6.3

Item: 6.3

1st Eaglemont – Chelsworth Park – 18 Irvine Road, Ivanhoe

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 124

Attachment 1: Scout site plans

Attachment 1

6.3

Item: 6.3

1st/2nd Greensborough – Willinda Park – 5 Nell, Greensborough

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 125

Attachment 1

6.3

Item: 6.3

1st/2nd Watsonia – A K Lines Reserve – 10 Peters Street, Watsonia

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 126

Attachment 1: Scout site plans

Attachment 1

6.3

Item: 6.3

1st Bundoora – Telfer Reserve – 20 Noorong Avenue, Bundoora

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 127

Attachment 1

6.3

Item: 6.3

1st Rosanna – De Winton Park – 1 Grove Road, Rosanna

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 128

Attachment 1: Scout site plans

Attachment 1

6.3

Item: 6.3

1st Ivanhoe Sea Scouts – Donaldsons Creek Reserve – 49 Hawker Street, Ivanhoe

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 129

Attachment 1: Scout site plans

Attachment 1

6.3

Item: 6.3

1st Lower Plenty – Petrie Park – 16 Mountain View Road, Montmorency

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 130

Attachment 1: Scout site plans

Attachment 1

6.3

Item: 6.3

1st Eltham – Alma Play Park – 10 Para Road, Lower Plenty

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 20 JULY 2015 Page 131