Ordinary Meeting of Council Council Chambers, Service Centre 275 Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe 19 May 2014 commencing at 7.45pm Following the public forum commencing at approximately 7.30pm and may be extended to 8pm if necessary.
AGENDA
The Mayor’s Acknowledgement of the Wurundjeri People “Our Meeting is being held on the traditional lands (country) of the Wurundjeri people and I wish to acknowledge them as the traditional owners and pay my respects to their Elders.” Apologies and Leave of Absence
Confirmation of Minutes Ordinary Meeting of Council held 5 May 2014 Disclosure of Interests 1. Petitions 1.1 McArthur Road, Ivanhoe East - Speed Limit Reduction .......................................... 3 REPORTS: 2. People – Community Strengthening and Support 2.1 Government funding for 15 hours of kindergarten ................................................... 5 3. Planet – Environmental Sustainability Nil 4. Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment 4.1 Banyule Rights of Way Policy and Strategy ............................................................ 9 4.2 Review of the State Planning Policy Framework .................................................. 16 4.3 Studley Road, Ivanhoe - Parking Restrictions ....................................................... 19 4.4 Livable Housing Project - Implementation and Evaluation Update ........................ 22
AGENDA (Cont’d) 4.5 4.6
Public Safety Infrastructure Fund - A Safer Mall ........................................................................................................ 28 Extension of Time to Planning Permit P626/2010 - 4 Gona Street, Heidelberg West ................................................................................................... 32
5. Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life 5.1 Proposal to formally name the Right of Way bounded by Waterdale Road, Jellicoe and Beatty Streets, Ivanhoe.......................................... 35 5.2 School sites redevelopment project: Community engagement and advocacy update................................................................................................... 43 5.3 Multicultural Advisory Committee - appointment of additional members............................................................................................................... 50 6. Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely 6.1 Assembly of Councillors........................................................................................ 53 7. Sealing of Documents Nil 8. Notices of Motion 8.1 Bridge Linking Warringal Parklands with Banksia Park ......................................... 57 8.2 McCrae Road and Homewood Court Traffic Concerns ......................................... 58 9. General Business 10. Urgent Business Closure of Meeting
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 2
1.1
MCARTHUR ROAD, IVANHOE EAST - SPEED LIMIT REDUCTION
Author:
Ana Caicedo - Project Engineer, City Development
Ward:
Griffin
File:
F2014/704
SUMMARY A petition with 80 signatures from residents of Ivanhoe East and surrounding areas has been received requesting the reduction of the speed limit on McArthur Road, Ivanhoe East, from 60 km/h to 50km/h. The petition prayer is as follows: ‘We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge the City of Banyule to support and approve the reduction of the speed limit in Mc Arthur Road Ivanhoe East.� A letter supporting the petition is provided as Attachment 1.
DISCUSSION The petition refers to the section of McArthur Road linking Lower Heidelberg Road to Burke Road North. This section of McArthur Road currently has a 60km/h speed limit. A locality plan highlighting McArthur Road is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. McArthur Road, Ivanhoe East Residents have concerns regarding the increase in traffic at peak times and limited visibility at the intersection of Veitch Street and McArthur Road. Council has been requested to consider reducing the speed limit along McArthur Road.
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 3
1.1
Petitions
Petitions
MCARTHUR ROAD, IVANHOE EAST - SPEED LIMIT REDUCTION cont’d Further investigation is required to determine whether a reduction in the speed limit from 60km/h to 50km/h is feasible along this section of McArthur Road.
1.1
RECOMMENDATION That 1.
Council receives and notes the petition.
2.
Reducing the speed limit along McArthur Road, Ivanhoe East, and the visibility concerns at Veitch Street and McArthur Road be investigated.
3.
The primary petitioner is advised accordingly.
ATTACHMENTS No.
Title
1
Cover letter for petition
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 60
Page 4
2.1
GOVERNMENT FUNDING FOR 15 HOURS OF KINDERGARTEN
Author: Giovanna Failla - Manager Youth & Family Services, Community Programs File:
F2014/302
SUMMARY This report is to provide an update on the current funding commitment from the Commonwealth towards continued delivery of 15 hours of kindergarten. 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. CITY PLAN This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction of “provide services for people at important life stages”. BACKGROUND In November 2008 the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), as a part of its early childhood reforms, endorsed the national agenda of universal access to 15 hours of kindergarten a week for four year old from 2013. Currently the State Government funds ten hours, the commonwealth funds five hours and the community/local government provide the shortfall. HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered to determine if it raises any human rights issues. In particular, whether the scope of any human right established by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities is in any way limited, restricted or interfered with by the recommendations contained in this report. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues. CURRENT SITUATION The Australian Government has not yet committed to fund operational costs of the additional five hours beyond December 2014 when the current national partnership Agreement expires. Without the continued funding, with the State Government only committed to funding ten hours of kindergarten, families face a potential 129 per cent increase in fees, making kindergarten costs unaffordable for many families. The Commonwealth has indicated that a decision about its future funding arrangements is not likely to be known before the completion of the National Partnership Review in June 2014.
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 5
2.1
People – Community Strengthening and Support
People – Community Strengthening and Support
GOVERNMENT FUNDING FOR 15 HOURS OF KINDERGARTEN cont’d
2.1
MAV has taken up this issue at a senior level with State and Federal Ministers and staff and has written to the Prime Minister urging his Government to continue its funding share with the key messages being: •
• • • •
A significant national education reform must have continued funding beyond the political cycle- or we risk our early education system falling further behind our OECD counterparts. ( Organisation for Economic Cooperation & Development) Without continued investment, we risk poorer learning outcomes for children. Families face excessive fee increases to offset government funding cuts. The extra 1,200 teachers and educators that were trained state wide and employed to deliver the additional hours, risk losing their employment. Internationally and nationally there is irrefutable evidence linking pre-school attendance to improved student results in numeracy, reading and spelling.
MAV has encouraged all Councils to continue to advocate with both Federal & State Members of Parliament about this matter before the end of June 2014. The central message is that without continued Federal funding, families of 73,000 Victorian Preschoolers will face untenable fee increases of up to 129 per cent. OFFICER COMMENT Should the Commonwealth funding cease with the expectation that delivery of 15 hours per week of kindergarten be maintained, the impact on Council owned and managed Kindergartens would be to pass on the funding shortfall to families who cannot sustain exorbitant fee increases to offset government funding cuts. The impact on Kindergartens in Banyule Council owned buildings would be the same, in particular for volunteer parent committees and cluster managed services managing a significant drop in operational funding could cause their financial viability to be compromised. Should the Commonwealth funding cease without the expectation of continued 15 hours per week of kindergarten, reverting back to the previous 10.75 hours per week, this would result in a loss of hours or positions for some qualified Teachers and Educators across the service sector. CONCLUSION The Australian Government has not yet committed to fund operational costs of the additional five hours beyond December 2014 when the current national partnership Agreement expires. Without the continued funding, with the State Government only committed to funding ten hours of kindergarten, families face a potential 129 per cent increase in fees, making kindergarten costs unaffordable for many families. MAV is seeking support from councils to advocate with State and Federal members of Parliament on this matter. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1.
Write to Federal and State Members of Parliament advocating for continued funding support in the continued delivery of 15 hours of kindergarten.
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 6
People – Community Strengthening and Support
GOVERNMENT FUNDING FOR 15 HOURS OF KINDERGARTEN cont’d
2.1
ATTACHMENTS Nil
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 7
4.1
BANYULE RIGHTS OF WAY POLICY AND STRATEGY
Author:
Michelle Herbert - Senior Transport Engineer, City Development
File:
F2014/785
4.1
Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment
Previous Items Council on 18 November 2013 (Item 4.4 - Draft Banyule Rights of Way Policy and Strategy 2013-2023) SUMMARY Following the resolution of the Council meeting on 18 November 2013, the Draft Banyule Rights of Way Policy (the Policy) and Draft Banyule Rights of Way Strategy (the Strategy) were released for public consultation in December 2013, with consultation open for a three month period to 7 March 2014. Six submissions were received. The submissions have been considered and reflected in the Policy and Strategy. The purpose of the Policy is to clarify Council’s role with respect to, and facilitate the co-ordinated management of Rights of Way (and unused roads) within the City of Banyule. The Vision for the Policy is: To provide well-managed, safe and accessible Rights of Way throughout the City of Banyule that enhance the local and wider community wellbeing, while maintaining and creating new opportunities for pedestrians, cyclists, public safety and community amenity. The Strategy establishes the direction and identifies actions that will contribute to supporting decision making for Rights of Way across the municipality into the future. 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. HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered to determine if it raises any human rights issues. In particular, whether the scope of any human right established by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities is in any way limited, restricted or interfered with by the recommendations contained in this report. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues. CITY PLAN This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “support sustainable transport”.
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 9
Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment
BANYULE RIGHTS OF WAY POLICY AND STRATEGY cont’d BACKGROUND
4.1
This item was considered at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held Monday, 18 November 2013. At that meeting, Council resolved that: ‘1.
The Draft Banyule Rights of Way Policy and Strategy be placed on public exhibition for consultation and comment between the period 25 November 2013 to 7 March 2014.
2.
On receipt and consideration of community feedback, a further report be submitted to Council for the purpose of adopting the Rights of Way Policy and Strategy for the next 10 year period.’
In accordance with Council’s resolution, copies of the Draft Banyule Right of Way Policy and Strategy were made available at Council’s customer service centres, libraries and on the Banyule City Council website. Advertisements were also placed in the Heidelberg Leader and Diamond Valley Leader on two separate occasions, in December 2013 and February 2014. Key stakeholders including shopping centre coordinators and traders groups were emailed copies of the documents directly. Six submissions were received from the community including comments from internal stakeholders. A summary of the submissions and proposed resolution of the issues raised is attached. (Attachment 1). SUMMARY OF ISSUES RAISED IN SUBMISSIONS The main issues raised in the submissions included: •
Classification of Rights of Way.
•
Discontinuance and pursuance of land sales for Class 2 Rights of Way.
•
Return to embracing Rights of Way as a community amenity.
•
Contribution of bluestone-paved Rights of Way to Neighbourhood Character.
•
Overlooking of private open space if development fronting a Right of Way is permitted.
•
More explanation of Rights of Way definitions required.
•
Council to address issues that cause damage to properties (issues arising from construction/drainage works on Rights of Way)
•
Requirement of separate exhibition for special charge schemes.
•
Requests for discontinuance to require unanimous support from all adjacent property owners; and
•
Clarification around drainage issues.
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 10
Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment
BANYULE RIGHTS OF WAY POLICY AND STRATEGY cont’d
•
The two-tier classification of Rights of Way has been amended to include a Class 1D Rights of Way. Class 1D Rights of Way are those Rights of Way which are not required for a road function but would serve a stormwater overland flow path function and should be retained.
•
Further, the classification system recognises the differing uses of Rights of Way and the possibilities of community use such as walking, cycling and ‘laneway events’.
•
Drainage Infrastructure and Stormwater Overland Flow paths have been included as a key issue and actions identified.
•
Rights of Way definitions have been more clearly defined.
•
The heritage value of Rights of Way includes those with bluestone elements and other heritage elements (such as pit lids, signage) and Rights of Way located within areas affected by Heritage Overlay Controls within the Banyule Planning Scheme.
•
It is recognised that special charge schemes should require separate exhibition.
•
The current Rights of Way (Road) Discontinuance Policy provisions have been included in the Policy and Strategy. It is proposed to rescind the current Discontinuance Policy.
RESTRUCTURE OF RIGHT OF WAY POLICY AND STRATEGY The final Policy and Strategy have been restructured and reformatted with a more logical and consistent format. The restructure of the documents provides in the Policy a clear definition of Council’s role with respect to co-ordinated management of Rights of Way. The Vision, Principles and Objectives are clearly defined in the Policy. Issues have been defined and categorised. The Strategy has been restructured to allow for each issue to be discussed in a standard format – legislative context; background; issue; objective; and discussion, with appropriate actions and performance measures attributed to each key issue.
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 11
4.1
All submission responses were considered and addressed and a final version of the Policy (Attachment 2) and the Strategy (Attachment 3) have been developed. In particular, the following amendments have been made:
Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment
BANYULE RIGHTS OF WAY POLICY AND STRATEGY cont’d
4.1
TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION Rights of Way support and complement the existing road network throughout the municipality by providing direct and/or alternative access to properties abutting them and as alternative access to other streets and community facilities. With over 30km and 260 individually identified Rights of Way throughout the municipality, a clear strategy has been developed to manage these valuable community assets. The key issues in the management of Rights of Way have been identified as: Identification • Identification and categorisation of Rights of Way • Naming and numbering of Rights of Way Clarification • Heritage • Illegal occupancy and encroachment Maintenance • Maintenance, cleansing and infrastructure • Drainage infrastructure and stormwater overland flow paths Improvement • Construction of Unconstructed Rights of Way • Activation of Rights of Way within Activity Centres • Rights of Way abutting existing or proposed Development • Transport, parking and loading in Rights of Way Closure • Temporary or Permanent Closure • Discontinuance A total of 32 key actions have been defined and prioritised to address the issues identified. Actions include: •
Improving the compilation, auditing, accessibility and management of Rights of Way information in the municipality.
•
Categorisation of Rights of Way, having regard to the Road Management Plan.
•
Establishing a database identifying those Rights of Way suitable for activation within Activity Centres
•
Developing guidelines for: o
Rights of Way directly abutting existing or new development within the municipality, including where a development proposes a new or existing Rights of Way as its primary or secondary access way.
o
preferred design parameters for Rights of Way in Activity Centres behind shops.
•
Implementing maintenance and service standards for constructed and unconstructed Rights of Way in accordance with the Road Management Plan.
•
Establishing a heritage management plan identifying appropriate maintenance and service standards for Rights of Way with a heritage value.
•
A regular program of monitoring and review, and adjustment to the policy where needed.
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 12
Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment
BANYULE RIGHTS OF WAY POLICY AND STRATEGY cont’d
The restructure of the Policy and Strategy includes incorporation of the provisions of the current Rights of Way (Road) Discontinuance Policy within the Policy and Strategy. It is therefore proposed to rescind the current Rights of Way (Road) Discontinuance Policy. FUNDING IMPLICATIONS Funding for some of the actions within the Strategy can be implemented within existing resources. Many of the actions, however, require additional funds and will be referred to future budgets for consideration. Whilst preparing the Action Plan for the Strategy, a ten year perspective for timing of the actions has been taken. This will be considered in Council’s ten year capital budget planning process. A summary of the funding required to undertake the Strategy is set out in Table 1 below:
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 13
4.1
More detail is available in the Right of Way Strategy 2014-2024 (Attachment 3).
Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment
BANYULE RIGHTS OF WAY POLICY AND STRATEGY cont’d
4.1
Table 1: Funding Required for the Rights of Way Strategy Priority
Timing
Funding (as below)
1
Short to Medium Term - Address $16,000 (audit, re-categorisation) within the next 2 to 5 years, subject $50,000 (development guidelines) to annual budget processes. $144,000 annually (maintenance costs)* $125,000 annually (major maintenance pool)**
2
Long Term – Address within the $5,000 (audit, re-categorisation) next 6 to 10 years, subject to $25,000 (development guidelines) annual budget processes. $25,000 (Discontinuance and Sale) $144,000 annually (maintenance costs)* $125,000 annually (major maintenance pool)**
Ongoing
Action forming the basis of Approximately $20,000 per annum maintenance, evaluation and/or recurring programs. Action that is currently being undertaken and is identified for ‘continued’ action in each year. * Approximately 80% of this funding is currently funded. ** Currently $50,000 major maintenance funded. CONCLUSION The Draft Banyule Rights of Way Policy and Strategy were placed on public exhibition for consultation and comment between the period 25 November 2013 to 7 March 2014. Six submissions were received. All submission responses were considered, and a final version of the Rights of Way Policy and the Rights of Way Strategy have been developed to be considered for adoption by Council. The final Policy and Strategy have been reordered and reformatted to provide a more logical and consistent format. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1.
Adopt the Banyule Rights of Way Policy and Banyule Rights of Way Strategy 2014-2024.
2.
Note the proposed increase to maintenance standards for Rights of Way and adopt these subject to budget allocation for the 2014/15 and subsequent budgets.
3.
Rescind Council’s Rights of Way (Road) Discontinuance Policy (February 2000).
4.
Write to all people who made submissions on the draft Rights of Way Policy and Rights of Way Strategy and thank them for their submission.
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 14
Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment
BANYULE RIGHTS OF WAY POLICY AND STRATEGY cont’d ATTACHMENTS Title
1
Summary of Submissions to the Draft Banyule Rights of Way Policy and Strategy
2
Banyule Rights of Way Policy
3
Banyule Rights of Way Strategy 2014-2024
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 62
4.1
No.
66
80
Page 15
4.2
REVIEW OF THE STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
Author:
Fae Ballingall - Strategic Planner, City Development
File:
F2014/507
SUMMARY To inform Council of the review and proposed changes to the State Planning Policy Framework and to provide a submission in response to the proposed changes. 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. 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 The State Policy Planning Framework (SPPF) is in all planning schemes across Victoria and sets overarching state policy direction. The Government is currently doing a review of the SPPFs structure. The Government’s review of the SPPF is aiming to have all state policy matters aligned and integrated with the key strategic direction that is emerging for the metropolitan planning strategy, Plan Melbourne. It is also looking to restructure the SPPF so stronger nexus is achieved between State and local policy. The Minister for Planning established an Advisory Committee to review the SPPF in July 2013. This committee has prepared a report to show how a revised State framework can integrate local frameworks as well. This is given in Attachment 1. The committee has called for comments on the proposed Planning Policy Framework (PPF). A proposed submission is in Attachment 2. The committee has done some consultation with government departments, statutory authorities, local councils, industry and advocacy groups in late 2013. The draft PPF proposal was released for public comment on 17 March 2014. The due date for submissions is 23 May 2014.
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 16
4.2
Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment
Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment
REVIEW OF THE STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK cont’d THE PROPOSED PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
o
An integrated State and local policy framework
All state, regional and local policy will sit under key planning themes, such as Heritage, rather than being spread across the separated SPPF, Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and Local Planning Policies (LPPs).
The draft PPF (Attachment 1) is a translation of existing State Planning Policy, along with integration of other existing State policies and legislation such as the Transport Integration Act 2010, the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 and Plan Melbourne.
o
Alignment with key strategies and objectives set out in Plan Melbourne and Regional Growth Plans and reformed zones
o
Removal of redundant State Policy such as Melbourne 2030
o
Guidance for better in planning scheme expression, including standardised verbs to promote consistency
o
Two options for expressing Reference Documents. These are documents:
o
Required for a planning decision to be ‘Guidelines for decision makers’, or Not adopted by councils, to be ‘Background documents’.
The planning themes cross-reference other relevant sections of Victorian Planning Provisions, such as ResCode.
DISCUSSION The proposed PPF will bring some improvements such as a clearer approach to land use policy through the integration of state, regional and local policies. The proposed structure has flexibility to have Banyule’s MSS and LPPs under relevant planning themes. The key issue will be the implementation process for the integration of Banyule’s LPPF into the new PPF structure. Banyule’s existing MSS content can be translated into this new structure in the future, after it has been reformatted and adopted by Council. However, restructured LPPs, such as the Neighbourhood Character Policy, will require further consideration before they can be readily translated in to the new PPF structure. The main aspects addressed in the proposed submission are: o
That Banyule gives in-principle support to the proposed structure of the PPF.
o
That roll-out of the new PPF should be coupled with updated Advisory and Practice Notes to ensure all councils have clear guidance on translating their LPPFs into the PPF.
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 17
4.2
A summary of the key changes in the proposed PPF are:
Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment
REVIEW OF THE STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK cont’d That councils should have flexibility to stage their translation of their LPPFs into the PPF, with a priority for MSSs.
o
That the State Government should consider giving councils a funding opportunity or resource an Expert Panel of policy-writing consultants, to help progress timely translation of their LPPFs into the new PPF.
o
That a four (4) year timeframe may be appropriate, with final timing linked with future statutory deadlines for reviewing planning schemes
4.2
o
The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) is also preparing a submission. A draft MAV submission is shown in Attachment 3. Council’s draft submission has been provided to the MAV. TIMELINES The committee will consider submissions and then report to the Minister for Planning. A final PPF to replace the existing SPPF is estimated for roll-out by the State Government in late 2014. Once the new PPF is in the Banyule Planning Scheme, Council will then have time reformat and re-express its existing MSS and LPPs so they can be transferred into the new PPF structure. CONCLUSION A proposed PPF has been released by the Minister’s Advisory Committee for comment. The draft shows a restructured format for the existing State Planning System, and anticipated future integration of the MSS and LPPs into the new PPF structure. Banyule’s proposed submission indicates that the revised structure for the PPF is a positive change. Banyule’s interests are more concerned with the timeframe and implementation approach that is needed, so Council can effectively translate its existing LPPF into the new PPF in the future. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. 2.
Note the proposed Planning Policy Framework (Attachment 1) Approve the submission to the State Policy Planning Framework Review Advisory Committee (Attachment 2)
ATTACHMENTS No.
Title
1
Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
2
Banyule City Council Submission on Proposed PPF
184
3
MAV Draft Submission on Proposed PPF
191
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 81
Page 18
4.3
STUDLEY ROAD, IVANHOE - PARKING RESTRICTIONS
Author:
Ana Caicedo - Project Engineer, City Development
Ward:
Griffin
File:
F2014/704
4.3
Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment
Previous Items Council on 6 May 2013 (Item 1.2 - Studley Road, Ivanhoe - Parking Restrictions) SUMMARY Consistent with the Council resolution of 6 May 2013, an investigation has been undertaken to determine the level of on-street parking occurring along Studley Road, between Carn Avenue and Waldemar Road. Site inspections conducted between September 2013 and April 2014 demonstrated high levels of on-street parking. Residents have expressed concern about the extent of parking, with some supporting and others opposing the installation of parking restrictions. It is proposed that Council officers consult with residents about the possible installation of parking restrictions. 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. CITY PLAN This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “enhance Banyule’s public and open spaces”. BACKGROUND Resident’s concerns with parking levels in Studley Road, between Carn Avenue and Waldemar Road were raised with Council in February 2013. In March 2013, a parking restriction proposal was circulated to residents between properties numbered 36 and 59. A petition from nearby residents was also received in April 2013 raising concerns about overall parking availability in the area. At its Meeting on 6 May 2013, Council considered a report regarding parking in Studley Road, Eaglemont, and resolved: ‘1. 2. 3. 4.
Council receives and notes the petition. No parking restrictions are to be installed on Studley Road, Ivanhoe. The primary petitioner and surveyed residents be advised accordingly. Council review Studley Road car parking in May 2014 and the review be reported back to Council.’
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 19
Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment
4.3
STUDLEY ROAD, IVANHOE - PARKING RESTRICTIONS cont’d Studley Road extends between the Heidelberg and Ivanhoe Activity Centres, with the subject section in a central location. As the previous report and petition related to Studley Road between Carn Avenue and Waldemar Road, parking in this section has been reviewed. Parking along the remaining section of Studley Road will be assessed as part of the Heidelberg and Ivanhoe Activity Centres Parking Strategies. A locality plan indicating the subject section of Studley Road is provided as Figure 1. Residents outside the initial surveyed area where parking restrictions were proposed have contacted Council and shown concern in regard to this matter. Accordingly, the investigation included the entire section of the road between Carn Avenue and Waldemar Road. Attachment 1 highlights the properties surveyed in March 2013 and the length of road where parking restrictions were proposed.
Figure 1: Studley Road between Carn Avenue and Waldemar Road, Ivanhoe
CURRENT SITUATION Studley Road between Carn Avenue and Waldemar Road is 185m in length and can accommodate approximately 69 vehicles parked legally alongside the kerb. Parking in this section is unrestricted apart from a short length of 2-hour parking located on the south side west of Sherwood Road. Site observations on six occasions between September 2013 and April 2014 demonstrated high levels of on-street parking occurring on the northern side of Studley Road. In comparison, moderate levels of car parking were observed on the southern side of Studley Road.
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 20
Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment
Feedback has been received from residents in the last 12 months supporting the installation of parking restrictions along this section of Studley Road. This includes a number of phone calls from residents, and a joint letter from nine residents of Studley Road received in April 2014. A copy of the letter is included at Attachment 2. It should also be noted that some residents are not supportive of the introduction of parking restrictions on Studley Road, as indicated in the petition received in April 2013.
4.3
STUDLEY ROAD, IVANHOE - PARKING RESTRICTIONS cont’d
DISCUSSION Timed parking restrictions in residential areas are generally installed where there is limited on-street parking available, to increase the opportunity for residents to find onstreet parking spaces in proximity to their property. Inspections have indicated that parking levels on the north side of Studley Road are high, which could in be part attributed to the proximity to Eaglemont Railway Station and the Austin Hospital. The level of parking experienced in Studley Road is similar to other streets in the municipality close to major attractors in the area. Given the variety of road users (including residents, staff, short-term visitors and commuters), the needs of each user group needs to be balanced considering the availability of on-street parking. While it may be beneficial for residents to implement parking restrictions on both sides of Studley Road, the availability of parking for other user groups also needs to be considered. With the general road usage and high levels of parking occurring on the north side of Studley Road, parking restrictions in this area are considered appropriate. As Studley Road links the Ivanhoe and Heidelberg Activity Centres, either 2-hour or 4-hour parking restrictions are considered to be appropriate. CONCLUSION Inspections between September 2013 and April 2014 identified a high level of onstreet parking on the north side of Studley Road between Carn Avenue and Waldemar Road. As residents have shown divided support for the introduction of parking restrictions, it is proposed that residents of Studley Road between Carn Avenue and Waldemar Road be consulted to determine whether 2-hour or 4-hour parking restrictions on the north side of the road will be supported. RECOMMENDATION That Council survey the residents of Studley Road, between Carn Avenue and Waldemar Road to determine the level of support for either 2-hour or 4-hour parking restrictions on the north side of the road, operating 8am-5pm, Monday to Friday and implement the restrictions subject to majority support following the survey.
ATTACHMENTS No.
Title
1
Surveyed properties, existing and proposed parking restrictions
209
2
Joint letter from residents requesting the installation of parking restrictions
211
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page
Page 21
Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment
LIVABLE HOUSING PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION UPDATE
Author: Services
Shawn Neilsen - Inclusion Access & Equity Social Planner, Corporate
File:
F2014/302
4.4
4.4
Previous Items Councillor Briefing on 3 October 2013 (Item 2013/325 - Banyule Livable Housing Project Update) SUMMARY To provide a report detailing the implementation and evaluation of Council’s Livable Housing project. Since commencing implementation in April 2013, the Livable Housing Project has achieved a range of positive outcomes including: • • •
Incorporation of liveable housing features in up to 25% (202 dwellings) of new multi dwelling applications. Successful engagement with development community including Council’s first Sustainable Housing forum attended by over 70 people. Capacity building within the Development Planning Team to sustain implementation of the project.
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. 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 The 2012-13 Budget allocated $30,000 toward the development of Aged Friendly Development guidelines to promote accessible housing in the City of Banyule. A further $10,000 was contributed from Ward Funds creating a total project budget of $40,000. As a result, the Banyule Livable Housing project was developed to increase the provision of housing that is designed to meet the needs of people as their needs change, either due to aging, disability, children or other life changes. This project directly responds to Council’s City Plan Objective 3.1.2 To Encourage greater diversity of housing.
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 22
Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment
LIVABLE HOUSING PROJECT - IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION UPDATE cont’d
The Livable Housing project consisted of 3 key strategies: 1) 2) 3)
Development of Livable Housing Guidelines and implementation processes. Education and engagement with the development industry. Staff training, capacity building and support.
The Livable Housing project commenced implementation in April 2013. This report provides an update and evaluation regarding the implementation of the key strategies of this project and provides recommendations for continued implementation. HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered to determine if it raises any human rights issues. In particular, whether the scope of any human right established by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities is in any way limited, restricted or interfered with by the recommendations contained in this report. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues. It should be noted that the development and implementation of Council’s Livable Housing project directly impacts on the provision of suitable housing for sections of the community who are currently disadvantage by existing housing options. Increasing the provision of homes that are livable, protects and promotes the principles of freedom, respect, equality and dignity that are contained within the Human Rights Charter.
DISCUSSION Development of Livable Housing Guidelines and Implementation processes: Council has developed its livable housing guidelines based on existing guidelines and standards within the development industry. The guidelines include seven basic design features such as a clear path to the front door, a level entrance, wider doorways and corridors and increased spaces in toilets and bathrooms. The Livable Housing Guidelines are included in Attachment 1 of this report. Importantly these features have been designed to be easily understood by both development applicants and Council planning officers. The guidelines are also consistent with the principles of broader national promotional campaigns to increase the livablity of new homes. This ensures that applicants who incorporate Council’s guidelines are in a position to pursue design accreditation with bodies such as Livable Housing Australia who champion the voluntary incorporation of livable housing features within new homes. In order to support the incorporation of these guidelines within new homes, development triggers and requirements are discussed with developers and builders when they are applying to build new dwellings. The Livable Housing Project forms part of Council’s statutory planning process, as such Council works with developers at the earliest stage to consider how to make new homes more livable.
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 23
4.4
It should be noted that this project also responds directly to State and Federal government policies to increase the provision of livable and accessible housing contained in the State Disability Plan and the National Disability Strategy.
Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment
LIVABLE HOUSING PROJECT - IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION UPDATE cont’d
4.4
The triggers that Council has developed to implement this project are as follows: •
1 or 2 dwellings (or other accommodation) require voluntary incorporation of guidelines.
•
3 to 9 dwellings (or other accommodation) require a minimum of one dwelling to incorporate guidelines.
•
10 or more dwellings (or other accommodation) requires a minimum 20% of dwellings to incorporate guidelines.
Since commencing implementation of this project in April 2013 – Council has received applications for 108 new developments of 3 or more dwellings. This equals a total of 796 dwellings. As a result of the Livable Housing project, up to 202 (25%) of those dwellings will now feature 7 key design features that make these homes livable for years to come. Given the significant increase expected to multi dwelling applications within Banyule over years to come – this project will continue impact housing livability far into the future. It is anticipated that based on data from the initial implementation period up to 25% of new multi dwelling developments will incorporate Council’s guidelines. These homes will end up in the private rental and sale market and will increase access to dwellings that are livable into the future. Based on the experience of implementation Council’s livable housing design features have been easy for applicants and Council officers to understand and incorporate. The evidence to date indicates a broad acceptance of the local development community to incorporate Council’s guidelines. It has been noted that most developers see a clear benefit of increased marketability and sales as a result of the incorporation of Council’s guidelines. Additionally, Council’s guidelines are successfully impacting future development outcomes outside of standard statutory planning processes, for example through the School Sites project, where Council has asked for a minimum of twenty percent of dwellings to incorporate Council’s guidelines. Council’s Livable Housing Guidelines will also be included as a reference document in the updated Municipal Strategic Statement giving them a stronger status and presence in Council’s strategic planning framework. The project has strongly focused on developments of 3 or more dwellings and marketing and education materials have been tailored to that audience. It is proposed that a future aspect of this project include the refreshing of marketing and educational material with a joint focus on single and double dwelling applications alongside multi dwelling applications. Education and engagement with the development industry Central to the successful delivery of the project has been the engagement and education of the development community. Historically, some sections of the building and development industry has been opposed the introduction of requirements for livable housing features on the basis on a perception of increased cost and difficulty with implementation.
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 24
Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment
LIVABLE HOUSING PROJECT - IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION UPDATE cont’d
In August 2013 Council delivered its first Sustainable Housing forum which targeted the local development community to provided information about the Livable Housing project and associated Council planning projects. The forum was attended by around 70 people and featured: • • • •
A key note presentation from respected Arcitect and author Stuart Harrison focusing on good design and livability Detailed presentations of the requirements and benefit of Council’s Livable Housing Project An expo featuring businesses and consultants to support developers with livaiblity. A guided tour of Council’s premier Leisure Facility “Watermarc” to demonstrate the benefit of accessible design in practice.
The feedback from the forum was overwhelmingly positive and Council officers have noted ongoing positive comments relating to the forum and Council’s delivery of the Livable Housing project. In addition to the forum, Council’s Livable Housing project officer and planning officers have been available to discuss in detail, queries and issues that individual applicants may have with incorporating the guidelines. Applicant testimonials indicate that Council has successfully engaged with its development community and the requirements and benefits of Council’s livable housing project are now broadly understood and embraced. Additionally, Council has been invited to attend and present at industry conferences regarding the development and implementation of this project. Council has been invited to present at the Council of the Aging (COTA) Universal Design conference being held in Sydney in August 2014. The project has been recognised as an example of best practice. Staff training, capacity building and support The Livable Housing guidelines and implementation processes were developed in partnership with planning officers to ensure the project could be easily understood and implemented within the core function of statutory planning. Prior to commencing implementation, planning officers were given extensive training to understand the project, its intentions and how it would be implemented. New internal processes and systems were also developed to support the implementation of the project. An internal project officer was appointed to guide the development and implementation of the project and to provide ongoing support and mentoring to planning officers.
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 25
4.4
With this in mind Council has prioritised close developer engagement and the development of a system that is clear and simple to understand and implement without compromising a quality outcome.
Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment
4.4
LIVABLE HOUSING PROJECT - IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION UPDATE cont’d It should be noted that planning officers have been central to the successful implementation of this project. They have been able to clearly articulate the merits and requirements of the project and support applicants with the implementation. This has ensured that the project is able to successfully continue and develop over time. While this capacity has been built within the existing operational budget, it should be noted that the continued implementation of the livable housing guidelines does add a degree of complexity to the assessment of multi-dwelling developments. Next steps Based on the successful implementation of the project it is strongly recommended that Council continue to implement its Livable Housing Project and to also consider future technical enhancements and adjusting the triggers to require that a greater number of dwelling types comply with the guidelines. Officers will also need to consider evaluation of built compliance. The need for the promotion of this project and its outcomes to date will be set out as an action in the 2014 - 2015 City Plan (4.4.1 Improve the reach, impact and responsiveness of our communications) and consideration should be given to: •
Advertising and promotion of the completed homes that incorporate livable housing features to residents who would most benefit.
•
Expanding both the printed and web based promotional and educational materials to cater for the different needs of planning applicants.
•
Banyule City Council leading the way with the Livable Housing Project. Opportunities to promote the project through conference presentations and award applications will be pursued including presenting the technical and implementation aspects of the project at Council of the Aging (COTA) Universal Design conference which have identified Council’s work in this space as reflecting best practice.
CONCLUSION The Livable Housing project has successfully responded to Council’s objective to encourage a greater diversity of housing. The implementation period has proven that Council’s processes and guidelines can be successfully applied to Council’ statutory planning function to improve housing outcomes locally. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1.
Note the successful implementation of the Livable Housing Project to date and support its ongoing implementation and enhancement.
2.
Note the work of Council’s statutory planning officers who have successfully responded to and guided the implementation of this project through their existing statutory planning function.
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 26
Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment
LIVABLE HOUSING PROJECT - IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION UPDATE cont’d ATTACHMENTS Title
1
Livable Housing Guidelines
Page 213
4.4
No.
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 27
4.5
PUBLIC SAFETY INFRASTRUCTURE FUND - A SAFER MALL
Author:
Ben Smith - Economic Development CoOrdinator, City Development
Ward:
Olympia
File:
F2014/302
SUMMARY Council was recently successful in securing $229,227 from the State Government for the “A Safer Mall” project to implement a range of streetscape improvement works themed around community safety at the Bell Street Mall. Council has committed $62,500 to the project as match funding from the 2014/15 draft budget. Provided the draft budget is approved. Works will begin by February 2015 and are scheduled to be completed by October 2015. 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. CITY PLAN This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction 3.3 to “support thriving commercial and retail activity” and key direction 1.3 to “develop and promote safety and resilience in our community.” BACKGROUND In late 2013, the Department of Justice announced the opening of the Public Safety Infrastructure Fund (PSIF). The funding round was open to councils to propose crime prevention initiatives through the development and improvement of public safety and security infrastructure. Applications were invited to support the development of new infrastructure, or the redevelopment of existing infrastructure to help improve community safety, security and confidence in public places. Urban councils, such as Banyule, could apply for up to a maximum of $250,000 subject to co-contribution funding of at least 20% of the total project cost. An application was submitted in February 2014 for a range of initiatives that sought a total funding allocation of $250,000. On 23 April, Council received notification from the Hon Edward O’Donohue, Minister for Crime Prevention, that the “A Safer Mall” project application had been successful in receiving $229,227.27 from the PSIF. All aspects of the application were considered strong and in close alignment with the priorities of the funding stream, however the opportunity to upgrade the Mall’s CCTV equipment was unsuccessful in attracting support. As such the allocation is slightly less than the amount applied for.
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 28
4.5
Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment
Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment
PUBLIC SAFETY INFRASTRUCTURE FUND - A SAFER MALL cont’d
The project, titled ‘A Safer Mall’, will activate the Mall to enhance perceptions of community safety and minimise crime and antisocial behaviour. The project will encourage more visitors to the centre by enabling the following works to occur: •
Improved central events space – The improved central space will build on previous initiatives that have brought new people to the Mall and provided events and entertainment for local residents, shoppers and visitors. The attraction of activity provides opportunities for interaction and socialising. The community safety benefits include natural surveillance, mixed use of public spaces and territorial reinforcement.
•
New seating – The existing seating is not conducive to socialising and provides limited opportunities for interaction. New seating will encourage visitors to dwell and increase social activity in the space. Crime prevention will be supported by natural surveillance.
•
Improved lighting – Sensitively designed lighting will deter criminal and antisocial activity during the evening and night time.
•
Visual enhancements to shopfront roller shutters – Introduction of artwork to roller shutters will contribute to the Mall’s visual attractiveness after hours and deter graffiti.
•
Oxford Arcade – The arcade is currently perceived to be a threatening and unsafe environment particularly after hours. The aim will be to transform the arcade to become attractive as a thoroughfare at all times of the day, complementing and supporting the current and future uses on each side.
The Department of Justice received approximately 50 applications for the PSIF, and have awarded funding to around half of them. Banyule’s application was commended for its strong approach to crime prevention through environmental design, robust evidence of need and clear demonstration of proposed improvements. OTHER INITIATIVES AT THE MALL The proposed project should be viewed in the context of Council’s renewed focus on the Mall, including: •
Development of the Banyule Business Incubator, called DigiDECL, in the refurbished upstairs space of the Australia Post building, in partnership with Darebin Enterprise Centre, Australia Post and Northern Melbourne RDA.
•
Successful implementation of a visual merchandising project for traders bringing new visual interest to the Mall and creating a more vibrant shopping environment, funded by the State Government.
•
Delivery of a range of cultural events at the Mall that have brought communities together, including Movies at the Mall and Music at the Mall, under the Our Mall Our Place project.
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 29
4.5
PROJECT SCOPE
Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment
PUBLIC SAFETY INFRASTRUCTURE FUND - A SAFER MALL cont’d
4.5
MINISTERIAL VISIT The Minister for Crime Prevention, the Hon Edward O’Donohue, will visit Heidelberg West to formally announce the successful awarding of PSIF to the “A Safer Mall” project. While the Department of Justice has confirmed that the project application was successful, and a funding agreement has been signed by both parties, there are restrictions on Council publicising the decision ahead of the Ministerial visit. As such, Council will not be making any formal media releases or announcements ahead of the visit. HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered to determine if it raises any human rights issues. In particular, whether the scope of any human right established by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities is in any way limited, restricted or interfered with by the recommendations contained in this report. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues. FUNDING IMPLICATIONS Council has allocated $62,500 as a line item in the draft 2014/15 budget to contribute towards the “A Safer Mall” project. CONSULTATION A diverse range of community stakeholders was consulted to inform the project scope including Victoria Police, The Bell Street Mall Traders’ Association, individual traders, Neighbourhood Renewal Heidelberg West and the Banyule Community Safety Action Group. Representatives from each of the stakeholders will be invited to join a reference group which will be established as the project proceeds to implementation. A fundamental aspect of the project is to engage the local community – residents, traders, shoppers and visitors to the Mall – in the process of deciding on what the final design response should be. The intention of this approach is to assist in generating a locally appropriate solution that responds best to the needs of those that use and access the space on a regular basis. A greater sense of local ownership will also be encouraged by engaging with the community from the outset of the project. Council’s 3081 team will be involved closely in the consultation, design development and implementation of the project. TIMELINES The project will begin delivery once a funding agreement is in place between Council and the Department of Justice. Project planning will commence and initial community consultation is planned to take place between July and August 2014. Designs will be finalised and procurement commenced by the end of the calendar year. Works will commence in early 2015 with completion due by October 2015.
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 30
Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment
PUBLIC SAFETY INFRASTRUCTURE FUND - A SAFER MALL cont’d
The awarding of the PSIF grant presents a significant opportunity to make a positive impact on community safety and crime prevention outcomes, while simultaneously introducing a more attractive, safe and welcoming streetscape environment at the Mall. The success of the application demonstrates the strong working relationship between Council, the Bell Street Mall Traders’ Association and the Victoria Police in responding to local needs and generating positive project approaches that will work with the community to improve the local area. RECOMMENDATION That Council recognises the success of the Public Safety Infrastructure Fund grant award for the “A Safer Mall” project.
ATTACHMENTS Nil
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 31
4.5
CONCLUSION
4.6
EXTENSION OF TIME TO PLANNING PERMIT P626/2010 - 4 GONA STREET, HEIDELBERG WEST
Author:
Luca Verduci - Planning Technical Officer, City Development
Ward:
Olympia
File:
P626/2010
SUMMARY A request has been made to extend the permit timeframe for a planning permit issued on 30 May 2011 for a multi-dwelling development at 4 Gona Street, Heidelberg West. Due to a change in policy since the issue of this permit (a revised Neighbourhood Character Strategy and introduction of the Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy) it is recommended that the planning permit timeframe should not be extended.
Planning Permit Application:
P626/2010
Development Planner:
Mr Luca Verduci
Address:
4 Gona Street HEIDELBERG WEST
What the Permit allows:
Multi-Dwelling Development (Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of two double storey dwellings)
Existing Use/Development:
Residential/Dwelling
Applicant:
Mr Chris Jaffar
Request received:
8 October 2013
Permit expired/s:
30 May 2013
Extension sought:
Two years
Restrictive covenant on title:
None observed on title located on file
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.
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 32
4.6
Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment
Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment
EXTENSION OF TIME TO PLANNING PERMIT P626/2010 - 4 GONA STREET, HEIDELBERG WEST cont’d
4.6
LOCALITY PLAN
Figure 1 – Locality plan identifying 4 Gona Street and surrounding parcels of land PLANNING CONTROLS
Zoning Overlay/s Relevant Policies
Particular Provisions
At time of decision Residential 1 Zone Vegetation Protection Overlay – Schedule 5 LPPF & SPPF Neighborhood Character Strategy
Two or more dwellings on a lot – Clause 55
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Current Residential 1 Zone Vegetation Protection Overlay – Schedule 5 LPPF & SPPF Revised Neighborhood Character Strategy Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy Two or more dwellings on a lot – Clause 55
Page 33
Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment
EXTENSION OF TIME TO PLANNING PERMIT P626/2010 - 4 GONA STREET, HEIDELBERG WEST cont’d
4.6
TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION Any request received by Council to consider an extension to a planning permit undergoes assessment to determine the suitability of extending the permit. This assessment is guided by principles set out in the Supreme Court decision of Kantor v Murrinidini Shire Council, 18 AATR 285. A detailed assessment against the principles is included as an attachment. The relevant principles for this matter are as follows: •
The Kantor principles require Council to consider whether there ‘has been a change of planning policy’ since the permit was issued and it is noted that a revised Neighbourhood Character Strategy (NCS) was introduced into the Banyule Planning Scheme in June 2013. It is also noted that the Residential Vehicle Crossover Policy was adopted by Council in 2012.
•
The Kantor Principles also require Council to determine ‘the probability of a permit issuing should a fresh application be made’.
•
The approved development relies on two vehicle crossings and if such a proposal was assessed under the current policy, the width of the subject site (19.81 metres) would not meet the 20 metre threshold set out in the Residential Vehicle Crossover Policy. It is considered that the extension of time request may be deemed as not meeting an assessment against the Kantor Principles and that the extension of time request should not be supported.
•
It is noted that if deemed inappropriate by falling short of the threshold consideration in the Residential Vehicle Crossover Policy, a second crossing as part of this development could be considered favourably when factoring in the strategic location of the site and that the width of other properties in the street is less than the 20 metre threshold such that it is unlikely further instances of two crossings to a property would be supported.
RECOMMENDATION That Council refuse to extend the planning permit timeframes.
ATTACHMENTS No.
Title
1
Assessment against Kantor principles
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 215
Page 34
5.1
PROPOSAL TO FORMALLY NAME THE RIGHT OF WAY BOUNDED BY WATERDALE ROAD, JELLICOE AND BEATTY STREETS, IVANHOE
Author:
Michael Hutchison - Projects Coordinator, City Development
Ward:
Olympia
File:
F2013/1366
SUMMARY Proposal to formally name the Right of Way (laneway) bounded by Waterdale Road, Jellicoe and Beatty Streets, Ivanhoe. 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. CITY PLAN This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “engage meaningfully with our community”. BACKGROUND In June 2013, Council received a request from A.R.G Planning, on behalf of a Waterdale Road property owner, to consider naming the right of way (laneway) that connects Beatty and Jellicoe Streets behind the Waterdale Road shops in Ivanhoe (see Figure 1 below). This request submitted that naming the right of way would enable the existing “caretaker house” currently fronting the laneway to have its own formal street address and number. This request is related to planning application P469/2013. There are two other similar “caretaker houses” fronting the right of way. It is recognised that there is opportunity for future development along the Right of Way that may be facilitated by naming the right of way. The matter was initially scheduled to be considered by Council at its meeting of 31 March 2014. Before the meeting a member of the public gallery highlighted parts of an article, handed it to Council and suggested that the recommended name of “Bennett Lane” may not appropriate due to potential perceptions of controversy relating to the military service of the person the lane is to be named after. Council subsequently deferred the item. Analysis was undertaken of the article handed to Council. This analysis, further information and detailed discussion has been provided to Council. The proposed name is still considered appropriate.
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 35
5.1
Participation – Community Involvement/Comm Life
Participation – Community Involvement/Comm Life
PROPOSAL TO FORMALLY NAME THE RIGHT OF WAY BOUNDED BY WATERDALE ROAD, JELLICOE AND BEATTY STREETS, IVANHOE cont’d
5.1
Locality Plan
Figure 1: Affected area under consideration HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered to determine if it raises any human rights issues. In particular, whether the scope of any human right established by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities is in any way limited, restricted or interfered with by the recommendations contained in this report. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues. CONSULTATION Consultation summary is shown below. Table 1: Summary of consultation key dates Date 11/10/2013
04/11/2013 04/11/2013 to 17/12/2013 24/01/2014
Action First Council survey consultation package posted
Summary Survey consultation package sent to nearby and abutting property owners/occupiers. Package included: • Explanatory cover letter; • Notification responsibility flyer; • Reply paid envelope; • Survey. Survey close date Findings collated and analysed. Research conducted Research conducted to create shortlist of possible suitable names for laneway for use in further consultation. Second Council survey Survey consultation package sent to 49 consultation package property owners/occupiers covering 29 posted properties. Package included: • Explanatory cover letter; • Notification responsibility flyer;
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 36
Participation – Community Involvement/Comm Life
Date
Action
29/01/2014
Webpage updated
04/02/2014 11/02/2014 21/02/2014
Public Notice in Heidelberg Leader Survey close date
Summary • Reply paid envelope; • Survey. Council’s webpage updated inviting community comments on the proposal. Public Notice advertisement advised of proposal and invited community comments. Findings collated and analysed.
Results of the recent consultation which closed on 21 February 2014 are shown in Table 2 below. Property owners/occupiers were informed in this consultation that if no response was received by the closing date it would be considered tacit approval for the laneway to be assigned the most popular name as indicated by property owners/occupiers. Table 2: Survey summary Subject Number of surveys sent out Number of responses received Number of non-responses In favour of naming (based on responses) Against naming (based on responses) Total in favour of naming (including non-responses) Total against naming
Response result 49 surveys were sent out covering 29 properties (includes all property owners/occupiers in area). 9 (~18% of 49) 40 (~82% of 49) 9 (100% of 9) 0 (0% of 9) 49 (100% of 49) 0 (0% of 49)
No respondents objected to the proposed naming during the second consultation. In addition to indicating their support for naming the laneway, property owners/occupiers were also required to select which name they most preferred from the shortlist provided. Results are shown in Table 3 below. Table 3: Survey results Name Vandeleur Bennett
Number of votes 2 (~22% of 9 in favour of naming) 7 (~78% of 9 in favour of naming)
Further discussion of the shortlisted names used in the consultation are shown in Table 4 below.
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 37
5.1
PROPOSAL TO FORMALLY NAME THE RIGHT OF WAY BOUNDED BY WATERDALE ROAD, JELLICOE AND BEATTY STREETS, IVANHOE cont’d
Participation – Community Involvement/Comm Life
PROPOSAL TO FORMALLY NAME THE RIGHT OF WAY BOUNDED BY WATERDALE ROAD, JELLICOE AND BEATTY STREETS, IVANHOE cont’d TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION
5.1
Office of Geographic Names (OGN) The community was asked to suggest names during an earlier consultation. Seven suggested names were assessed on their validity for use. All but one was found to be nonconforming to the relevant principles outlined in the Geographic Place Names Guidelines (“Guidelines”). During further research of the streets surrounding the laneway, including Jellicoe and Beatty Streets, a naming theme became apparent. This theme is referential to significant military figures, namely British admirals and officers who served in the Royal Navy during major conflicts throughout the Napoleonic Wars and World War I. Two names were shortlisted for use in the second consultation. An assessment of the shortlisted names is shown in Table 4 below. Table 4: Assessment of shortlisted names Name Vandeleur
Bennett
Origin Community suggestion
Council research
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Relevance General Sir John Ormsby Vandeleur (1763 – 1849) commanded a brigade of British cavalry at the Battle of Waterloo.
Lieutenant General Gordon Bennett (1887 – 1962), born in Victoria, served in the Australian Army during both World War I and World War II. He was Mentioned in Despatches twice for his actions in the Gallipoli Campaign and became the youngest general in the Australian Army while serving on the Western Front.
Comments This name has links to the existing naming theme – i.e. name of an Irish commander of British cavalry during the Napoleonic Wars. There are no duplicates within Banyule City and it conforms to the Guidelines. This name has some links to the existing naming theme and connection to the name “Joynt” in the VC estate, Macleod. There are no duplicates within Banyule City and it conforms to the Guidelines.
Page 38
Participation – Community Involvement/Comm Life
PROPOSAL TO FORMALLY NAME THE RIGHT OF WAY BOUNDED BY WATERDALE ROAD, JELLICOE AND BEATTY STREETS, IVANHOE cont’d
•
Henry Gordon Bennett was born in Victoria in 1887.
•
Led various charges and advances in the Gallipoli campaign in 1915 and was wounded in the shoulder and wrist. Bennett jumped the hospital ship and rejoined his men the next day to continue fighting.
•
Served at Western Front in World War I (WWI). One action that has significance to Banyule is when Bennett, supervising the trench, noticed that a patrol returned without their lieutenant. He immediately took his runner and went out into No Man’s Land in search of the missing officer. They found the wounded officer, Lieutenant W.D. Joynt, who was tangled in the wire and brought him back. Lieutenant Joynt made a full recovery and was awarded the Victoria Cross (Joynt Street in the VC estate Macleod is named after Lieutenant Joynt). General Bennett had an exemplary record in WWI, becoming Australia’s youngest general, and was decorated numerous times.
• •
Posted to Malaya in World War Two (WWII) and had some initial success against the Japanese.
•
Forced to withdraw to Singapore in January 1941.
•
Bennett’s British superior, General Percival surrendered Singapore and all forces under his command to the Japanese in February 1941.
•
Bennett elected not to surrender, handed over command of 8th Division to Brigadier C.A. Callaghan and escaped back to Australia with others in order to continue fighting the Japanese.
•
On returning to Australia, Bennett’s notes on fighting the Japanese in the jungle became a manual that was circulated to the Australian Army and was used in the New Guinea campaigns.
•
When the war ended, Percival (after his release from the Japanese) sent a letter to Australian General Blamey accusing Bennett of relinquishing command without permission.
•
Blamey convened a court of inquiry which found Bennett was not justified in handing over command.
•
Storm of protest from members Bennett’s 8th Division erupts, many of whom had been Japanese prisoners of war in Changi prison.
•
In November 1945, Prime Minister Chifley appointed a Royal Commission under Justice Ligterwood which concluded Bennett had not been a prisoner of war at the time and was under orders to surrender
•
Very few legal or military experts agreed with this conclusion.
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 39
5.1
Further information on Bennett
Participation – Community Involvement/Comm Life
5.1
PROPOSAL TO FORMALLY NAME THE RIGHT OF WAY BOUNDED BY WATERDALE ROAD, JELLICOE AND BEATTY STREETS, IVANHOE cont’d In 1948, an eminent military lawyer, Lieutenant-Colonel Fry published in the University of Queensland Law Journal an examination of the legal aspects of the departure of Bennett from Singapore. Fry found that the Royal Commissioner seems to have held that Bennett, at the time of his escape, was neither a prisoner of war nor a combatant, but a soldier who must obey Japanese orders, including an implied Japanese command not to escape. That is, he had the status, rights or duties of neither a prisoner of war nor combatant. In other words, even though Percival had capitulated to the Japanese, the Royal Commissioner did not consider Bennett was a prisoner until he was "behind the wires" of prisoner of war camp. The Royal Commissioner did not discuss General Bennett's action from the standpoint of Australian military law, which placed him under no inflexible obligation to remain on Singapore Island. Bennett died in 1962 and was honoured with a full military funeral in Sydney (The Canberra Times 3 August 1962, p. 4). More than 10,000 people lined George Street and over 5,000 people gathered for the service at St. Andrews Cathedral, including more than 400 members of the 8th Division from the General’s command in Malaysia (The Canberra Times 4 August 1962, p. 5). Many of the men from the 8th Division had been former inmates of the notorious Changi prison camp after being taken prisoner in Singapore (The Canberra Times 4 August 1962, p. 2). An editorial at the time of Bennett’s death was titled “Farewell to a brave man”. It described Bennett’s escape from Singapore as “enterprising and courageous” and suggested his actions were subsequently endorsed by the returned soldiers when they invited him to lead the Anzac day marches and the fact of their attendance at his memorial service (The Canberra Times 4 August 1962, p. 2). It further praised Bennett’s motivation for escape and development of two training manuals on Japanese jungle tactics which were used in the New Guinea campaign. LEGAL CONSIDERATION Under the Geographic Place Names Act 1998, Council is a naming authority responsible for the development of proposals to name or rename any feature, road or locality within Council jurisdiction. Council must ensure that all proposals conform to the principles outlined in the Guidelines for Geographic Names. These Guidelines were recently updated in 2010 and 2013. DISCUSSION Consultation was undertaken with a refined survey that included a shortlist consisting of the valid community suggested name “Vandeleur” and the Council researched name “Bennett”. The results of this second consultation indicate that the local community remains supportive of naming the laneway and that respondents prefer the name “Bennett”. The community was informed that non-responses would be considered tacit approval for the laneway to be named. Including all non-responses as tacit approval, 100% of property owners/occupiers support the proposed naming. Council is now in a position to consider pursuing the laneway naming.
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 40
Participation – Community Involvement/Comm Life
PROPOSAL TO FORMALLY NAME THE RIGHT OF WAY BOUNDED BY WATERDALE ROAD, JELLICOE AND BEATTY STREETS, IVANHOE cont’d
• • • • • • • •
5.1
If the laneway is to be named, administrative updates to Council databases containing address details of the affected properties would be required as well as updates to maps and its electronic mapping system. Council would also be required to notify the following parties: Local Australia Post offices. Local real estate agents. Gas, water and electricity suppliers. Local mapping agencies. Local police stations. Ambulance branch. Metropolitan Fire Brigade Station. State Emergency Service local headquarters.
The OGN would notify the following parties: • • •
• • • • •
Australia Post. Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority. Emergency Management Spatial Information Network Australia – (Victorian Committee) members including Ambulance Victoria, Victoria Police, Country Fire Authority, State Emergency Service, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Department of Justice and Department of Human Services. Real Estate Institute of Victoria. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian Electoral Commission. Melway, UBD and other spatial information or mapping agencies. This information is also distributed through various networks to international organisations such as Google Earth and Microsoft Virtual Earth.
Property owners and occupiers would need to notify (where applicable): • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
VicRoads. Telephone providers. Internet providers. Insurance providers. Employers. Superannuation membership. Ambulance subscription. Centrelink. Pay TV accounts. Friends, family and other personal contacts. All banks and financial institutions, credit and store cards. Club and memberships. School and other educational institutions. Mailing lists and other subscription services. Online shopping accounts. Others not mentioned above.
This notification information was included in the consultation package mailed to property owners/occupiers.
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 41
Participation – Community Involvement/Comm Life
5.1
PROPOSAL TO FORMALLY NAME THE RIGHT OF WAY BOUNDED BY WATERDALE ROAD, JELLICOE AND BEATTY STREETS, IVANHOE cont’d CONCLUSION The proposed naming of the Right of Way is likely to be supported by the OGN as the proposal itself and the consultation process conform to the relevant principles outlined in the Guidelines for Geographic Names. The community preferred name “Bennett” conforms to the Guidelines, has links to the existing naming theme and a significant connection to Banyule, particularly as Bennett led a search into No Man’s Land and rescued Victoria Cross recipient Lieutenant W.D. Joynt (Joynt Street in Macleod is named after Lieutenant W.D. Joynt). RECOMMENDATION That 1.
Council assign the name “Bennett Lane” to the Right of Way (laneway) bounded by Waterdale Road, Jellicoe and Beatty Streets, Ivanhoe.
2.
Efforts be made to seek support the naming proposal from the Bennett family descendants.
3.
The submission be lodged to the Office of Geographic Names (OGN).
4.
Upon the outcome of the submission to the OGN, thank all persons and community groups involved in the consultation; notify them of Council’s decision and the result of the OGN submission.
5.
The relevant authorities be advised of any address changes on behalf of residents and property owners in the affected area; and
6.
The appropriate signage be erected.
ATTACHMENTS Nil
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 42
5.2
SCHOOL SITES REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND ADVOCACY UPDATE
Author:
Michael Hutchison - Projects Coordinator, City Development
Ward:
Olympia
File:
F2013/876
SUMMARY Report to Council on the outcome of recent and proposed community engagement activities in relation to the former school sites redevelopment project. 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. CITY PLAN This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “engage meaningfully with our community” and “advocate on behalf of our community”. BACKGROUND The three former school sites are located as follows:
Figure 1 – Former school sites located in the Olympia Ward (top to bottom)
1. 2.
Former Haig Street Primary School site: 52 Haig Street, Heidelberg Heights (“Haig Street site”) Former Banksia-Latrobe Secondary College site: 228-230 Banksia Street, Bellfield (“Bellfield site”.)
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 43
5.2
Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life
Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life
SCHOOL SITES REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND ADVOCACY UPDATE cont’d
5.2
3.
Former Bellfield Primary School site: 229 Banksia Street, Ivanhoe (“Ivanhoe site”).
Council purchased the three former school sites from the Minister for Education with settlement occurring on 11 November 2013. Relevant council decisions relating to the school sites redevelopment project since mid-2013 are as follows: Date/Item
Resolution
Action/comment
3 June 2013 CO2013/189 Rezoning of the Former School Sites in Olympia Ward and Project Update
“That Council requests the Minister for Planning to rezone the former school sites land located at 52 Haig Street, Heidelberg Heights; 228-230 Banksia Street, Bellfield and 229 Banksia Street, Ivanhoe from the redundant Public Use Zone – Education (PUZ) to Residential Growth Zone (RGZ) using the fast track provision Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.”
The Minister for Planning approved the rezoning of the former school sites on 19 December 2014.
12 August 2013 (CO2013/296)
1. note the status of the school sites redevelopment project. 2. have regard to the contracts of sale for the former school sites that are in a form that is satisfactory and are ready for signing. 3. authorise the Chief Executive Officer to execute the Contracts of Sale between Banyule City Council and the Minister for Education for the total GST exclusive amount of $23,200,000.00 to purchase the former school sites in the Olympia Ward. 4. authorise the signing and sealing of all necessary documentation to affect the transfer of the land. 1. Council receives and notes the petition.
The Contracts of Sale were executed by the CEO on the 15 August 2013. Settlement was completed on the 11 November 2013.
16 December 2013 CO2013/431
2.
3.
Council confirms its commitment to provide for regional and local recreational facilities including a new basketball/netball facility at the former Banksia Secondary School site. Council adopts the open space proposal attached to this report on the basis that the cost impact is minimised by utilising the land set aside for the Elliott Street extension (1459m²) and an adjoining area of developable land (941m²) to the east providing a total open space area of 2400m².
4.
Council establishes the public open as soon as possible with design and layout to be prepared prior to June 30th, 2014.
5.
That council confirms that the future
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
The allocation of 2,400m² of open space proposal will be a requirement of any future development proposal. The design of traffic management treatments will be prepared prior to 30 June 2014. Further traffic management options in adjoining streets will be considered following completion of the sale of the Haig Street site. Guidelines for the future development of the land include a requirement for a maximum allowable 2 storey height limit, immediately
Page 44
Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life
SCHOOL SITES REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND ADVOCACY UPDATE cont’d Resolution zoning be residential growth zone. 6.
2 February 2014
7.
That a further traffic management options be considered in adjoining streets to the former school site in response to the proposed residential redevelopment of the site. This should include Bonar Street, Monash Street, Law Street and Alfred Street.
8.
Guidelines for the future development of the land consider a transition in heights from the development to 2 storeys immediately adjoining the existing adjoining dwellings to the East.
9.
An allocation be considered in the 2014/15 Budget process for the construction of the public open space and traffic management treatments.
10
The primary petitioner be advised of this outcome.
1.
Council directs that the statutory procedures be commenced under Section 189(2) and section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 by obtaining valuations and giving public notice in the “Heidelberg Leader” and the “Diamond Valley Leader” of Council’s intention to sell the land known as: 52 Haig Street, Heidelberg Heights. Council confirms its commitment to providing 2400m² of open space in any future development at the site by utilising land previously set aside for the proposed Elliott Street extension. A further report be presented to Council following the completion of the statutory procedures referred to in Item 1, but in any event not less than 28 days after public notice is given, following which, Council will determine whether to sell or retain the Council-owned land referred to in Item 1. Council officers investigate and undertake all necessary actions to ready the land for sale. Council receives and notes the petition. Council write to Minster for Education and the Shadow Minister for Education,
CO2014/6
2.
3.
4.
3 March 2014 (CO2014/38)
That a detail design of traffic management treatment incorporating traffic calming devises and beautification of the area in front of the shops on Haig Street also be prepared prior to June 30th 2014.
1. 2.
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Action/comment adjoining the existing adjoining dwellings at the eastern boundary of the Haig Street site. The primary petitioner has been advised of the outcome.
Public Notice given 25 February 2014 “Heidelberg Leader” and 26 February 2014 “Diamond Valley Leader”. Further report to Council 28 April 2014.
Council has requested the state government and state opposition government
Page 45
5.2
Date/Item
Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life
SCHOOL SITES REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND ADVOCACY UPDATE cont’d
5.2
Date/Item
Resolution
3.
4.
5.
6.
28 April 2014 CO2014/89
1.
Action/comment
Minister for Planning and Shadow Minister for Planning and other local members providing a copy of the petition on local educational needs and the loss of the three former school sites. Council request the state government and state opposition confirm its position of delivering on future educational needs in the 3081 local area and any expansion of existing local schools. Council request the Education Department to provide predicated future school enrolment figures for the Banyule area and an indication on the available capacity to meet that demand. Council offers to meet with Education Department officers to discuss education opportunities within Banyule. Council now seek formal advice on government interest in purchasing back part of the former Banksia Secondary College site and or the Bellfield site given its adjacent location to the proposed stadium precinct and community facilities. The primary petitioner be advised and updated of the outcome.
confirm its position of delivering on future educational needs.
Having considered submissions and complied with the provisions of Section 189 of the Local Government Act 1989 by giving public notice of Council’s intention to sell the Council owned land known as 52 Haig Street, Heidelberg Heights now directs that the Land can be sold to a prospective purchaser to be determined after evaluation of the tenders received through the Request for Tender (RFT) process.
This item is linked to the outcome of the Request for Tender process.
Council has concurrently progressed exploring progressing development opportunities for the sites.
2.
5 May 2014 CO2014/121
Write to the submitter advising of the decision and the reasons for the decision. That Council confirms that the land known as 230 Banksia Street, Bellfield, has been made available for a new education facility subject to the State Government committing to purchase this land prior to the next State election.
A response on behalf of the Minister for Education was received 5 May 2014.
A response on behalf of the Minister for Education was received 5 May 2014.
Table 1 – Background to Council
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 46
Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life
SCHOOL SITES REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND ADVOCACY UPDATE cont’d
Haig Street site Request for Tender process Following an Expression of Interest (“EOI”) process and Request for Tender (“RFT”) process, Council has selected a preferred tenderer for the sale and development of the site. It is anticipated that contracts will be finalised with the preferred tenderer during May 2014. Bellfield and Ivanhoe sites Community engagement Community information sessions for the Ivanhoe and Bellfield redevelopment sites were held on the evening of 1 April (Council chambers) and an afternoon session on the 2 April (Bellfield Community Centre). Further information and outcomes on the sessions is provided further in the report discussion. Expression of Interest – Ivanhoe redevelopment site The EOI process closes on 19 June 2014. Once the EOI closes, Council will review all submissions and then seek tenders from shortlisted respondents. It is anticipated that the appointment of developer(s) for the site will be finalised by early 2015, with planning processes for the redevelopment following the appointment. Educational facility opportunities On 2 May 2014 Council received a formal response from the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (“DEECD”) on behalf of the Minister for Education. The correspondence advises that whilst DEECD is aware of enrolment pressure in schools such as Ivanhoe Primary School its analysis shows there is sufficient primary and secondary capacity in the areas around the former Haig Street Primary school, Bellfield Primary school and Banksia Secondary College to accommodate the forecasted government school population expected to live in the area in the medium term. The letter did not indicate interest in purchasing back the sites offered. A copy of the letter is attached (refer Attachment 1). Council is still awaiting a formal position from the state opposition in relation to educational opportunities at the Bellfield site and existing schools in the local area. It is noted that on 22 April the Premier announced $5.6m of capital works funding for the Rosanna Golf Links Primary school. DISCUSSION The community information sessions for the Ivanhoe and Bellfield redevelopment sites were generally well received by local residents with each session conducted over a 2 hour period where residents were invited to ‘drop-in’ for an informal discussion with officers and councillors. Approximately 60 residents attended in total across the two sessions. The following table shows the key themes discussed at the sessions:
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 47
5.2
CURRENT SITUATION
Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life
5.2
SCHOOL SITES REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND ADVOCACY UPDATE cont’d Key Themes Ivanhoe site • Contemporary and environmentally sustainable housing (former design, sympathetic to existing housing nearby. primary school) • Don’t build too high - include some green space and set buildings back to allow for grass and trees. • Include varied dwelling sizes to appeal to all age groups and consider co-housing (i.e. housing with community meeting facilities). • Retain mature trees and ensure landscaping complements the new development. • Design for onsite car parking and minimise traffic impacts on Jellicoe Street and Wadham Road. • While the proposal for home office opportunities was supported by some residents, others did not support shops or offices on Banksia Street. Bellfield site • What legacy will development leave - how will it look? (former • Alternatives to a school, for example child care and Secondary learning spaces for all ages. school) • Plan for other uses, for example aged care. • Ensure links to the neighbourhood with design promoting pedestrian connections. Netball/ • Design for flexible and multi-purpose use, for example arts, Basketball performance and function spaces, community hub and Stadium facilities beyond sporting activities. • Create safe, monitored facilities. • Onsite car parking consistent with the use of the facility and parking and traffic management measures in surrounding streets. The need for a school was mentioned by many who attended the information sessions who also shared their views on the best way to meet the care and learning needs of pre and school aged children. Council has written to the Minister for Education, who is responsible for the planning and delivery of schools, highlighting resident’s concerns about the lack of local schools in the area. A response from DEECD on behalf of the Minister for Education was received on 5 May 2014 is summarised above (also refer Attachment 1). For the Ivanhoe site, key issues raised by many attendees include traffic, parking and density of development. Traffic and parking issues will be addressed through requirements for a traffic impact assessment as part of any future development proposal. It is important that new development provides for satisfactory levels of onsite and visitor parking for future residents. The density of the development is intended to be controlled through a proposed Section 173 Planning Agreement and Development Guidelines which will be developed for the site and will encourage development proposals which are responsive to Council’s objectives for the site. A follow up community update flyer (refer Attachment 2) was posted out on 5 May 2014 to approximately 500 property owners and residents in the local area around the Ivanhoe and Bellfield sites. The flyer is also available from Council’s webpage.
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 48
Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life
SCHOOL SITES REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND ADVOCACY UPDATE cont’d CONSULTATION
Ivanhoe and Bellfield sites Council will continue to keep the community updated on progress with these sites and its advocacy work in relation to community concerns about reduced schooling options in the area and the State Government and Opposition’s response to questions about their interest in using some of the land on the Bellfield site to build a new school.
5.2
Further consultation is proposed as follows:
Haig Street site A further community information session is proposed once the prior to the developer lodging a formal planning permit application. This session will provide an opportunity for details of the development proposal to be presented to the community. Opportunity also remains for the community to participate further in the public process when the development proposals are formally advertised in accordance with the provision of the planning scheme. CONCLUSION Council is continuing to engage with the community in relation to the progress of the school sites redevelopment project. Further information sessions are planned and will be confirmed and communicated at the appropriate time. Website updates and information flyers will continue to be published. Council will also continue to advocate for enhancement of local educational facilities. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1. 2.
Continues to engage with the community in relation to the school sites redevelopment project. Continues to advocate for the enhancement of local educational facilities.
ATTACHMENTS No.
Title
1
Attachment 1 - Letter from DEECD
217
2
Attachment 2 - Community information update - Banksia Street sites
218
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page
Page 49
5.3
MULTICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT OF ADDITIONAL MEMBERS
Author: Services
Shawn Neilsen - Inclusion Access & Equity Social Planner, Corporate
File:
F2014/2/17
SUMMARY The report considers the appointment of three additional members to Council’s Multicultural Advisory Committee. 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. CITY PLAN This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction of “encourage diverse and inclusive community participation”. BACKGROUND During 2013 Council resolved to establish a new Advisory Committees to assist Council to work more effectively with multicultural communities. This committee has now been established and held its first meeting in March 2014. The Multicultural Advisory Committee has fifteen membership spaces available of which eleven are currently filled. At the first committee meeting it was recommended that additional members be sought from key sectors within the community, namely employment and training and the Police. Representatives in these sectors have been contacted by officers to seek their interest in supporting the Advisory Committee and Council has received three expressions of interest that are being presented to Council for consideration for appointment to the committee. HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered to determine if it raises any human rights issues. In particular, whether the scope of any human right established by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities is in any way limited, restricted or interfered with by the recommendations contained in this report. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any negative human rights issues.
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 50
5.3
Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life
Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life
The nature of the committees being established in fact enhances Councils advocacy function in affirming the individuals’ rights to freedom of expression especially in underrepresented groups in our community. It is considered that the establishment of Council advisory committees protect and promote individuals rights to Freedom of Expression as contained in section 15 of the Charter.
5.3
MULTICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE - APPOINTMENT OF ADDITIONAL MEMBERS cont’d
DISCUSSION Council called for expressions of interest and appointed the below 11 members for its Multicultural Advisory Committee. Members were selected and appointed in line with the Terms of Reference for these committees. The draft Terms of Reference for the Advisory Committee are included in ATTACHMENT 1. Additional expressions of interest have been sought from identified sectors and Council has received the following expressions of interest. Name: Rosemary Crosthwaite Albert Fatileh
Sector: Adult Education
George Giuliani
Employment and Training
Police
Position and Organisation: Board Member – Olympic Adult Education. Multicultural Liaison Office – Victoria Police, North West Metro Region. CEO – Efocus
The three additional expressions of interest received, represent important sectors of the community that support Council’s multicultural communities. These applications have been assessed against the membership criteria outlined in the Terms of Reference for the Multicultural Advisory Committee and it is considered they are highly suitable for appointment to the Committee. CONCLUSION The additional expressions of interest received for the Multicultural Advisory Committee represent key sectors supporting Council’s multicultural communities and the applications clearly meet the membership criteria outlined in the Terms of Reference for the Committee. ECOMMENDATION That Council appoint the following three additional members to the Multicultural Advisory Committee. • • •
Rosemary Crosthwaite Albert Fatileh George Guiliani
ATTACHMENTS No.
Title
1
Terms of Reference - Multicultural Advisory Committee
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 220
Page 51
6.1
ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS
Author:
Cindy Ho - Governance Officer, City Development
File:
F2014/337
6.1
Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely
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 bea) the subject of a decision of the Council or; b) 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
2
Date of Assembly:
5th May 2014
Type of Meeting:
Councillor Briefing
Matters Considered:
• •
Councillors Present:
Steven Briffa Mark Di Pasquale Craig Langdon Tom Melican Jenny Mulholland Wayne Phillips
Staff Present:
Others Present:
Simon McMillan, Chief Executive Officer Allison Beckwith, Director – Community Programs Scott Walker, Director – City Development Geoff Glynn, Director – Assets & City Services Keith Yeo, Director – Corporate Services Daniel Kollmorgen –Manager of Strategic Economic Development Nil
Conflict of Interest:
Nil
Date of Assembly:
5th May 2014
Type of Meeting:
Councillor Briefing
Matters Considered:
Items on the Council Agenda for the Ordinary Meeting of 5th May 2014 (excluding confidential items) as listed below. 1.1 Constructed car park within Banksia Street Reserve 1.2 Proposed development (19 Units) of No.59 Cape St, Heidelberg
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Cessation of ward funding and future grant processes Rating strategy
Page 53
Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely
ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS cont’d
6.1
2.1 Indigenous Participation Project 3.1 Environmentally Sustainable Development Local Policy 3.2 Banyule Environment Advisory Committee (BEAC) Nominations 2014 4.1 McKenzie Crt, Greensborough, & 3 Somerleigh Cr Greensborough – Proposed Sale of Land 4.2 4.2 New Residential Zones 4.3 Northern Horizons 4.4 Saxon Homestead – Planning Scheme Amendment C94 5.1 Preparation of Banyule's City Plan 2013 - 2017 (Year 2) 6.1 Preparation of Budget for period 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015 6.2 Draft Planning and Building Enforcement Framework 6.3 Community Information and Support Services Review 6.4 Assembly of Councillors 8.1 Prospective Candidate - State Election 2014 8.2 Olympic Village Learning Hub General Business • 50th Anniversary of St Georges Church, East Ivanhoe
Councillors Present:
Staff Present:
Urgent Business • Land set aside for a new educational facility • Victorian Labor Party Policy on Council rate capping Steven Briffa Mark Di Pasquale Craig Langdon Tom Melican Jenny Mulholland Wayne Phillips
Others Present:
Simon McMillan, Chief Executive Officer Allison Beckwith, Director – Community Programs Scott Walker, Director – City Development Geoff Glynn, Director – Assets & City Services Keith Yeo, Director – Corporate Services Daniel Kollmorgen –Manager of Strategic Economic Development Gina Burden, Manager – Governance, Information and Laws Vivien Ferlaino – Governance and Information Coordinator Frances Gianinotti, Coordinator – Youth & Community Partnerships. Joel Elbourne, Manager – Development Services Giovanna Failla – Manager of Youth & Family Services Nil
Conflict of Interest:
Nil
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 54
Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely
3
Date of Assembly:
5th May 2014
Type of Meeting:
Confidential Councillor Briefing
Matters Considered:
Others Present:
Confidential Matters – Property and Proposed Developments Steven Briffa Mark Di Pasquale Craig Langdon Tom Melican Scott Walker, Director – City Development Daniel Kollmorgen –Manager of Strategic & Economic Development Michael Hutchison – City Development Projects Coordinator Nil
Conflict of Interest:
Nil
Councillors Present:
Staff Present:
RECOMMENDATION That the Assembly of Councillors report be received.
ATTACHMENTS Nil
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 55
6.1
ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS cont’d
8.1
BRIDGE LINKING WARRINGAL PARKLANDS WITH BANKSIA PARK
Author:
Cr Steven Briffa
File:
F2014/301
NOTICE that it is my intention to move: “That Council officers arrange to meet with officers of Manningham City Council in order to determine: 1.
The priority that Manningham City Council currently accords the proposal to connect Banksia Park to Warringal Parklands and the Main Yarra Trail.
2.
Manningham City Council’s willingness to jointly fund a feasibility study to identify the most suitable location for the bridge, and the likely cost of construction and opportunities for third party funding.”
Explanation A pedestrian/bicycle bridge linking Warringal Parklands in Heidelberg across the Yarra River, to Banksia Park in Bulleen, has been identified in a number of key Council documents. This project is: • • • •
Listed as a high priority by Council’s Bicycle Strategy Shown as a key opportunity to” open up direct access for Banyule residents to the Banksia Metropolitan Park” by the Banyule Public Open Space Strategy. Identified in the Sills Bend Masterplan Has been listed in Council’s 10 year Capital Works Plan for a number of years.
However at this time no funding, or year have been allocated. The project has also been identified as a priority by the Manningham Bicycle Strategy. As the Yarra River forms the municipal boundary in this area, this project will need to involve two Councils. Discussions will therefore need to be held with officers of Manningham City Council in order to establish where the project currently fits within that Council’s overall priorities. Before any commitments are even considered in relation to constructing a bridge over the Yarra River, a feasibility study to determine its most suitable location and to obtain an accurate costing will need to be undertaken.
CR STEVEN BRIFFA HawdonWard
ATTACHMENTS Nil
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 57
8.1
Notice of Motion
8.2
MCCRAE ROAD AND HOMEWOOD COURT TRAFFIC CONCERNS
Author:
Cr Tom Melican
Ward:
Ibbott
File:
F2013/947
8.2
Notice of Motion
TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move: “That: 1. A traffic speed and volume count be conducted at the corner of McCrea Road and Homewood Court, to determine the extent of the safety issues at this location. 2. The priority of traffic treatments at this location, be revaluated depending on the outcome of these traffic counts.� Explanation There have been issues raised in the past about traffic volumes and speed in McCrea Road and Council has undertaken some action to reduce rat running in the area. Council has also performed traffic counts and identified some traffic treatments were required in the area. The current priority for installation of those treatments is in the 2018/19 budget based on priority against other sites across the City. Residents have raised further concerns and it is appropriate that Council ensure that the current priority settings are still relevant.
CR TOM MELICAN IbbottWard
ATTACHMENTS Nil
Ordinary Meeting of Council - 19 May 2014
Page 58
ATTACHMENTS
1.1
McArthur Road, Ivanhoe East - Speed Limit Reduction Attachment 1
4.1
Banyule Rights of Way Policy and Strategy Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3
4.2
Attachment 2
Assessment against Kantor principles ........................................... 215
School sites redevelopment project: Community engagement and advocacy update Attachment 1 Attachment 2
5.3
Livable Housing Guidelines ........................................................... 213
Extension of Time to Planning Permit P626/2010 - 4 Gona Street, Heidelberg West Attachment 1
5.2
Surveyed properties, existing and proposed parking restrictions ..................................................................................... 209 Joint letter from residents requesting the installation of parking restrictions ........................................................................ 211
Livable Housing Project - Implementation and Evaluation Update Attachment 1
4.6
Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme.................................. 81 Banyule City Council Submission on Proposed PPF ..................... 184 MAV Draft Submission on Proposed PPF...................................... 191
Studley Road, Ivanhoe - Parking Restrictions Attachment 1
4.4
Summary of Submissions to the Draft Banyule Rights of Way Policy and Strategy.......................................................................... 62 Banyule Rights of Way Policy .......................................................... 66 Banyule Rights of Way Strategy 2014-2024 .................................... 80
Review of the State Planning Policy Framework Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3
4.3
Cover letter for petition .................................................................... 60
Attachment 1 - Letter from DEECD................................................ 217 Attachment 2 - Community information update - Banksia Street sites .................................................................................... 218
Multicultural Advisory Committee - appointment of additional members Attachment 1
Terms of Reference - Multicultural Advisory Committee ................ 220
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 59
Attachment 1
1.1
Item: 1.1
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 60
Attachment 1: Cover letter for petition
1.1
Attachment 1: Cover letter for petition
Attachment 1
Item: 1.1
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 61
Item: 4.1
Attachment 1: Summary of Submissions to the Draft Banyule Rights of Way Policy and Strategy
Attachment 1
4.1
Banyule Rights of Way Policy and Strategy – Summary of Issues raised and Officer Response
#
Issue Noted
Officer Response
1
Questions raised regarding which Right of Way classification a particular Right of Way would fit into and the effect of the draft Policy and Strategy on resident living adjacent to a Right of Way in Greensborough.
Face to face meeting with resident and response given. Resident satisfied with response received.
2
Questions raised regarding which Right of Way classification a particular Right of Way would fit into and the effect of the draft Policy and Strategy on resident living adjacent to a Right of Way in Macleod.
Phone meeting with resident and questions answered. Resident satisfied with response received.
3
Right of Way between Hopetoun Grove and The Righi. • There should be a return to embracing Rights of Way as a community amenity – like a “country lane” – rather than an individual’s private driveway. • This right of way should be at most a Class1C right of way. • Visibility from the right of way is poor and should be addressed.
4
ROW Strategy – a number of issues have been raised by Submission #4. See below.
4.1
The contribution of bluestone-paved Rights of Way to Neighbourhood Character should not be restricted only to Heritage Overlay areas.
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 62
•
Noted, the intention is that those Rights of Way which are unconstructed such as the Right of Way between Hopetoun Grove and The Righi would have a lower classification and be used for community benefit such as walking.
•
Noted.
•
Noted, this issue will be addressed through Council’s Customer Request Management (CRM) system.
The Policy and Strategy have been amended to refer to Rights of Way affected by a Heritage Overlay in the Banyule Planning Scheme or heritage elements including bluestone.
4.2
Replacement of bluestone-paved Rights of Way may require the expensive installation of speed humps, as vehicles will be tempted to increase their speed and “rat-run” these rights of way.
Council’s bluestone-paved Rights of Way are generally very narrow, just 3.1m wide. Replacement of the bluestone surface by a concrete surface would be most unlikely to result in an appreciable increase in speed necessitating the installation of speed humps.
4.3
Discontinuance and Sale – Council will consider closure if all abutting owners agree to the costs of removing the existing paving and/or installing an underground drainage system. Council gets the sale proceeds but residents bear the expense.
Residents would get the benefit of private ownership of a portion of the Right of Way.
4.4
Council should not use the Class 2 classification to pursue land sales revenue.
Noted. The Classification system is designed to prioritise on the strategic need for a Right of Way to determine its value to the community. Class 2 rights of way will generally be considered as those rights of way which do not fit the criteria of the Class 1A, 1B and/or 1C categorisation, and are considered to be no longer required for public use (including stormwater overland flow paths) and could be discontinued and sold. These rights of way would typically be unconstructed.
4.5
Issue of overlooking of Private Open Spaces if development fronting a Right of Way is permitted. It is most unlikely that Council will require opaque glass or half-screens on front windows where development fronting a Right of Way is permitted.
Overlooking issues would form part of the normal Council planning process and the Banyule Planning Scheme will apply.
Right of Way Policy – a number of issues have been raised by Submission #4. See below. 4.6
Definitions: • Closure should mean that access by vehicular traffic is restricted but through traffic is prohibited.
The definition of closure means thoroughfare access to the road by vehicles is prohibited. Noted.
• Unconstructed Right of Way – the laying of gravel by Council surely constitutes “physical surface works” Council would conduct surveys and ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 63
4.1
Attachment 1: Summary of Submissions to the Draft Banyule Rights of Way Policy and Strategy
Attachment 1
Item: 4.1
Attachment 1
4.1
Item: 4.1
Attachment 1: Summary of Submissions to the Draft Banyule Rights of Way Policy and Strategy
• Unused road – “no evidence of current vehicular or pedestrian usage” assumes a high level of forensic analysis.
visual inspections to determine the extent of any current vehicular or pedestrian usage.
4.7
“Efficient, Coordinated and Efficient Movement” is too waffly. Does “Understanding what transport users need” includes pedestrians?
Noted. The Policy has been amended to read Effective and Coordinated movement. Transport users includes all users – cars, freight, cyclists, pedestrians etc.
4.8
“Preserve the heritage value of Rights of Way that have a heritage element” – fully supported by submitter.
Noted.
4.9
“To provide for development directly abutting Rights of Way’ subject to the suitability of the development and of the Right of Way”. How can this be better explained? Through specific examples?
The Right of Way Strategy allows for the establishment of guidelines to provide the best outcome for Rights of Way that abut existing or new development. directly abutting Rights of Way. The Strategy also proposes the identification and development of a demonstration revitalisation project in an Activity Centre to offer an opportunity to explore and test different scenarios.
4.10 “To discontinue and sell off Rights of Way that offer limited or no benefits to the local and wider community”. Definition of limited or no benefits required? Definition of local and wider community required?
Council’s policy is that “prior to discontinuing a Right of Way, Council will assess • Existing vehicular/and or pedestrian needs; • Future road network expansion and/or linking of bike and walking trails; and • Assess (following consultation) whether a Right of Way is no longer required as a road for public use.” Limited or no benefits would mean no or extremely rare vehicular or pedestrian/cyclist needs and not required for any future road network expansion or linking bike and walking trails. Local community would be the community abutting the Right of Way. Wider community would be the community living further afield who may receive a benefit such as being able to access a walking/cycling route through use of a particular Right of Way.
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 64
4.11 “Council will address issues that cause damage to properties”. Issue in relation to Donaldson St – Athelstane Grove right of way where seal laid without a sufficient depression to allow stormwater to flow away.
As stated in the Right of Way Policy, Council intends to revise its Drainage Policy in the near future. The issue relating to the Donaldson Street – Athelstane Grove Right of Way will be addressed through Council’s Customer Request Management (CRM) system.
4.12 Special charge scheme for where no formal drainage system exists. This is a major policy decision and requires separate exhibition.
Any special charge scheme would be subject to community consultation and separate exhibition.
4.13 Special charge scheme for construction of unconstructed rights of way. This is a major policy decision and requires separate exhibition.
Any special charge scheme would be subject to community consultation and separate exhibition.
4.14 Discontinuance Policy – Requests for discontinuance should require unanimous support from all adjacent property owners.
All requests for discontinuance will continue to be assessed on an individual basis and based on merit. In the vast majority of cases, consent from all adjacent property owners will be required.
5.
Internal submission relating to drainage issues.
These issues have been addressed within the Right of Way Policy namely Section 3.4.2
6.
Internal submission relation to discontinuance issues.
These issues have been addressed within the Right of Way Policy namely Section 3.6.2. It is proposed to rescind Council’s Rights of Way (Road) Discontinuance Policy (February 2000)
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 65
4.1
Attachment 1: Summary of Submissions to the Draft Banyule Rights of Way Policy and Strategy
Attachment 1
Item: 4.1
Attachment 2: Banyule Rights of Way Policy
Attachment 2
4.1
Item: 4.1
BANYULE RIGHTS OF WAY POLICY
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 66
Item: 4.1
Attachment 2: Banyule Rights of Way Policy
Review No.
Review
September 2012
1
December 2012 April 2013
2 3
April 2014
4
Reviewed by Michelle Herbert following discussions with Property Coordinator Reviewed by Michelle Herbert Reviewed by Michelle Herbert following DK restructuring Reviewed and edited by David Bailey
Attachment 2
Date
4.1
Schedule
1. 1.
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 67
Item: 4.1
Attachment 2: Banyule Rights of Way Policy
4.1
INTRODUCTION 1.1. Purpose The purpose of the Banyule Rights of Way Policy (the Policy) is to clarify Council’s role with respect to, and facilitate the co-ordinated management of Rights of Way within the City of Banyule. 1.2. Objective of the Policy The overall objective of the Policy is to establish clear direction for dealing with the identified key issues associated with Rights of Way, having regard to legislative requirements and existing Council policies, strategies and guidelines.
Attachment 2
1.3. Application of the Policy This Policy applies to all Rights of Way within the City of Banyule. The Policy will be implemented in accordance with the Banyule Rights of Way Strategy 2014 – 2024. 1.4. Policy Context This Policy does not replace Council’s responsibilities under State legislation, but should be read in conjunction with the legislation and existing Council policies, strategies and guidelines. The Policy responds to community expectations associated with Council’s management role in respect to Rights of Way. This Policy has been prepared in accordance with Council’s City Plan 2013 – 2017 which includes our five key objectives: People - Community Strengthening and Support Planet - Environmental Sustainability Place - Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment Participation - Community Involvement in Community Life Performance - Use our Resources Wisely Council is the custodial manager of Rights of Way but is rarely the registered owner. Notwithstanding that Council may not be registered as the owner, this custodial managerial role confers on Council legal and regulatory responsibilities, and customer expectations. Section 205 of the Local Government Act 1989 and Section 40 of the Road Management Act 2004 confer these responsibilities on Council.
1.5.
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 68
Item: 4.1
Attachment 2: Banyule Rights of Way Policy
Key Issues The key issues in the management of Rights of Way are categorised as follows:
4.1
Identification • Identification and categorisation of Rights of Way • Numbering and naming of Rights of Way Clarification • Heritage • Illegal occupancy and encroachment Maintenance • Maintenance, cleansing and infrastructure
Attachment 2
• Drainage infrastructure and stormwater overland flow paths Improvement • Construction of unconstructed Rights of Way • Activation of Rights of Way within Activity Centres • Rights of Way abutting existing or new Development • Transport, parking and loading in Rights of Way Closure •
Temporary or Permanent Closure
•
Discontinuance
1.6. Definitions In the context of this policy the following definitions apply: Activity Centre
means the areas identified as Activity Centres within the Banyule Planning Scheme.
closure
means thoroughfare access to the road by vehicles is prohibited.
Council
means Banyule City Council.
discontinuance
means the removal of the ‘road’ status extinguishment of carriageway easement rights.
Drainage Policy
means the Drainage Policy defining division of responsibilities and management of drainage within the municipality adopted by Council in March 1998
Resultant Land
means the land from former Rights of Way or roads on completion of the requisite statutory procedures to discontinue.
and
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 69
4.1
Item: 4.1
Attachment 2: Banyule Rights of Way Policy
Rights of Way
means those numbered and named in Banyule City Council’s Road Register (as amended from time to time).
road
means any road, street, Rights of Way, laneway, unused road, passage, cul de sac, by-pass, bridge or ford, footpath, bicycle path or nature strip and any culvert, kerbing or other land or works forming part of a road.
Road Management Plan means the Banyule City Council Road Management Plan adopted by Council on 17th June 2013.
Attachment 2
Road Register
Special Rate/ Charge Scheme
Service Authority
unconstructed Rights of Way
unused road
means the Register of Public Roads kept and maintained by Council in accordance with Section 19 of the Road Management Act.
means a special rate or special charge scheme declared by Council pursuant to Section 163 of the Local Government Act 1989. means any provider of public utility services, whether statutory or not and any other public person or instrumentality having rights or responsibilities over Rights of Way.
means Rights of Way on which no physical surface works have been carried out by Council or Service Authorities. means no evidence of current vehicular or pedestrian usage from which an opinion could be formed that the road is required as a road for public use.
2.
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 70
Item: 4.1
Attachment 2: Banyule Rights of Way Policy
VISION, PRINCIPLES and OBJECTIVES
4.1
2.1. Vision The vision for the Policy is: To provide well-managed, safe and accessible Rights of Way throughout the City of Banyule that enhance the local and wider community wellbeing, while maintaining and creating new opportunities for pedestrians, cyclists, public safety and community amenity. 2.2. Principles
Sustainability Balancing the current and future needs of the community, the environment and the economy to provide quality of life for today and tomorrow’s communities. Effective, Coordinated and Efficient Movement Balancing the efficiency of Rights of Way across the City of Banyule to optimise capacity, maximise use of resources and facilitate integrated travel. Understanding transport users’ needs and improving our Rights of Way to address those needs. Choice and Diversity Encouraging and providing for choice and diversity in lifestyle, culture, transport and environment. Stakeholder Engagement and Community Participation Taking into account the interests of Rights of Way users and members of local communities through appropriate engagement. Financial Responsibility and Resource Efficiency Guiding Council investment, spending, maintenance and natural resource use in an efficient, equitable and sustainable manner. Integrated Decision Making Achieving objectives through coordination across all departments and external stakeholders. 2.3.
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 71
Attachment 2
The Policy has been formulated on the following set of principles:
Item: 4.1
Attachment 2: Banyule Rights of Way Policy
Objectives
4.1
The objectives to ensure the efficient management of Rights of Way are: Identification •
To maintain an up-to-date accurate and detailed database of all Rights of Way in the City of Banyule.
•
To establish a classification criterion for all Rights of Way having regard to the Road Management Plan.
Attachment 2
Clarification •
To prioritise the use and management of all Rights of Way according to their public need.
•
To ensure existing or proposed new Rights of Way meet Council standards when a new development is proposed with its primary access off Rights of Way.
•
To maintain Rights of Way free from illegal occupancy and encroachment.
•
To preserve the heritage value of Rights of Way that have a heritage element (including bluestone) or that are located in areas affected by a Heritage Overlay control in the Banyule Planning Scheme.
•
To ensure landowners and developers contribute financially to the capital cost of upgrading and lighting Rights of Way, through special charge schemes.
Maintenance •
To define Council’s management practices and responsibilities in relation to maintenance of Rights of Way having regard to the Road Management Plan.
•
To ensure that Rights of Way required for public use are accessible, safe and appropriately constructed and maintained, subject to budgetary constraints.
•
To preserve the stormwater overland flow path function of Rights of Way in known flood zones.
•
To protect public utilities and other service assets and enable their orderly provision and coordination for the benefit of the community.
•
To provide for effective transport and land integration use within Rights of Way.
Improvement •
To improve, where appropriate, Rights of Way that have potential for greater public use, subject to budgetary constraints.
•
To enhance transport safety and accessibility of Rights of Way.
•
To enhance public safety, lighting and drainage along and within Rights of Way.
•
To activate and (where necessary) increase the width of Rights of Way particularly within Activity Centres.
•
To ensure Rights of Way are enhanced by proposed development directly abutting those Rights of Way.
•
To contribute to the preservation of existing streetscapes.
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 72
Item: 4.1 •
Attachment 2: Banyule Rights of Way Policy
To fund a ten year Rights of Way program using Capital Works and Development Contributions.
•
To ensure suitable consultation prior to the temporary or permanent, partial or full closure or discontinuance of Rights of Way.
•
To discontinue and sell off Rights of Way no longer reasonably required for public access (Class 2 Rights of Way).
4.1
Closure
Attachment 2
3.
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 73
Item: 4.1
Attachment 2: Banyule Rights of Way Policy
POLICY PROVISIONS
4.1
3.1. Introduction This Policy is designed to produce a coordinated approach to the management of Rights of Way.
Attachment 2
In managing Rights of Way, Council will have regard to: •
Legislative requirements and Council policies, strategies and guidelines; and
•
Existing and future community and other stakeholders’ interests, needs and/or requirements.
The interrelated nature of the Key Issues identified in Section 1.5 suggests that they be dealt with in a holistic manner. However, to capture the distinct characteristics and meet the specific statutory requirements related to the issues, clear definitions are provided for each Key Issue together with Council’s actions to address the issue. 3.2. Identification 3.2.1.
Identification and categorisation of Rights of Way Purpose To define Council’s responsibility in identifying and classifying Rights of Way having regard to the Road Management Plan. Council Policy • Council will maintain a comprehensive database of all Rights of Way. • Council will maintain classification criterion for its Rights of Ways, having regard to the Road Management Plan.
3.2.2.
Numbering and Naming Rights of Way Purpose To define Council’s role in the naming of ‘unnamed’ Rights of Way. Council Policy • Council will establish and maintain clear guidelines and procedures for dealing with requests for naming Rights of Way with reference to Council’s Street Numbering and Naming Guidelines.
3.3.
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 74
Item: 4.1
Attachment 2: Banyule Rights of Way Policy
Clarification Heritage Purpose To define Council’s role in managing heritage issues relating to Rights of Way affected by a Heritage Overlay in the Banyule Planning Scheme or heritage elements including, but not limited to, bluestone.
4.1
3.3.1.
Council Policy • •
Illegal occupancy and encroachment Purpose To define Council’s role in facilitating the removal of illegal occupancy and encroachments (including fencing and gates) on Rights of Way in the City of Banyule. Council Policy •
Council will establish and maintain clear guidelines and procedures for investigating and facilitating the removal of illegal occupancy and encroachments on Rights of Way in the City of Banyule to protect the amenity and/or character of the surrounding area.
3.4. Maintenance 3.4.1.
Maintenance, cleansing and infrastructure Purpose To define Council’s Rights of Way maintenance responsibility. Council Policy • •
3.4.2.
Council will establish clear guidelines and procedures for dealing with requests for maintenance and cleansing of Rights of Way. Council will implement maintenance and service standards for Rights of Way in accordance with the Road Management Plan. Drainage
Purpose To define Council’s responsibility for drainage and legal point of discharge within Rights of Way, particularly where no formal drainage system exists.
Council Policy
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 75
Attachment 2
3.3.2.
Council will establish a Rights of Way Heritage Management Plan which identifies appropriate maintenance and service standards for Rights of Way affected by a Heritage Overlay or containing heritage elements. Council will implement maintenance and service standards in accordance with the Rights of Way Heritage Management Plan, subject to budgetary constraints.
Item: 4.1
Attachment 2: Banyule Rights of Way Policy
•
4.1
• • • •
Council will implement maintenance and service standards for drainage within Rights of Way in accordance with the Road Management Plan and Drainage Policy. Council will address drainage issues that cause damage to properties and compromise public safety in accordance with the Drainage Policy. Council will protect the legal point of discharge in Rights of Way by ensuring that all drainage matters are resolved prior to the sale of discontinued Rights of Way. Council will identify and maintain Rights of Way that function as important overland flow paths for stormwater. Where no formal drainage system exists or existing systems are inadequate or inappropriate, a Special Rate/Charge Scheme will be implemented and funded in accordance with the Drainage Policy.
Attachment 2
3.5. Improvement 3.5.1.
Construction of Unconstructed Rights of Way Purpose To define Council’s role in facilitating the construction of Rights of Way which are required for road purposes by abutting owners or the general public. Council Policy • •
3.5.2.
Council will develop maintenance and service standards for unconstructed Rights of Way in accordance with the Road Management Plan. Unconstructed Rights of Way identified as being required for road purposes will be prioritised for construction. Implementation and funding will be through a Special Rate/Charge Scheme and subject to budgetary constraints. Activation of Rights of Way within Activity Centres
Purpose To define and facilitate Council’s role in managing the activation of Rights of Way within or close to Activity Centres. Council Policy • •
3.5.3.
Council will develop an appropriate database of all Rights of Way within Activity Centres and identify whether they are suitable for activation. Council will actively encourage development and promote the use of suitable Rights of Way within, and close to, Activity Centres for a wide variety of different uses, subject to all maintenance and safety standards being met. Rights of Way abutting existing or new development
Purpose To define Council’s role in managing existing or new Rights of Way where proposed development faces and/or abuts Rights of Way or where all or part of the development has either its primary or secondary access from Rights of Way. Council Policy
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 76
Attachment 2: Banyule Rights of Way Policy
• •
•
3.5.4.
Council will establish guidelines for Rights of Way where a proposed or existing development faces and/or abuts Rights of Way and it is proposed that the Rights of Way is to be used as the primary or secondary access. New or additional Rights of Way, proposed by developers will be subject to strict Council guidelines and standards and Council ownership will only be considered where it is in the broader public interest. Developers must fully fund the capital cost of constructing, upgrading, draining and lighting new and additional Rights of Way abutting their development or where Rights of Way are to be used as the primary or secondary access.
4.1
Item: 4.1
Transport, parking and loading in Rights of Way Purpose
Council Policy • • •
Any unconstructed road identified as being required for sustainable transport purposes will be prioritised for construction through a Special Rate/Charge Scheme. Council will encourage and give preference to active transport modes in Rights of Way particularly close to Activity Centres. Council will manage Rights of Way to achieve transport integration, choice and balance for all users.
3.6. Closure 3.6.1.
Temporary and Permanent Closure Purpose To define Council’s role in implementing traffic management measures to effect the closure of Rights of Way. Council Policy •
3.6.2.
Council will develop guidelines for the temporary or permanent closure of Rights of Way including transparent consultation with the community, public authorities and other stakeholders, assessing the impact on the amenity or character of surrounding areas and the function of Rights of Way as an important overland flow path for stormwater. Discontinuance
Purpose To define Council’s role in facilitating the discontinuance and sale of Rights of Way which are no longer required as a road by abutting owners or the general public.
Council Policy
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 77
Attachment 2
To define Council’s role in managing all transport modes (including cyclists and pedestrians) accessing Rights of Way.
Item: 4.1
Attachment 2: Banyule Rights of Way Policy
•
4.1
•
Council will develop clear guidelines and procedures for dealing with requests for the discontinuance of Rights of Way and the sale of the resultant land. Council will not support the discontinuance of Rights of Way and sale of the resultant land where a ‘landlock’ situation would be created or where Rights of Way function as an overland stormwater flow path.
Attachment 2
4.
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 78
Item: 4.1
Attachment 2: Banyule Rights of Way Policy
4.1. Policy Implementation This Policy articulates a long term vision for the management of Rights of Way within the City of Banyule. The implementation of this Policy will be through the Banyule Rights of Way Strategy 2014 – 2024 which includes action plans for the range of issues identified.
4.1
IMPLEMENTATION
4.2. Human Rights Charter
4.3. References In consideration or implementation of this Policy reference should be made to the following documents and any revisions or updates: City Plan 2013 - 2017 Banyule Access and Inclusion Policy Banyule Activity Centre Parking Policy and Strategy Banyule Activity Centre Structure Plans Banyule Drainage Policy 1998 Banyule Environment Strategy, 2003 Banyule Integrated Transport Strategy, 2003 Banyule Local Law No. 1 (2005) General Local Law Banyule Municipal Strategic Statement Banyule Neighbourhood Character Strategy Banyule Planning Scheme
Banyule Public Open Space Strategy 2007 – 2012 Banyule Road Management Plan Banyule Road Register Banyule Safer Design Guidelines Banyule Street Numbering and Naming Guidelines Building Act 1993 Emergency Management Act 1986 Fences Act 1968 Geographic Place Names Act 1998 Local Government Act 1989 Planning and Environment Act 1987 Road Management Act 2004 Victorian Building Regulations
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 79
Attachment 2
In accordance with Section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights, this Policy has been assessed as being compatible with the human rights protected by the charter. This assessment is based on a Statement of Compatibility of the Human Rights protected by the Charter that are relevant to this Policy.
4.1
Item: 4.1
Attachment 3: Banyule Rights of Way Strategy 2014-2024
Placeholder for Attachment 3 Banyule Rights of Way Policy and Strategy
Attachment 3
Banyule Rights of Way Strategy 2014-2024 0 Pages
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 80
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 81
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 82
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 83
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 84
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 85
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 86
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 87
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 88
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 89
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 90
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 91
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 92
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 93
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 94
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 95
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 96
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 97
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 98
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 99
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 100
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 101
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 102
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 103
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 104
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 105
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 106
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 107
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 108
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 109
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 110
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 111
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 112
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 113
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 114
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 115
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 116
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 117
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 118
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 119
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 120
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 121
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 122
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 123
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 124
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 125
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 126
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 127
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 128
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 129
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 130
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 131
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 132
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 133
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 134
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 135
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 136
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 137
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 138
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 139
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 140
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 141
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 142
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 143
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 144
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 145
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 146
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 147
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 148
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 149
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 150
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 151
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 152
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 153
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 154
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 155
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 156
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 157
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 158
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 159
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 160
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 161
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 162
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 163
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 164
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 165
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 166
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 167
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 168
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 169
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 170
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 171
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 172
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 173
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 174
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 175
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 176
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 177
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 178
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 179
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 180
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 181
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
4.2
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 182
4.2
Attachment 1: Proposed PPF for Banyule Planning Scheme
Attachment 1
Item: 4.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 183
4.2
Item: 4.2
Attachment 2: Banyule City Council Submission on Proposed PPF
RESPONSE TO DRAFT PLANNING POLICY
Attachment 2
FRAMEWORK Submission by Banyule City Council
23 May 2014
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 184
Item: 4.2
Attachment 2: Banyule City Council Submission on Proposed PPF
Banyule Council welcomes this opportunity to give feedback on the draft Planning
4.2
1. INTRODUCTION
Policy Framework (PPF). Council considers that the proposed restructure is a positive step towards delivering a more responsive and cohesive planning system that will address the critical land use issues facing the State. The following submission outlines Banyule’s response to the key changes proposed in the draft PPF, along with some recommendations for further improvement. Comment is
adequate resources and a realistic timeframe for councils to achieve this significant reform.
2. COMMENTS ON PROPOSED PPF
2.1 Integration of State and local policy framework •
It is proposed that all state, regional and local policy will sit under key planning themes, rather than being spread across the separated SPPF, Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and Local Planning Policies (LPPs). Banyule supports this new structure as integration would bring many improvements to the current system, such as:
Logical grouping of key State, regional and local land use themes and sub-themes together under the relevant clause and,
Ease of navigation across the planning system, such as including cross-references to other relevant sections of Victorian Planning Provisions, such as ResCode.
Clear alignment with objectives and strategies set out in Plan Melbourne.
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 185
Attachment 2
also given on the implementation process and the importance of providing
Item: 4.2
Attachment 2: Banyule City Council Submission on Proposed PPF
•
Alignment with the Transport Integration Act 2010 and the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 is supported. Strengthening the
4.2
nexus between various State legislation and policies enables a coordinated and effective delivery of related strategies and deliverables. •
Guidance for better planning scheme expression, including standardised verbs to promote consistency is supported.
2.2 Local Policies
Attachment 2
•
Many additional Clauses now include options for a new local policy to be developed. There is also more scope for tailoring local policies within updated State Policy themes.
•
The translation to the new format should not result in the loss or dilution of existing policy content. Council has committed extensive time and resources into developing a LPPF that not only gives effect to State planning policy, but also effectively responds to the values and interests of the Banyule community.
•
Valuable information is held in Banyule’s MSS maps such as the Strategic Framework Map, and any translation of content should allow for the retention of these maps.
•
Introducing Community Development (Clause 10) and Open Space (Clause 11) into the PPF as additional key policy themes is commended. By aligning existing objectives around community development from the SPPF with other State policy from the Public Health and Well-being Act 2008 helps to bring a more holistic approach between land use planning and community well-being. This would bring a better integration of social planning principles and objectives into the future built environment.
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 186
Item: 4.2
Attachment 2: Banyule City Council Submission on Proposed PPF
Development pressures and the trend towards higher density living has resulted in the incremental loss of quality open space.
whilst retaining or providing more open space for the community. Elevating ‘open space’ as a key theme demonstrates positives
4.2
There is a need to better balance development opportunities
steps that the State Government is taking on this issue. •
The addition of Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) as a sub-clause under 6. Landscape and Built Environment and
Banyule is going through an amendment process to introduce an ESD policy into the Banyule Planning Scheme. This has been done in conjunction with Moreland, Port Phillip, Stonnington, Whitehorse and Yarra Councils. As a result of these concurrent amendments, the Minister appointed an Advisory Committee and Panel to consider not only the merit of the proposed amendments but also the need for a stronger State wide approach. The subsequent Panel/ Advisory Committee Report gave support to the local ESD policy along with the following recommendation on further changes to the State Policy:
‘The approach to sustainability in planning schemes be further reviewed to provide a more coherent, strengthened approach to implementation. This should be based on a Statewide approach and include stronger, higher guidance in the SPPF and Clause 65, as a minimum, with consideration of a range of options’ (ESD Panel Report, p. 102, 7 April 2014).
The full Panel Report is provided as an attachment to this submission.
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 187
Attachment 2
is commended.
Item: 4.2
Attachment 2: Banyule City Council Submission on Proposed PPF
4.2
Recommendations •
All existing maps in the MSS and LPPs should be retained.
•
A stronger Statewide approach to ESD is adopted in line with the recommendations given by the Environmentally Efficient Design Advisory Committee.
2.3 Implementation •
Banyule’s existing MSS content can be translated into this new structure.
However,
Attachment 2
Neighbourhood
restructured
Character
Policy,
LPPs,
such
will
require
as
the
further
consideration before they can be readily translated in to the new PPF structure.
Recommendations •
Roll out of the new PPF should be coupled with updated Advisory and Practice Notes to ensure all councils have clear guidance on translating their LPPFs into the PPF. This guidance should ensure a shared understanding on the roll out the Local Policy components in the PPF, particularly for the ‘exercising of discretion’ that currently exists through Local Planning Policies in Clause 22.
•
Councils should have flexibility to stage their translation of their LPPFs into the PPF.
•
The State Government should consider giving councils a funding opportunity or resource an Expert Panel of policy-writing consultants, to help them progress timely translation of their LPPFs into the new PPF.
•
A four (4) year timeframe may be appropriate, with final timing linked with future statutory deadlines for reviewing planning schemes. Doing this can position Councils to consider any
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 188
Item: 4.2
Attachment 2: Banyule City Council Submission on Proposed PPF
emerging policy issues in their future creation, review or transfer
An alternative approach may be to allow the operation of the new residential zones to progress, for at least two (2) to three (3) years, so
4.2
of LPPFs into the new PPF.
any future translation of LPPFs can be done in the light of market changes that emerge in the future.
3. CONCLUSION land use policy through the integration of state, regional and local policies. The proposed structure has the flexibility to have Banyule’s MSS and LPPs under relevant planning themes. However, Banyule’s main concern is with the implementation process. Appropriate funding, guidance and timeframes will be critical for an effective translation of Banyule’s existing LPPF into a final version of the PPF. The final recommendations made by the SPPF Review Advisory Committee should address this.
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 189
Attachment 2
The proposed PPF would bring some improvements such as a clearer approach to
4.2
Attachment 3: MAV Draft Submission on Proposed PPF
Municipal Association of Victoria
Submission Integrated Planning Policy Framework April 2014
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 191
Attachment 3
Item: 4.2
Attachment 3: MAV Draft Submission on Proposed PPF
Attachment 3
4.2
Item: 4.2
Š Copyright Municipal Association of Victoria, 2014 The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) is the owner of the copyright in the publication Integrated Planning Policy Framework. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission in writing from the Municipal Association of Victoria. All requests to reproduce, store or transmit material contained in the publication should be addressed to Gareth Hately on 9667 5596. The MAV does not guarantee the accuracy of this document's contents if retrieved from sources other than its official websites or directly from a MAV employee. The MAV can provide this publication in an alternative format upon request, including large print, Braille and audio. Integrated Planning Policy Framework has been prepared by the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) for discussion with member councils, Local Government Victoria and the State Government. The MAV is the statutory peak body for local government in Victoria, representing all 79 municipalities. The MAV would like to acknowledge the contribution of those who provided their comments and advice during this project. While this paper aims to broadly reflect the views of local government in Victoria, it does not purport to reflect the exact views of individual councils.
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 192
Attachment 3: MAV Draft Submission on Proposed PPF
4.2
Item: 4.2
Contents 1
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4
2
Background......................................................................................................................... 5 The role of policy................................................................................................................. 5
3
Comments .......................................................................................................................... 7 Part 1 – Review of the State Planning Policy Framework ....................................................... 7 Was the objective met? ....................................................................................................... 7 Back-of-house improvements.............................................................................................10 PART 2 – Integration of the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks ............................11
4
Implementation ..................................................................................................................15
5
Conclusions .......................................................................................................................17
ATTACHMENT A ......................................................................................................................18
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 193
Attachment 3
What we have said previously ............................................................................................. 5
Attachment 3
4.2
Item: 4.2
Attachment 3: MAV Draft Submission on Proposed PPF
1 Introduction The MAV is pleased to make a further submission to the State Planning Policy Framework review and notes that the Advisory Committee has gone further than its terms of reference and put forward an integrated policy framework model for State, regional and local policy for comment. The MAV acknowledges the work of the Committee in making backend improvements such as language guidance, rules of entry and the technological arrangements that will make policy frameworks tailored. This work will strengthen the usability and robustness of State Policy and are all long overdue. The new format also generally integrates key policy documents well. The inclusion of maps and the key decision making components of these plans is critical to their future implementation. A much tighter, and updated, State Policy framework should now exist going forward. We are aware that many councils are comfortable with the proposed themes of the integrated policy framework and believe they can fit their policies within such themes. Indeed a number of councils have taken this approach as part of their planning scheme reviews and now follow the State Policy headings. Despite this, the MAV cannot unreservedly support the merging of the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework without the resolution of a number of critical issues. We are concerned, in the absence of evidence, that not all of the potential ramifications of the new model have been fully explored and that a substantial shift in the framework of the Victoria Planning Provisions is being proposed without the expected rigour for such a change. In this submission the MAV has not sought to identify errors or omissions in the rewording of policies, as we believe councils are in a much better position to do this; instead, we have sought to evaluate the Advisory Committee’s response to the first terms of reference (Part 1 of the submission) and provide a number of questions and issues for consideration in relation to the preparation of an integrated policy framework (Part 2 of the submission).
2 Background The role of policy The inclusion of a policy frameworks in the planning schemes came about in 1992 with the introduction of ‘new format’ planning schemes. One of the key objectives for reform was to:
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 194
‘…establish a focus on State and local strategic directions which provide the basis for controls in planning schemes and guidance to decision-making’ The Victoria Planning Provisions were developed as a template for planning schemes, and planning schemes were structured to include: •
The State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF), which comprised the Statewide ambitions for land use and development in Victoria
•
A Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) which comprised of two components – the Municipal Statement Statement (MSS) and Local Planning Policy. The MSS contains the strategic vision for a municipality and the strategy for achieving the vision. The LPP provides a tool for assisting councils in the exercise of their discretion.
[Reference Group on Decision Making Processes: Using and Interpreting Local Policy, September 2002] There is often a presumption that all local policy is derived from the State Planning Policy Framework. However, the need for policy can be generated at a local level and can respond to common issues arising in decision making and the resolution of competing policy objectives. What we have said previously The MAV provided written comments to the Advisory Committee in September, 2013. In the comments we shared the view that we would like to see a State Planning Policy Framework that: •
Spatially demonstrates the Government’s long-term planning directions and infrastructure commitments for the development of Victoria and highlights key areas for protection
•
Provides leadership, in a statewide context, for the resolution of difficult policy issues and conflicts
•
Only includes policy that is within the scope of land use planning to influence.
We also advised: •
The audience for State policy should be clarified
•
State policy needs to go further than referencing documents and give useful directions for land use planning
•
There should be a connection between State policy and provisions within planning scheme
•
Councils would prefer to see the Regional Growth Plans properly translated into planning schemes rather than simply being incorporated or reference documents
•
Policies should be filtered on the basis on a number of criteria
•
An overarching mechanism is required to determine when State policy is required or needs to be modified.
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 195
4.2
Attachment 3: MAV Draft Submission on Proposed PPF
Attachment 3
Item: 4.2
4.2
Item: 4.2
Attachment 3: MAV Draft Submission on Proposed PPF
The Advisory Committee has picked up a number of these matters.
3 Comments PART 1 – Review of the State Planning Policy Framework Was the objective met?
Attachment 3
In July, 2013 an Advisory Committee was appointed by the Minister for Planning to review the SPPF to: ……advise on the content and structure of a revised SPPF to apply any consequential changes arising from recent legislation and to align and integrate with the review of each of the following state policy matters: • • •
• •
the Vision for Victoria; the proposed Metropolitan Planning Strategy; the eight Regional Growth Plans (Central Highlands, G21 - Geelong Region Alliance, Gippsland, Great South Coast, Hume, Loddon Mallee North, Loddon Mallee South, Wimmera Southern Mallee); the reformed commercial, industrial, residential and rural zones; and the Development Contributions system
The table below evaluates the proposed changes to State Policy: Component
MAV Comments
Suggested improvement
Integration of regional plans
The Advisory Committee has generally done a good job of distilling the key new policy documents (Plan Melbourne and regional growth plans) into framework plans and strategies.
Consider developing some rules around what should be State, regional or local policy.
Is the PPF, however, the right location for some very specific actions of the RGPs? For example ‘prepare an outline development plan for Messmate Road growth area in Torquay’ seems more like a local policy action than regional policy action. As a result it is not clear who is responsible for implementing the strategies and who owns the content of regional policy. In addition some actions have already been completed and probably should be
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 196
Amend the PPF so that it is clear who is responsible for implementing each of the strategic planning guidelines. As actions are completed they should be removed through a regular review of the policy.
MAV Comments
Suggested improvement
4.2
Component
Attachment 3: MAV Draft Submission on Proposed PPF
removed.
Integrate with the reformed commercial, industrial, residential and rural zones
The Committee appears to have integrated some of the purposes of the new zones into the policy framework. The implications of this on decision making are however unclear. For example 9.07-S-01 Commercial and retail uses includes a strategy (based on the purpose of the Commercial 2 zone) to ‘facilitate commercial areas for offices, appropriate manufacturing and industries, bulky goods retailing, other retail uses, and associated business and commercial services’. Some of these uses are inconsistent with the purposes and controls of the Commercial 1 zone. The policy applies to all commercial land.
Undertake a legal review of the policy framework and testing with live applications to identify outcomes from new policy and any unintended consequences.
Integration of the development contributions system
There is currently no reference in the policy framework to developer contributions. This may be because the Government’s policy position had not been released.
The new Development Contributions system and Standard Levies were announced on 1 May. The outcomes of this should be reflected in the policy framework.
Additional thematic areas/policy gaps
The areas highlighted by councils are:
Consider the inclusion of the suggested theme and policy areas as well as the suggested policy modifications.
Break the Planning Vision chapter into two planning vision – State, regional and local (3) and settlement planning (4). Context could be included in Planning Vision Missing theme – livability Missing policies – activity centres, developer contributions, car parking, grade separation, coastal planning elements such as coastal settlement boundaries, neighbourhood design, state significant industrial areas
The MAV would be pleased to assist convening a small group of representative councils to assist the Committee understand the implications for decision making.
Missing maps – regional framework plan Modify policies: -
Planning for local areas only refers to 20 minute neighbourhoods (this is a strategy of Plan Melbourne not State
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 197
Attachment 3
Item: 4.2
Item: 4.2
MAV Comments
Attachment 3
4.2
Component
Attachment 3: MAV Draft Submission on Proposed PPF
Policy). There are many local areas that can either already meet this objective or are outside of the metropolitan area. Change this heading and consider other ways of planning for local areas. This might be an area, for example, that could include precinct based policies. -
Planning urban growth areas now requires Growth Corridor Plans and Precinct Structure Plans for areas that are beyond metropolitan Melbourne. Councils that have growth areas outside of Melbourne do not have the financial or technical support of a State authority or the internal resources necessary to undertake this work as a matter of course. These requirements should be shifted to Regional Policy Growth Areas
-
The Planning for Cities – regional policy, should remove the number one strategic planning action - consider unsolicited bids for changes to controls – this is not a planning action!
-
Commercial and retail uses State policy does not include the existing strategy to locate uses in an existing or planned activity centre – removing this is not a policy neutral translation and it should be retained (not just in the Metropolitan region). Reference to out of centre development should also be State policy. Including the Commercial 2 zone purpose also creates problems for applications that might be in a Commercial 1 zone – there are different uses encouraged.
-
Gaming and brothels appear to be incongruous under the heading of community development and should be separate policies as they do not necessarily relate to one another.
Clarify policies: What is an urban renewal area? Is it
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 198
Suggested improvement
Component
Attachment 3: MAV Draft Submission on Proposed PPF
MAV Comments
Suggested improvement
4.2
Item: 4.2
only residential? -
Consider how a policy about how 20 minute neighbourhoods might apply in inner Melbourne
Some policies do not translate well. There is a need to identify where certain policies go: Urban design, non-residential uses, heritage and neighbourhood character.
Background documents
geographic-based policies which didn’t really fit a particular theme in the draft framework (i.e. policies which encompass land use, design guidelines and car parking in a particular policy).
The term ‘background document’ has been introduced in addition to the existing ‘reference’ and ‘incorporated’ documents.
Replace the term ‘reference’ document with ‘background’ document. Require documents referred to in Guidelines for decision makers to be ‘incorporated’ documents as they must be referred to in making a decision and make consequential changes to support material.
Impact on decision making
There is considerable new content (eg. gaming, freight and logistics, public transport, cycling, water cycle management) and rewording of existing policies which could create legal issues for the State and unexpected interpretation issues.
It is recommended that: -
A legal review be undertaken;
-
The document be re-reviewed against the rules of entry; and
-
Both councils and VCAT test the policies on some live applications through concurrent processing.
The rules of entry seem not to have been applied where new material has been inserted. The gaming objective for example is new, and whilst it seems innocuous enough, it is not approved Government policy and it is also questionable whether the land use planning system is the best place to deliver it.
Back-of-house improvements The rules of entry are an important new addition to the management of State Policy. The MAV is supportive of the rules identified and proposes an additional rule along the lines: ‘A clear policy implementer is identified.’
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 199
Attachment 3
-
4.2
Item: 4.2
Attachment 3: MAV Draft Submission on Proposed PPF
The MAV also believes the rules of entry should be supplemented by rules around when a new policy is required such as when: •
A need for a new land use policy direction emerges – for example coal seam gas
•
There is a need to resolve a common or difficult policy conflict
•
There is a high number of councils seeking amendments about a particular issue.
Attachment 3
A valuable part of the review process has been the identification of clear policy owners. This should be followed up by communicating the ongoing expectations of individual ‘policy owners’ such as: •
Development of guidance documents for referral agency staff
•
Monitoring policy outcomes
•
Identifying operational issues arising from the policy through VCAT
•
Helping and justifying the development of statutory controls
The final control required at the backend is a commitment to regular review. This will ensure new policy issues are identified in a timely fashion, any outdated matters are removed and any ambiguities corrected.
PART 2 – Integration of the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks The MAV has a number of reservations, in the absence of analysis, about the proposed integrated policy framework model. Some of the common criticisms of the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) are considered unfair – that MSS’ and local policies are longwinded, repetitive or cover issues that are not really local. If there is repetition between the State and Local Policy Frameworks, or between various clauses, this more of a reflection of poor drafting by councils or gatekeeping by the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure than immediately suggestive of a need to combine the two frameworks. If there is a repetition of local policies amongst councils this is often because of an absence of State policy about the issue. The MAV is concerned that there has been no evidence presented that the current separation between State and local policy is not working and that there is a prima facie case to combine policy frameworks (along with the inclusion of regional policy). Without this evidence we would prefer to see the LPPF retained as a separate component of planning scheme.
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 200
Attachment 3: MAV Draft Submission on Proposed PPF
The Advisory Committee needs to be sure, through rigourous analysis, that the proposed integrated planning policy framework model is ‘really worth it’. Will additional value be created for decision making – will it be easier to find relevant policy, is it easier to understand the nuances of State, regional and local policy, are competing issues between the different levels of policy easier to resolve? Are decisions fundamentally easier to make? If the answer is a resounding yes, then we should proceed with caution.
4.2
Item: 4.2
The MAV is conscious, however, that the decision to move to an integrated policy framework appears to have already been made.
•
Consider and resolve the issues raised in the table below
•
Further test the format with a number of additional councils (particularly those that might raise concerns)
•
Test the potential decision outcomes with both councils and VCAT. This might be done by reviewing applications against both the existing policy framework and the proposed policy framework.
We have sought to articulate our concerns in a way that might assist the Advisory Committee: Issue
MAV comment
Suggested approach
Ownership of the policy framework
The Planning and Environment Act 2012, Regulations, Ministerial Directions and Guidelines set up a system where the existing SPPF and LPPF have clearly defined owners. The Minister is responsible for State standard provisions – SPPF, zones and overlays, particular provisions, general provisions - and councils (as planning authorities) are responsible for local provisions – LPPF and schedules to zones and overlays (authorised by the Minister).
Legislative amendment, and amendment to associated documents, is required to create a similar level of certainty of ownership of the policies and for procedures around their amendment. The approach to implementation could be through the strategies indicating who is the implementer.
The new policy framework is less clear as it creates regional policy, around which there are no structures or delivery organisation, and contains State, regional and local provisions all in one section of a planning scheme. It is unclear who will maintain and amend the policy framework. Clarity is also required around who will
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 201
Attachment 3
If this is case the MAV would like the Advisory Committee and Government to:
Item: 4.2
4.2
Issue
MAV comment
Suggested approach
implement the objectives and strategies outlined. This is particularly true in respect to regional policy. Existing legislative constraints
Attachment 3
Attachment 3: MAV Draft Submission on Proposed PPF
As well as the issue of ownership the Planning and Environment Act sets out that in the event of conflict State provisions must prevail over local provisions [s7(4)(b)]. No such arrangements exist for regional provisions.
Legislative amendment is required to give clarity about precedence of provisions and also to restructure planning schemes.
The Act also requires that a planning scheme include a Municipal Strategic Statement [s7(3)] and what it should contain [s12A(1)]. While some might argue that as the content of an MSS will remain so by default so does an MSS. However, we consider that its disaggregation effectively removes it as a component of a planning scheme. The limitation the new framework places on planning authorities in terms of being able to articulate a logical and cohesive policy story.
The effect of the disaggregation of MSSs into the proposed new structure has the perceived effect of downgrading the municipal vision. The current LPPF provides a logical and cohesive place for a council to articulate the key issues relevant to decision making, and the overarching planning response and connections to other documents such as the Council Plan and Health Plan. It also provides the location for local policy relevant to specific planning decisions. There will not always be a connection between State and local policy as local policy by its very nature has ‘local’ impacts. While at times councils may seek to give a local interpretation to a State policy, the policies are there to predominantly reflect local issues that may come up in decision making.
Rigoursly evaluate the options for structure of planning schemes. If the integrated model still remains preferred the planning vision section will need to be simplified to only include: 3.01 – Vision for Victoria Context/key issues Overarching/prime objectives Strategic/settlement framework 3.02 – Vision for the region Context/key issues Overarching/prime objectives Strategic/settlement framework 3.03 – Vision for Gumnut Context/key issues Overarching/prime
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 202
MAV comment
Suggested approach objectives Strategic/settlement framework
The difficulty in including geographic policies that spatially resolve some of the competing policy objectives.
Usability
Local policy also provides the ability to resolve competing policy tensions in a particular precinct or geographic area. Breaking these policies down into separate bits would be counterproductive and a backwards step in terms of decision making. The LPPF gives the capacity for councils to be place and topic specific.
If the PPF model proceeds guidance will be required about where precinct/area based policies should be located.
The PPF, when local content is included, becomes quite large and unwieldy.
Consider how the size and functioning of the PPF could be improved.
The reality is that a great deal of planning permit decisions do not need to refer to the SPPF but rather any elaboration of SPPF policies in the LPPF and geographic policies. The LPPF is usually the only area that needs to be navigated through.
4.2
Issue
Attachment 3: MAV Draft Submission on Proposed PPF
Perhaps a Planning for neighbourhoods section could be included or expansion of the Planning for local areas.
4 Implementation Significant time, effort and expense have been expended by councils in the development, and ongoing review, of their Municipal Strategic Statements and local policy. Any transition to an integrated Planning Policy Framework will need to be: •
Rigourous – to ensure critical components of LPPFs are included in the PPF and the effect of local policy is not ‘watered down’.
•
Flexible - councils should have flexibility to stage their translation of their LPPFs into the PPF. For example, a council may be fairly well placed to translate the MSS into the PPF, but may require a longer timeframe to redo Local Planning Policies.
•
Tailored – timing should relate to when councils are scheduled to review their planning schemes. This would result in a four year timeframe.
•
Supported – by Advisory and Practice Notes to ensure clear instructions about translating LPPFs. The guidance should ensure a shared understanding on the rollout of
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 203
Attachment 3
Item: 4.2
4.2
Item: 4.2
Attachment 3: MAV Draft Submission on Proposed PPF
local policy components in the PPF. Additionally, funding should be considered for expert policy writing assistance.
If the Government is intent on transitioning to a new integrated PPF within a shorter timeframe the following elements will be required:
Attachment 3
STEP 1 – Funding • Funding is necessary because it is likely that the translation would be ahead of a council’s scheduled review of its planning scheme and there will not be the budget to undertake the work. Attachment A outlines the likely costs associated with the translation at a council and sector level. This could be through individual grants to councils. • Alternatively an expert policy writing team (internal or external to the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure) could undertake the work with council or act an expert review body.
STEP 2 – Testing • Thorough testing of any translated LPPF into the new PPF structure should occur before it is formally introduced. This should be done with live applications to ensure that policy intent and interpretation has not changed. •
Legal review should also be undertaken, again to determine whether there are any issues with policy interpretation.
STEP 3 – Ministerial amendment • A streamlined planning scheme amendment process will be required to assist councils. The time and cost to councils of both notification procedures and representation at panel hearings is enormous. STEP 4 – Monitoring • A process of audit and review should be built in to identify any teething problems with the new structure and to identify recommendations to address the issues. This should include feedback from decision makers (councils, referral agencies and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal) and the MAV as well as a review of VCAT decisions.
The MAV would be pleased to assist in developing an implementation process with the Advisory Committee.
5 Conclusion
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 204
Attachment 3: MAV Draft Submission on Proposed PPF
The Advisory Committee has generally done some good work in restructuring the State policy component and creating clarity and structure around how policies should be framed. It has met its terms of reference well in terms of integrating regional plans and new zones.
4.2
Item: 4.2
An obvious translation path to move to an integrated policy framework is currently available through the required four yearly review of planning schemes. If a quicker timeframe is desired then funding and additional support will be needed.
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 205
Attachment 3
At this stage, however, the MAV needs to be convinced that the benefits of a combined policy framework outweigh the disbenefits of the unwieldy nature of an integrated policy framework, the disaggregation of the municipal vision and policies and the considerable cost and effort required to translate to the proposed model. Analysis of evidence and rigourous review and testing is required. The MAV looks forward to talking further with the Advisory Committee and helping to convene representative councils to work through some of the more challenging issues.
4.2
Item: 4.2
ATTACHMENT A Type of cost
Administrative costs
Attachment 3
Attachment 3: MAV Draft Submission on Proposed PPF
Substantive compliance costs
Delay costs to council
Specific costs
Regulatory cost Price x quantity
Cost per council
Review and translation costs
$998,900
$12,644
Amendment costs
$79,000
$1000
Legal review
$790,000
$10,000
Community communications
$79,000
$1000
Training
$671,500
$8,500
Unintended consequences
$150,000
$1,899
$1,500,000
$18,987
Nil
Nil
$2,618,400 - $4,268,400
$33,844 - $54,730
•
Legal challenge
•
Sunk costs from previous review
Nil
TOTAL Assumptions:
General • A quicker process is required than the four yearly planning scheme review. Review and translation • Half of councils (40) use a consultant to undertake the translation •
Costs for council are an average of $170 per day for staff time (ranging from senior through to administrative staff)
•
Staff time would equate to 30 days.
Amendment • Ministerial amendment – no notification or panel hearing required. Costs associated with preparation and liaison with DTPLI •
Costs for council are an average of $170 per day for staff time (ranging from senior through to administrative staff)
•
Staff time would equate to 5.8 days
Legal • Legal review costs at an average of $10,000 Communications • Communications with community require 2 days plus publication costs •
Costs for council are an average of $170 per day for staff time (ranging from senior through to administrative staff)
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 206
Item: 4.2
Attachment 3: MAV Draft Submission on Proposed PPF
Unintended consequences • Three cases of interpretation, in the first year, will be held at VCAT at a cost of $50,000 Sunk costs equate to $100,000 for 15 councils for reviews recently completed.
Attachment 3
•
4.2
Training • Training required 0.5 day for 20 people (could include staff, councillors)
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 207
4.3
Attachment 1: Surveyed properties, existing and proposed parking restrictions
Attachment 1
Item: 4.3
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 209
4.3
Attachment 2: Joint letter from residents requesting the installation of parking restrictions
Attachment 2
Item: 4.3
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 211
4.4
Attachment 1: Livable Housing Guidelines
Attachment 1
Item: 4.4
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 213
Attachment 1
4.4
Item: 4.4
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 214
Attachment 1: Livable Housing Guidelines
Item: 4.6
Attachment 1: Assessment against Kantor principles
In Kantor v Murrindindi Shire Council, 18 AATR 285, the Supreme Court held that a responsible authority should consider the following matters when exercising its discretion to extend a permit. The Responsible Authority should treat the applicant as being obliged to advance some reason or material in support of the grant of an extension, and The Responsible Authority may rightly consider: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
4.6
ASSESSMENT AGAINST KANTOR PRINCIPLES
Whether there has been a change of planning policy. Whether the landowner is seeking to “warehouse� the permit. Intervening circumstances as bearing upon grant or refusal. The total elapse of time Whether the limit originally imposed was adequate. The economic burden imposed on the landowner by the permit. The probability of a permit issuing should a fresh application be made.
Has there been a change in planning policy (including changes to zoning or overlay controls)? A permanent Clause 22.02 Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy was implemented on 20 June 2013. The new policy includes changes to neighbourhood character precincts, as well as incorporating new objectives and design responses. The property is situated within the Garden Suburban 6 precinct. The provisions are similar to those of the former GS2 precinct, with the exception of two objectives. The newly introduced objectives and their associated design responses are listed below: Objective
Complies?
To ensure that household services are not a visually prominent feature.
Yes
Design Response 1. Solar panels should be located to minimise their visual impact. Air conditioning, rainwater tanks, bins and storage should be located and/or screened so they are not visually obtrusive in the streetscape.
Yes
2. In accessible areas, rooftop plant equipment should be screened and/or located to minimise their visual impact and integrate with the roof form.
Yes
Discussion The proposal demonstrates that household services are located in areas that do not create focus and are not visible within the streetscape. Should additional services be provided to the dwellings, there is ample opportunity to locate the services in areas that would not be visually prominent. Objective
Complies?
To minimise loss of front garden space, and the dominance of vehicle access, vehicle storage facilities and built form as viewed from the street.
No
Design Response 3. Buildings should be sited to allow for the planting and growth of trees and shrubs. Front gardens should contain at least one (1) large tree and understorey landscaping, including large shrubs.
Yes
4.
Yes
Locate carports and garages behind the line of the dwelling.
5. Dedicated car parking spaces should not be provided between the front wall of a dwelling that faces the street, and the front property boundary. Landscaping such as large shrubs and trees in the front setback and garden beds along driveway edges
No
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 215
Attachment 1
An assessment has been carried out against each of these principles.
Item: 4.6
Attachment 1: Assessment against Kantor principles
4.6
should be provided to discourage car parking in this location. 6. Encourage outcomes that consider the Banyule City Council Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy 2012.
No
7. Driveways should include curves and bends that provide sufficient room for landscaping at varying heights.
Yes
8. Driveways should be finished in muted tones that soften their appearance and blend with vegetation.
Yes
Attachment 1
Discussion The proposal incorporates a landscape scheme that is considered to vastly improve on the landscaping that is presently on site. It also introduces a number of canopy trees within the front setback satisfying the design response. The proposal does seek to introduce a second vehicle crossing and also proposes a dedicated car space between the façade of the front dwelling and the front property boundary. An assessment against the Vehicle Crossing Policy 2012 identifies that the policy siting criteria would generally not be met for a second crossing associated with the multi-dwelling proposal. This is the case as the frontage of the property does not achieve the minimum 20m length or satisfy the other possible alternative scenarios. It should also be noted that the proposal does not achieve the minimum distance required between the existing neighbouring crossing and proposed crossing for landscaping purposes along the entire length of the driveway. A dedicated second car space in tandem to the space provided within the garage of unit 1 is not considered to comply with the design response within the precinct and is also considered not to positively contribute to achieving the objective of “minimising the dominance of vehicle access, vehicle storage facilities and built form as viewed from the street”.
Is the landowner seeking to ‘warehouse’ the permit? This is the applicants first request to extend the permit, therefore it is not suggested that warehousing is occurring. Are there any intervening circumstances? The Applicant has stated that “financial issues to commence work” is the reason for the delay. What has been the total elapse of time? It has been approximately 2 ½ years since the original permit was issued. This is not considered to be excessive. Was the time limit originally imposed adequate? The original time of two (2) years to commence and four (4) years to complete was the standard at the time of the decision and considered a reasonable time in which to commence development. Has there been an economic burden imposed on the landowner by the permit? No, the landowner has not stated there has been any economic burden imposed by the permit. What is the probability of a permit being issued should a fresh application be lodged? It is unlikely Council would issue a permit should a fresh application be lodged with the current design. Alterations would be sought to align the proposal with the desired future character of the area identified within the recently introduced Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy (Clause 22.02). Will the extension of time affect or breach any restrictions (covenants or S.173 Agreements)? No ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 216
5.2
Attachment 1: Attachment 1 - Letter from DEECD
Attachment 1
Item: 5.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 217
Attachment 2: Attachment 2 - Community information update - Banksia Street sites
Attachment 2
5.2
Item: 5.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 218
5.2
Attachment 2: Attachment 2 - Community information update - Banksia Street sites
Attachment 2
Item: 5.2
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 219
Attachment 1: Terms of Reference - Multicultural Advisory Committee
Attachment 1
5.3
Item: 5.3
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 220
5.3
Attachment 1: Terms of Reference - Multicultural Advisory Committee
Attachment 1
Item: 5.3
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 221
Attachment 1: Terms of Reference - Multicultural Advisory Committee
Attachment 1
5.3
Item: 5.3
ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 19 MAY 2014 Page 222