Banyule City Council Agenda 6 October 2014 by Banyule City Council

Ordinary Meeting of Council Council Chambers, Service Centre 275 Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe 6 October 2014 commencing at 7.45pm Following the public forum commencing at approximately 7.30pm and may be extended 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 Nil Confirmation of Minutes Ordinary Meeting of Council held 15 September 2014 Disclosure of Interests Presentation A presentation will be made in relation to item 5.1 Proposed Lease of Part of Chelsworth Park to Ivanhoe Grammar School- Report on Submissions regarding the benefits of the Stormwater Harvesting Project. 1. Petitions 1.1 Stormwater overflow at 10 and 12 Cantala Avenue, Rosanna ................................ 3 1.2 The lease of Part of Chelsworth Park to The Ivanhoe Grammar School .................................................................................................................... 5 REPORTS: 2. People – Community Strengthening and Support 2.1 Shelley Reserve Temporary Shipping Containers .................................................. 7 2.2 Proposed Netball Courts at Seddon Reserve ........................................................ 10 3. Planet – Environmental Sustainability 3.1 Allocation of the 2014 Banyule Environmental Sustainability Grants ................................................................................................................... 17

AGENDA (Cont’d) 4. Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment 4.1 Proposed multi dwelling development at 204 - 206 Lower Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe East ............................................................................ 23 4.2 Multi Dwelling Development at 40 Liddesdale Grove, Eltham North ...................... 42 4.3 Banyule Flats and Warringal Parklands Heritage Nomination ............................... 60 4.4 Willis Street, Greensborough - Proposed Discontinuance of Section of Unused 'Road' - Determine Intention to Discontinue ............................ 65 4.5 Margaret Avenue, Montmorency - Proposed discontinuance of section of unused 'road' - Determine Intention to Discontinue ............................... 71 4.6 Julinda Court Greensborough - Proposed Discontinuance of Unused 'Road' - Hearing of Submissions ............................................................. 78 4.7 Proposed multi-dwelling development at 47 Lower Plenty Road, Rosanna ............................................................................................................... 84 5. Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life 5.1 Proposed Lease of Part of Chelsworth Park to Ivanhoe Grammar School- Report on Submissions .......................................................................... 105 5.2 World Health Organisation's -Global Network of Age Friendly Cities Membership .............................................................................................. 110 5.3 Proposed Lease for Shop 48 The Mall, West Heidelberg, for the purpose of Community Information and Support Services .................................. 113 6. Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely 6.1 Contract No. 1212/1017 - Natural Gas & Associated Services to all Sites ................................................................................................................... 117 6.2 Assembly of Councillors ...................................................................................... 120 7. Sealing of Documents 7.1 Sealing of Documents ......................................................................................... 125 8. Notices of Motion 8.1 Buy Local Campaign ........................................................................................... 129 8.2 Mayoral Duties and Attendances ........................................................................ 130 8.3 Mayoral Election 2014 ....................................................................................... 134 9. General Business 10. Urgent Business Closure of Meeting to the Public That in accordance with Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989, Council close the Meeting to members of the public and adjourn for five minutes to allow the public to leave the Chamber prior to considering the following confidential matters: 11. Confidential Matters 11.1 Contractual matters 11.2 Contractual matters; AND proposed developments 11.3 Contractual matters 11.4 Contractual matters Matters Discussed in Camera That all confidential matters and reports related to the above items remain confidential unless otherwise specified. Closure of Meeting

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 2

1.1

STORMWATER OVERFLOW AT 10 AND 12 CANTALA AVENUE, ROSANNA

Author:

Stephen D'Agata - Senior Developments & Drainage Engineer, City Development

Ward:

Ibbott

File:

F2014/36

1.1

Petitions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A petition with six signatures has been received. The petition prayer is as follows: “The storm water from the above properties ran off clay pipes 50-60 years downhill via easements as per Council. The above residents have an obligation to monitor service and maintain these pipes. The pipes are not maintained and taken to a discharge point. The Drainage Department has a duty of care in ensuring safety, avoiding soil erosion, wetlands and foundation of our buildings. Properties involved want this matter resolved – the pipes have to be connected to a discharge point.” DISCUSSION The properties at 10 and 12 Cantala Avenue, Rosanna, have historically been serviced by a private stormwater drain which connects to Council’s drainage network in McCrae Road. A section of this private drain, situated within the drainage easement at the rear of 6 Cantala Avenue, was damaged by unknown parties. The damage to the drain has resulted in storm flows from 10 and 12 Cantala Avenue flowing overland through downstream properties (See Figure 1 below). The repair and maintenance of private drains rests with the property owners who benefit from the drain. Under the Water Act, property owners are responsible for controlling storm runoff from their properties so as not to cause a nuisance to neighbours. Council has made the relevant parties aware of this responsibility. However, it is understood that a dispute between neighbours has prevented the drain from being repaired as necessary.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 3

Petitions

1.1

STORMWATER OVERFLOW AT 10 AND 12 CANTALA AVENUE, ROSANNA cont’d

Figure 1 – Location Plan

This is a civil matter under the Water Act that Council has no obligation to resolve. Notwithstanding, staff have met with the residents on several occasions in an attempt to broker a solution. Further dispute settlement negotiations may be possible through the Victorian Dispute Settlement Centre. Further, it is understood that the issue is being investigated by the Victorian Building Authority in its role to enforce plumbers’ responsibilities and plumbing standards. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1.

Receives and notes the petition;

Advises the property owners of their responsibilities under the Water Act;

Suggests the Victorian Dispute Settlement Centre as a possible way to resolve the issue; and

Notifies the head petitioner accordingly.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 4

1.2

THE LEASE OF PART OF CHELSWORTH PARK TO THE IVANHOE GRAMMAR SCHOOL

Author:

Tom Zappulla - Leisure Facilities, Place & Partnership Co-Ordinator, Community Programs

File:

F2013/815

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A petition with 122 signatures was received on the 19 September 2014. The petition included the following prayer: We the people listed and users of Chelsworth Park, Ivanhoe. Hereby support the granting of a 20 year lease of the Chelsworth Park sporting area to The Ivanhoe Grammar School (IGS) On the understanding that IGS will maintain the ovals and pavilions during the term of the lease and any extension thereof and the area will remain open to public use. A copy of the petition covering letter outlining the groupâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s conditions is attached.

DISCUSSION Banyule City Council has a current lease arrangement with the Ivanhoe Grammar School (IGS) for the six playing surfaces and two club houses located at Chelsworth Park which expires in November 2014. In July 2012, Council resolved (Resolution CO2012/212) to negotiate a new 20 year lease (with a further 10 year option) with the IGS. A number of reports, briefings and information sheets in relation to the lease with IGS have been presented since this date. At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 4 August Council resolved to: 1.

Authorise the giving of public notice, pursuant to section 190 of the Local Government Act 1989, of its intention to enter into a 20 year lease with Ivanhoe Grammar School in respect of the Council-owned land, tennis courts and improvements known as Chelsworth Park located at 18-28 Irvine Road, Ivanhoe.

Consider any submissions received in accordance with section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 at a future meeting of the Council.

Officers advertised Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s intention to enter into a proposed lease with Ivanhoe Grammar School in The Heidelberg Leader and on Councils website. Submissions have been received in accordance with the section 223 process and are to be considered by Council as part of a separate report in the 6 October 2014 Council Meeting agenda

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 5

1.2

Petitions

THE LEASE OF PART OF CHELSWORTH PARK TO THE IVANHOE GRAMMAR SCHOOL cont’d

1.2

Additional to the formal submissions received, a petition with 122 signatures supporting the Lease with The Ivanhoe Grammar School was submitted on 19 September 2014. RECOMMENDATION That Council 1.

Receives and notes the petition.

Notifies the lead petitioner of Council’s decision on the Lease with The Ivanhoe Grammar School and the reasons for the decision once Council has concluded the statutory process for determining the Lease.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 6

2.1

SHELLEY RESERVE TEMPORARY SHIPPING CONTAINERS

Author:

Melinda Ramsay - Acting Team Leader Leisure Services, Community Programs

Ward:

Olympia

File:

F2014/492

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 21 July 2014, Council resolved the following: “Council grants a temporary exemption to the conditions of the Sporting Reserve Club User Guide Policy and allows two shipping containers to be installed directly behind the North Heidelberg Club Rooms, subject to: 1. 2. 3. 4.

The first container be installed and used by the Club until the proposed storage extension is built. The second container be installed and used by the Bike Hut based at Malahang Reserve. The Club and the Bike Hut be responsible for installation costs, and maintaining the containers in a neat and tidy condition and free from graffiti; and This exemption to the policy being reviewed in two years.”

This report discusses the limited storage space that is available to the North Heidelberg Sporting Club at Shelley Reserve and to the Malahang Bike Hut Committee at the Malahang Bike Hut. Shipping containers for storage within Council reserves is generally not encouraged given the impact on amenity as they can look untidy and often attract graffiti. Two shipping containers could be installed directly behind Shelley Reserve Pavilion to accommodate additional short term storage needs as the impact on amenity will be relatively minimal. Both parties will take full responsibility for obtaining the containers and for their associated maintenance. Further investigation will take place to determine the cost of providing more permanent storage solutions for both groups. 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 “protect and enhance our natural environment”.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 7

2.1

People – Community Strengthening and Support

SHELLEY RESERVE TEMPORARY SHIPPING CONTAINERS cont’d BACKGROUND

2.1

Shipping containers for storage within Council reserves is generally not encouraged given the impact on amenity as they can look untidy and often attract graffiti. The location of the proposed shipping containers on this site is directly behind the North Heidelberg Club Rooms therefore the impact on amenity will be minimal. However, allowing temporary shipping containers on this site may set a precedent and make it be difficult to prevent storage containers on other sites. The North Heidelberg Sporting Club and the Malahang Bike Hut Committee have very limited space hence Council has requested officers to investigate shipping containers currently installed at the Shelley Reserve Pavilion as a short term solution at this location. This would be for a period of two (2) years, after this time Council Officers will reassess the situation. The North Heidelberg Sporting Club has discussed the need to build an additional storage room at the rear of the facility as a more permanent solution. 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 North Heidelberg Sporting Club does not have sufficient storage for their equipment resulting in the need to store equipment in a small social club room that was built for the junior club. The storing of equipment in this space limits its use and looks unattractive. Officers met on site with the President of the North Heidelberg Sporting Club and the following issues were discussed:   

the Club agrees for two shipping containers to be located at the Shelley Park site directly behind the Sporting Pavilion. the Club agrees to take full responsibility for either the hire or purchase cost and maintenance of the shipping container including any up keep involving graffiti removal that may occur while the containers are at the site. the club will undertake further investigation in conjunction with Council officers to scope and cost an additional storage area at the rear of the facility as a more permanent solution.

There is also extremely limited storage capacity at the Malahang Bike Hut. Temporary storage is being used at the former Banyule dog pound, however this is only a temporary solution to the end of 2014. The Malahang Bike Hut is a community facility run by volunteers and managed by the Malahang Bike Hut Committee in conjunction with the Banyule Youth Services team. The Bike Hut provides a space for the local community, especially young people and families to:

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 8

People – Community Strengthening and Support

     

access tools to repair and maintain their bikes and scooters be mentored by volunteer bike mechanics to learn new maintenance and repair skills connect with community volunteers who provide role modelling be referred to support services where appropriate connect with other young people borrow bikes/scooters to utilise at Malahang park.

The limited storage means that community donations of bikes and parts are being rejected and this could result in loss of community good will. The limited storage is impacting on the ability of the Malahang Bike Hut Committee to expand its operating hours as there is no capacity for the parts, bikes and equipment needed to sustain additional opening hours. A shipping container would allow for increased storage and thus an increase in the operating capacity of the Malahang Bike Hut. The Malahang Bike Hut Committee will apply for a community grant to fund the purchase of the shipping container. A more permanent storage solution for The Malahang Bike Hut needs to be investigated. CONCLUSION Given the lack of storage facilities at both sites, two temporary shipping containers could be stored behind Shelly Reserve Pavilion for a temporary period of two (2) years for the North Heidelberg Sporting Club and the Malahang Bike Hut Committee. At the conclusion of this period Council will reassess the situation. The North Heidelberg Sporting Club will work with Council officers to scope, design and obtain quotes to have a storage room extension considered for Council budget purposes. RECOMMENDATION That Council 1.

Approve the installation of two shipping containers to be stored behind Shelley Reserve Pavilion temporarily until 31 December 2016.

That all costs associated with each shipping container relating to hire or purchase, maintenance, graffiti management, cleaning and removal be borne by the North Heidelberg Football Club and Malahang Bike Hut Committee for their use.

Refer cost estimates for a more permanent storage solution at the Shelley Reserve Pavilion to the 2016/17 Council budget process.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 9

2.1

SHELLEY RESERVE TEMPORARY SHIPPING CONTAINERS cont’d

2.2

PROPOSED NETBALL COURTS AT SEDDON RESERVE

Author:

Allison Beckwith - Director - Community Programs, Community Programs

Ward:

Olympia

File:

F2014/492

Previous Items Council on 4 August 2014 (Item 8.3 - Netball Courts at Seddon Reserve) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on the 4 August 2014, Council resolved the following: “That a report be prepared and reported back to Council regarding the proposal of two netball courts without lights on the Southern end of Seddon Reserve including the budget implications of the proposal.” Officers have undertaken a review of the West Ivanhoe Sporting Club proposal for inclusion of two netball courts on Seddon Reserve and liaised with Sport and Recreation Victoria (SRV) regarding current guidelines and standards for netball court provision. Council’s Transport Team has undertaken a preliminary assessment of the site and car parking requirements to meet the proposal. However, a further detailed assessment is required to determine the impact of the proposed use on the surrounding streets as it relates to car parking demand. The project cost is estimated at $409,000 including the provision of additional on-site car parking of $170,000. 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 “promote and support health and wellbeing”. BACKGROUND Formally established in 1997, the West Ivanhoe Sporting Club (WISC) is made up of the West Ivanhoe United Cricket Club, the Ivanhoe Rooster Junior Cricket Club, three Rope Quoits Clubs and the recently formed West Ivanhoe Rooster Junior Football Club. All clubs use the Seddon Reserve oval and facilities which are allocated to the WISC on a seasonal basis.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 10

2.2

People – Community Strengthening and Support

There are currently nine cricket teams, from under 11’s to seniors in the summer season and three junior football teams in the winter season using the facility. The WISC also hosts Milo-in-2-Cricket programs with 50 participants and Auskick sessions attracting over 120 children. In 2013, the WISC began to run a ‘NetSetGo’ program concurrently with the Auskick program to attract more participation and involvement of young females at the club. The ‘NetSetGo’ is an introductory program for netball and has been developed to provide children aged 5 to 10 years with the best possible introduction to the sport of netball. The program incorporates skills activities, minor games and modified matches in a fun and safe environment. The ‘NetSetGo’ program run by the WISC attracts approximately 30 children with growing interest. The inclusion of this program at Seddon Reserve increased the community interest in establishing a netball club as part of the WISC. The WISC now fields five netball teams playing in competition off site. In 2013, the WISC presented a proposal to officers to build netball courts at Seddon Reserve. The club proposal included the provision of two outdoor netball courts including the relocation of the existing playground to accommodate these courts on the existing site. The club provided cost estimates of approximately $131,000 for the provision of the courts. These costs do not include a design costs, project contingency, soil reports, and other supporting structures or the provision of lighting. The club has indicated that the provision of lighting to the courts is deemed unnecessary for club use, however have provided a quote of $47,000 if required. This quotation however does not include design, power upgrades or any other contingencies. Locality Plan

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 11

2.2

PROPOSED NETBALL COURTS AT SEDDON RESERVE cont’d

People – Community Strengthening and Support

PROPOSED NETBALL COURTS AT SEDDON RESERVE cont’d

2.2

ADVOCACY The WISC have been working with officers to develop this project proposal further so that it can form part of Council’s future budget considerations. The club has met with the Ward Councillor and Liberal candidate for Ivanhoe to advocate support for this project. 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 Since receiving the WISC proposal, officers have met with the club and discussed the proposal with Sport and Recreation Victoria to establish the merits for the project and suitability of the proposed site. Sport and Recreation Victoria has developed a Netball Court Planning Guide in partnership with Netball Victoria, to assist councils, and netballing organisations to successfully plan and build compliant netball courts. Technical information and details of netball court standards are provided. Officers have undertaken assessment of the project against these guidelines to establish costs and associated works with the proposed project. The provision of courts and associated costings as per guidelines are provided in the table below: Netball Vic Standards

Surface

Life Span

Cost per court

Lights Training 100lux $23.5K p/court

2 crts no lights $50K

2 crts with lights $97K

Option 1

Hot mix asphalt over base

15 – 20yrs

$22- $25K

Option 2

Acrylic over asphalt base

Base: 40yrs Surface:7-10yrs

Base:$22-25K Surface: $9K

$23.5K p/court

$68K

$115K

Option 3

Acrylic over concrete base

Base: 40yrs Surface:7-10yrs

Base: $40-$50K Surface: $9K

$23.5K p/court

$118K

$165K

Option 4

Cushioned acrylic over concrete base or asphalt

Base: 40yrs Surface:7-10yrs

Base:$22 - 50K Surface: $2230K

$23.5K p/court

$160K

$207K

WISC Proposal

Non cushioned rebound Acrylic Resin Surface

Base: 40yrs Surface:7-10yrs

Base /Surface: $65.5K

$23.5K p/court

$131K

$178K

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 12

People – Community Strengthening and Support

PROPOSED NETBALL COURTS AT SEDDON RESERVE cont’d

Although the club have indicated that lighting is not necessary for their use, officers have identified that the inclusion of lighting will make the courts available in winter for training purposes. It is not proposed that these courts will be used for night competition, so 100 lux lighting would be sufficient. As the club already has five netball teams the inclusion of lighting would assist with current training demands and future needs. It should be noted that the tabled costs do not include the following items and would need to be a consideration:    

Contingency (10%) - $16,500 Soil Condition Report - $2,500 Power upgrade to courts for lighting provision - $25,000 TBC Other associated costs, paths, fences - $30,000.

TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION Car Parking Assessment The WISC has indicated that no additional car parking will be required as part of the proposed project. The club has indicated that most participants walk or ride to the reserve. Officers from Council’s Transport team have been consulted as part of the proposal and undertaken a preliminary assessment and have provided a different view. The Netball Court use is not listed within the defined parking rates under Clause 52.06 of the Banyule Planning Scheme. Where a use is not specified within this clause, parking must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Based on expected participants, umpires, staff and spectators per game for a typical netball competition, Engineering predictions expect a single netball game to attract up to 27 people. (NetSetGo, the junior entry netball program, would be expected to attract a higher attendance, depending on participation levels). Assuming 70% of the attendees drive to the reserve, a netball court would be expected to generate a demand for 19 parking spaces. As there are two netball courts proposed, the total parking demand during a specified session would be 38 parking spaces. Observations of existing netball facilities indicate a high level of crossover demand between sessions. During these peak periods, it would be expected that up to 80% of the parking demand for additional sessions would overlap the first session. For the two netball courts, the peak parking demand during the overlap periods would be expected to be around 68 parking spaces.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 13

2.2

After discussions with Netball Victoria it would seem that Option 3, as presented in the above table is the most appropriate consideration for this proposal and best suited to the club proposal and meeting current standards.

People – Community Strengthening and Support

2.2

PROPOSED NETBALL COURTS AT SEDDON RESERVE cont’d Seddon Reserve currently provides approximately 18 formal parking spaces within a sealed parking area accessed from Green Street, with an additional 15 informal parking spaces within a gravel parking area. There is access to an overflow parking area to the north of the oval within a grassed area. There is also on-street parking available along Belmont Road and Green Street (both within residential areas). However, it should be noted that due to the width of Green Street, there is insufficient width to legally park on both sides of the street and still provide clearance for through traffic. Observations and anecdotal evidence of parking at the reserve during existing peak periods (Auskick, Junior Football and Cricket) indicates a high utilisation of the formal and informal parking spaces within the reserve, with a moderate level of on-street parking occurring in Belmont Road and Green Street. Based on the existing parking demand of the reserve, there is insufficient parking provided onsite to cater for the additional parking demand of the proposed netball courts. As a minimum, 38 parking spaces would be required to be provided. Council’s Engineering unit has previously prepared concept designs detailing the formalisation of the 15 parking spaces within the gravel parking area, 20 additional formal parking spaces and 23 informal parking spaces to the northwest of the oval. The table below sets out the existing supply, estimated existing demand associated with the two key users of the reserve as well as the likely additional demand overlapped with either of the existing uses. Without any additional spaces provided, it is suggested that there could be an additional demand of up to 65 on-street spaces and up to 22 on-street spaces with the additional spaces provided. These figures do not include the informal use of grassed area which can be utilised for overflow parking when a gate is opened and it is estimated that between 15 and 30 cars utilise this space. If these spaces were marked out, 23 spaces would be made available which could have the impact of increasing on-street car parking demand during peak periods.

Formal on site

Existing Additional Supply demand / overlap 18

Informal gravel on site Total

Overflow Carpark (Restricted use)

68 - 98

Proposed

Costing associated

53 (18 plus additional 35) 23

$140K $ 30K

76 $170K Shortfall spaces Proposed to be allocated and included above as informal Potential shortfall of 22 spaces

The estimated costs of additional car parking required to support the proposal of two courts at Seddon Reserve is $170,000 for the provision of 35 formal and 23 informal car spaces.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 14

People â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Community Strengthening and Support

PROPOSED NETBALL COURTS AT SEDDON RESERVE contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d

A further study is required to undertake an independent assessment and comprehensive review of car parking and traffic on Seddon Reserve to determine the impact of the proposed use on the surrounding streets as it relates to car parking demand. This is estimated at a cost of approximately $5,000. CONSULTATION Consultation to date has been limited to users of Seddon Reserve. It is suggested that before the proposal is considered in full that further consultation takes place with residents surrounding the Reserve. This consultation would focus on proposed use and times and on the potential off street parking considerations and could be undertaken at the time of further car parking and traffic assessment. FUNDING IMPLICATIONS The project proposal has a cost implication as follows: Project Item

Cost

Two courts with Acrylic over concrete base with lighting Contingency Soil Condition Report Power Upgrade Other associated costs: design, paths, fences Car Parking Total

$165,000 $16,500 $2,500 $25,000 TBC $30,000 $170,000 $409,000

The WISC have indicated that have approximately $50,000 to contribute to the project proposal if considered in the future. CONCLUSION The proposal of two netball courts at Seddon Reserve will help to support the growth of the NetSetGo program at the site and increase female participation in sport and involvement at the WISC. The car parking required needs to be assessed further through a car parking and traffic review on Seddon Reserve to determine the impact of the proposed use on the surrounding streets as it relates to car parking demand. The car parking demand and allocation needs to be determined before any proposed budget allocations. A report on this component of the project needs to be tabled to Council before its budget considerations for 2015/16 financial year.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 15

2.2

However, due the lack of frontage to the reserve there is no ability to accommodate on street parking without overflow adjacent to residential frontages as such this will have a significant impact on the surrounding streets.

People – Community Strengthening and Support

PROPOSED NETBALL COURTS AT SEDDON RESERVE cont’d RECOMMENDATION

2.2

That Council: 1.

Consider an allocation of $5,000 to undertake a car parking and traffic review on Seddon Reserve to determine the impact of the proposed use on the surrounding streets as it relates to car parking demand.

That a further report be presented to Council with the outcome of the car parking assessment and suitability of site prior to any budget considerations.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 16

3.1

ALLOCATION OF THE 2014 BANYULE ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY GRANTS

Author:

Fleur Anderson - Environment Officer, City Development

File:

F2014/311

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the 2014 allocation of the Banyule Environmental Sustainability Grants. The 2014 grant pool is $50,000 with a maximum of $5,000 awarded. Applications are submitted annually and assessed by Council Officers and the Banyule Environment Advisory Committee (BEAC). A total of 34 applications requested $107,212 for environmental projects of which 17 totalling $49,945 have been recommended by BEAC. Council Officers have reviewed BEAC’s recommendation and agree with the proposed allocation of funds. The recommended projects reflect the strong community interest in food production, waste avoidance, organics composting, biodiversity and sustainable gardening practices and align with Council’s PLANET priorities. Following Council’s consideration of the applicants’ suitability, they will be notified of their success or otherwise. Successful applicants will be invited to a presentation evening on 26 November 2014. Currently the Environmental Sustainability grant pool is drawn from different budgets$20,000 from the Environment Operating Budget, and $30,000 from the New Works and Services Budget. It is recommended that all funds be consolidated in the Operating Budget. 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 “act as environmental stewards”. BACKGROUND The Banyule Environmental Sustainability Grants provide incentive annually to new or established groups to develop various environmental programs. These include the conservation of resources, reducing waste and pollution, maintaining and enhancing the natural environment or encouraging environmental stewardship. Grants are available to assist local groups, schools and individuals with the costs of organising and implementing environmental sustainability programs.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 17

3.1

Planet – Environmental Sustainability

ALLOCATION OF THE 2014 BANYULE ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY GRANTS cont’d

3.1

The allocated 2014 grant pool is $50,000 with a maximum of $5,000 awarded. Applications are submitted annually and assessed by Council’s Environmental Sustainability team and the Banyule Environment Advisory Committee (BEAC) in accordance with its Terms of Reference (Attachment 1): “Provide advice on the management of Council’s Environment Grants Program and make appropriate recommendations to Council on allocation of funds.” DISCUSSION During the September meeting, BEAC assessed the grant applications according to the criteria outlined in the guidelines (Attachment 2). A total of 34 applications requested $107,212 for environmental projects of which 17 totalling $49,945 have been recommended by BEAC, then reviewed and agreed upon by Council’s Environmental Sustainability team. The table below lists the recommended applications: Table 1: Environmental Sustainability Grants Recommended Applicants 2014 Group

Project

Total $

Friends of Wilson Reserve Inc.

Bat Roost Box Project

$1,700.00

Streeton Primary School Inc.

Wildlife Water Oasis and Hibernaculum Description: Implementation and construction of a Wildlife Water Oasis.

$4,800.00

Leanne Cole – Photographer Auspice: Warringal Cons. Society Watsonia Library Inc.

Ivanhoe Primary School Inc. SALT Foundation and Transition 3081 Auspice: Olympic Adult Education Briar Hill Primary School Inc. Montmorency Community Group Inc. Sustainable Macleod Auspice: Olympic Adult Education

Description: Development of Friends of Wilson Reserve website

$4,300.00

North East Corridor Protection Description: Produce and design a 60 page full colour hardback book on Banyule Flats to raise awareness off its unique ecology and beauty. Sustainable Food Forest at Watsonia Library Community Garden Description: Creation of community sensory and food garden at rear of library. Organics and Food Waste Recycling at Ivanhoe Primary Description: Introduction of organics and food waste recycling and education

$3,635.00

$1,385.00

Reducing Food Waste in 3081 Description: Reduce food waste and educate local residents about preserving and fully utilising excess foods in innovative and sustainable ways. Care-more Car-less - Primary School Music Video Project Description: Grade 6 students documenting forms of travel students use to get to and from school. They will investigate and create solutions to obstacles, culminating in the creation of a music/dance/doco video highlighting the journey and findings. The Big Red Project Description: Four workshops developing skills around growing, seed saving and preserving tomatoes. Setting –up “sharehood” equipment library. Sustainable Macleod Projects' Programme Description: A program of 9 workshops to develop a sustainably focused community including the establishment of the Macleod Community Garden.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

$4,550.00

$1,627.00

$3,000.00

$2,000.00

Page 18

Planet – Environmental Sustainability

ALLOCATION OF THE 2014 BANYULE ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY GRANTS cont’d

Heidelberg Occasional Care Inc. Viewbank Primary School Inc. Buna Reserve Community Garden Auspice: Banyule Community Health Transition Banyule Auspice: Olympic Adult Education Montmorency Community Group Inc. Earth Common Equity Rental Housing Cooperative Inc. (Murundaka Cohousing) Montmorency South Primary School Inc.

A Sustainable Kitchen Garden Description: Water tanks to reclaim and reuse water for a sustainable Kitchen Garden for the Open House community as part of The Garden Patch initiative Nature's Best Produce Description: Install a vertical-wicking vegetable/herb garden (with a fully integrated watering system) and fruit trees. Kitchen Garden Program Description: Environmentally friendly, self-sustainable kitchen garden program. Good Garden Bugs - Integrated Pest Management Description: The Good Garden Bugs project will be a series of three workshops conducted twice at the Buna Reserve Community Garden. Workshops identify both pest and beneficial insects Transition Streets 2015 Description: Organise groups of households in the same street or neighbourhood to meet regularly and self-teach sustainable household practices through a workbook of seven sessions on energy, water, food, transport and waste. The Monty Sugar Glider Project This project continues to establish whether and where sugar gliders are located in Montmorency. A new addition to our project is using volunteers' ground truthing results. Thriving Nature Strip Gardens and Sustainable Neighbourhood in Banyule Description: Help connect 28 gardeners participating in Council’s 12 month Nature Strip Gardening trial across the municipality, by creating opportunities for them to meet, share their experiences and support each other. Compost Champions Description: Work collaboratively to reduce, collect and process the compostable food scraps from the local business precinct. Purchase a trailer and eight wheelie bins to provide a food scrap collection service to the local food outlets, and the five green cones to compost the food scraps at school in our kitchen garden. Total:

$3,778.00

$1,150.00

3.1

Open House Inc.

$4,000.00 $2,720.00

$4,400.00

$2,004.00

$2,200.00

$2,696.00

$49,945.00

The recommended projects reflect the strong community interest in food production, waste avoidance, organics composting, biodiversity and sustainable gardening practices. These projects align with Council’s PLANET priorities. There has been a continuing shift from schools dominating the applicant pool to sharing it more equally with community groups. Graduates from the Community Leaders for Sustainability Course 2014 are well represented in the applicant pool. This reflects a growth in capacity in the community to manage projects, offer workshops and provide sustainability training for other community members. This is a desirable trend as it reflects a mature, environmentally literate community with the benefits of peer-to-peer change outcomes. Currently the Environmental Sustainability grant pool is drawn from different budgets$20,000 from the Environmental Sustainability Operating budget, and $30,000 from the New Works and Services budget. It is recommended that all funds be consolidated into the Operating budget to improve planning and advertising of grant rounds.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 19

Planet – Environmental Sustainability

ALLOCATION OF THE 2014 BANYULE ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY GRANTS cont’d TIMELINES

3.1

The successful recipients will be awarded their grant monies at a celebratory event on 26 November 2014. CONCLUSION A strong field of applications has been received for the 2014 Banyule Environmental Sustainability grants program. Following assessment against stringent grant criteria and a due diligence review by Banyule Environment Advisory Committee a range of innovative and sustainability outcomes are proposed in the recommended applications. Council should consider their suitability to receive funding in the 2014 Environmental Sustainability Grant round. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1.

Awards the following Environmental Sustainability Grants in 2014:

Group

Project

Total $

Friends of Wilson Reserve Inc.

Bat Roost Box Project

$1,700.00

Streeton Primary School Inc.

Wildlife Water Oasis and Hibernaculum Description: Implementation and construction of a Wildlife Water Oasis.

$4,800.00

Leanne Cole – Photographer Auspice: Warringal Cons. Society Watsonia Library Inc.

Description: Development of Friends of Wilson Reserve website

$4,300.00

$3,635.00

$1,385.00

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

$4,550.00

$1,627.00

$3,000.00

$2,000.00

Page 20

Planet – Environmental Sustainability

ALLOCATION OF THE 2014 BANYULE ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY GRANTS cont’d

$3,778.00

$1,150.00

3.1

Open House Inc.

$4,000.00 $2,720.00

$4,400.00

$2,004.00

$2,200.00

$2,696.00

$49,945.00

Informs successful applicants and thanks unsuccessful applicants for their interest.

Considers allocating $50,000 to Environmental Sustainability Grants in the 2015-2016 Operating Budget.

ATTACHMENTS No.

Title

BEAC Terms of Reference

136

Environmental Sustainability Grant Guidelines 2014

138

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page

Page 21

4.1

PROPOSED MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 204 - 206 LOWER HEIDELBERG ROAD, IVANHOE EAST

Author:

Nick Helliwell - Major Developments Planner, City Development

Ward:

Griffin

File:

P1072/13

4.1

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposal is for the development of 49 dwellings in a three to four storey apartment building. It is also proposed to remove six trees from the site as part of the proposed works. A total of 60 on site car parking spaces are proposed of which 3 spaces are to be provided for visitors. A reduction of 6 visitor car parking spaces is sought. Alteration to an existing access to a main road is also proposed. The application is being reported to Council as the building scale and typology is different to the current surrounding character but consistent with the emerging character on sites close to the Ivanhoe East Neighbourhood Activity Centre. The site is considered to be appropriately located for this type of development which, subject to some modification, will be consistent with Council’s Residential Areas Framework which seeks to promote housing change in this area and support this form of development. Planning Permit Application:

P1072/13

Development Planner:

Nicholas Helliwell

Address:

204 – 206 Lower Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe East

Proposal:

Buildings and works for the construction of a multi-storey apartment building,(between 3 and 4 storeys), associated vegetation removal, reduction in on site car parking provision and alteration to access to a Road Zone Category 1

Existing Use/Development:

Vacant land

Applicant:

Wilmasir Pty Ltd, 1958 Properties Pty Ltd and 206 Heidelberg Pty Ltd

Zoning:

General Residential – Schedule 1

Overlays:

Vegetation Protection – Schedule 3

Notification (Advertising):

Letters to abutting and opposite owner/occupiers and notice on site frontage

Objections Received:

Ward:

Griffin

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 23

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

PROPOSED MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 204 - 206 LOWER HEIDELBERG ROAD, IVANHOE EAST cont’d

4.1

PROPOSAL The application proposes a residential apartment building comprising 25 one bedroom and 24 two bedroom apartments. A basement car park would accommodate sixty car parking spaces and 53 bicycle parking spaces. The building has contemporary architecture with large circular apertures in the brickwork façade and rear elevation. These apertures frame the windows and balconies of the apartments that have an outlook to the front and rear of the site. The building has a flat roof with a built form that steps down the slope of the land. This provides the building with a varied height of three to four storeys above the natural ground level. The development has a two to three storey scale at the site frontage as it presents to the street, a central core area of four stories and a rear component that steps down in height to three storeys. The built form of the development has an 8 metre frontage setback at ground level and extends along the depth of the block with a ground level setback from the rear site boundary of 4.75 metres. Due to the cross fall of the site, the building will have a maximum height of 13.2 metres above natural ground level on the eastern side of the building. The building will be set between 1.6 and 5 metres in from the side boundaries. Each apartment will be provided with secluded private open space with a number of the upper level balconies partly projecting into these setbacks. The building will be faced with a variety of treatments and materials including stained and natural finish timber cladding, dark coloured brickwork and painted metal panelling. A copy of the advertised plans are located in Attachment 1 to this report. OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 requires members of Council staff, and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council, to disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates. Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. BACKGROUND/HISTORY The site has a recent history of planning permission being refused by Council for two separate proposals to construct a five storey apartment building at both 204 and 206 Lower Heidelberg Road (application numbers P01061/2011 and 929/2011). Both of these decisions were reviewed by VCAT where the Tribunal determined in both instances to support Council’s decision to withhold planning permission. Both decisions provided key guidance to assist in the formulation of any future design response for the two sites. This is discussed in detail in the assessment section of this report.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 24

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

4.1

PROPOSED MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 204 - 206 LOWER HEIDELBERG ROAD, IVANHOE EAST contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d

Figure 1: Locality Plan

SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA The subject site comprises two parcels of land located on the southern side of Lower Heidelberg Road. The site is located 15 metres to the west of Ivanhoe East Activity Centre. There is no structure plan for Ivanhoe East Activity Centre and the site is not located within the Ivanhoe Structure Plan area. The site has a depth of between 60 and 84.4 metres and a width of 30.4 metres. It has an area of 2,201 square metres with a fall from front to rear of approximately 7 metres and a cross fall of 0.6 metres. The land at 204 is vacant with the land at 206 occupied by a single storey detached dwelling. The site accommodates a range of plants from lower storey vegetation to canopy trees up to 16 metres in height. Each of the two parcels of land has a single width vehicle crossover located in the north-eastern corner of each of the land parcels providing access to Lower Heidelberg Road. A 4.5 metre wide floodway for a significant Council drain is located within the site and extends across the full width of the rear of the site. The surrounding residential area is characterised by a mixture of detached dwellings and infill unit development and apartments. Development opposite the site is located within Heritage Overlay 91 which affects the AV Jennings Beauview Estate. These dwellings comprise generally large detached properties that are elevated to take advantage of the slope of the land.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 25

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.1

PROPOSED MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 204 - 206 LOWER HEIDELBERG ROAD, IVANHOE EAST cont’d The neighbouring property to the east of the site at 208 has planning permission for development of a four storey apartment building (Council reference P808/2012). Notably, a mature Desert Ash in the rear south-western corner of this abutting site is required to be retained as part of the development. Council supported the proposal and residents appealed Council’s decision. The Tribunal supported Council’s decision and provided an oral decision at the hearing. The site has been cleared and fenced in preparation for the commencement of development. A number of dwellings in Wilfred Road back onto the rear southern boundary of the site. These dwellings comprise two storey detached dwellings. These properties are separated from the application site by a 6.1 metre wide drainage reserve. A number of properties currently occupy this reserve and have fenced it in to form part of their rear garden. Council has issued a planning permit at P1142/2011 for the subdivision of part of this reserve for consolidation with these adjoining properties. To the west of the site at 200 – 202 Lower Heidelberg Road is a two to four storey brick multi-unit and apartment development comprising 21 dwellings. Planning permission was granted for this development in 1950 and 1960. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Formal notification of the application was given by notice on site and letters to adjoining property owners and occupiers. A total of 22 objections have been received. Key grounds of objection are summarised as follows:                    

Visual impact from building bulk, height and size Not in accordance with neighbourhood character Loss of amenity Inadequate infrastructure i.e. sewerage, public transport, services, drainage, etc Impact on Desert Ash to be retained at the rear of 208 Lower Heidelberg Road Overshadowing of neighbouring residences Overlooking of neighbouring residences Reduced ground capacity to absorb rainwater and potential flooding of neighbouring land Noise from traffic generation and building services Increased traffic, insufficient parking and loss of pedestrian safety Will set a precedent for future development Removal of fence and damage to trees on neighbouring land on western site boundary Impacts on neighbouring land during construction ie. car parking, material storage on nature strip The site is not located within an activity centre Loss of vegetation and views Landscaping and building setback areas are insufficient / loss of mature trees located on the site Light spill for security and other lighting Impact of waste collection on on-street parking Number of waste bins in front of the property on collection day Increased pressure on public transport

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 26

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

A public consultation meeting was held with the permit applicant, a number of objectors and the Ward Councillor to discuss the issues raised. Following the consultation meeting, modified plans were prepared to address a number of the concerns raised at the meeting. These were received by Council on 5 September 2014. At the request of the applicant, these plans were provided to Council to assist in the decision making process and were not provided to formally substitute the original advertised plans. Modifications shown in the plans include changes to address or significantly reduce non-compliance with Standard B17 building setbacks and raise floor levels above the designated floor level without increasing building height or bulk. These are annexed at Attachment 2 to this report. REFERRAL COMMENTS Referrals were made to VicRoads as well as Council’s Arborist, Environmentally Sustainable Design Adviser and Engineering Services. No objections were received from any of the referrals subject to conditions. A summary of the referral responses is provided in Attachment 3 to this report PLANNING CONTROLS The planning controls applicable to the site are outlined in Table 1 below: Table 1: Planning Controls Control General Residential Zone – Schedule 1 Vegetation Protection Overlay – Schedule 3 (VPO3) Car Parking requirements

Clause 32.08 42.02 52.06

Permit Triggered Yes Yes Yes

Planning controls are identified in Attachment 4 to this report. TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION The following assessment comprises a technical consideration of the proposal. RESPONSE TO POLICY FRAMEWORK The site is located within an incremental change area where policy directs that development comprise single dwellings and medium density development. Within an incremental change area, higher density housing of the scale proposed should only be considered on strategic redevelopment sites and development must make a positive contribution to the desired future neighbourhood character, including opportunities for tree protection and planting. Previous VCAT decisions on this site have clarified that the site is to be considered as a strategic redevelopment site. As such, the proposed typology and scale is considered to represent an appropriate response to the policy framework that balances development, character and vegetation considerations. It is important that Council consider and have due regard to key guidance for this site provided by VCAT in the previous two Tribunal determinations in the assessment of the proposal including:

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 27

4.1

PROPOSED MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 204 - 206 LOWER HEIDELBERG ROAD, IVANHOE EAST cont’d

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.1

PROPOSED MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 204 - 206 LOWER HEIDELBERG ROAD, IVANHOE EAST cont’d 

The site can be considered to be a strategic redevelopment site and appropriate for higher density development;



The location of the site within an Incremental Change area means the criteria for higher density residential development are tougher;



The Ivanhoe East Activity Centre is not a principal or major activity centre where a higher order of change with less regard to the existing scale of development should be contemplated;



Excessive change in scale of the development to neighbouring residences where there is likely to be a lack of potential future change in these properties needs to be carefully managed; and



Increased opportunity for landscaping to soften the building bulk.

HEIGHT AND BUILT FORM The height and built form of the development is broadly considered appropriate in this location. The built form is well modulated with a three storey presentation to the front and rear of the site and a four storey component located within the core. The height of the structure at the front is consistent with the maximum height of the apartment building approved at 208 Lower Heidelberg Road which is due to commence construction, and is therefore considered respectful of the emerging built form streetscape character of the area. The built form of the proposal steps down the slope of the land from the front to the rear so as to minimise the height of the structure. The proposed height of the building at the rear has also been carefully controlled with the proposal being 0.25 metre higher than the approved apartment building to the east at 208 Lower Heidelberg Road and 0.8 metres higher than the four storey apartment building located to the west at 200 – 202 Lower Heidelberg Road. The rear setback of the development to the southern site boundary and the rear gardens of the properties on Wilfred Road meets Standard B17 of ResCode. Failure to meet this requirement was a major shortcoming in the previous proposals and compliance is now considered to be a positive element of the current design. Not all side setbacks to the east and west meet Standard B17. This has been addressed in the modified plans located at Attachment 2. These plans show an increased eastern boundary setback to the upper floor so as to achieve greater compliance with the Standard, noting that some balcony balustrades encroach marginally beyond the setback envelope. These changes can be requested as a condition of approval.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 28

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

A central section of the proposed building opposite the car park of the unit/apartment development to the west is still shown on the modified plans to project 1.2 metres above the Standard B17 setback height. As this part of the building is located opposite an adjoining open air car park and will have no direct amenity impact upon any adjoining residence, this non-compliance is considered acceptable in this instance. Importantly, where the rear section of the proposed building is located adjacent to the existing four storey apartment building at 202 Lower Heidelberg Road, the proposal complies with the Standard. Some fine tuning to the modified plans is still required at the front to improve in ground tree planting opportunities. At the rear, it will be necessary to raise all lower ground level apartment floor levels above flood level, facilitate the protection of the canopy of the Desert Ash located adjacent to the south-eastern corner of the site and minimise the visual bulk impact of the porthole apertures in the rear building elevation. In terms of the amendment to the floor plans to minimise the impact of limb removal on the Desert Ash located on the abutting site, one 1 bedroom apartment will require removal, one apartment will require conversion to a single bedroom apartment and one of the 1 bedroom apartments will be converted to a 2 bedroom apartment. The applicant has provided conceptual floor plans to demonstrate how these modifications to the design can be realised and these are considered to be acceptable. These modifications will be recommended as permit conditions. A copy of the assessment of the proposal against Clause 55 of the Banyule Planning Scheme is annexed at Attachment 5 to this report. VEGETATION AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT All vegetation on the site and a street tree are to be removed. The submitted arborist report has been assessed by Council’s arborist and the removal of these trees is supported. The protection of the canopy of a Desert Ash in the south-eastern corner of the application has been discussed above will be addressed as a condition of permit. Vegetation that is to be removed is to be replaced elsewhere on the site as a considered and integrated part of the redevelopment. This landscaping will be located primarily within the front and rear setback of the building. In terms of planting within the front setback, the basement car park for the building is proposed to extend up to 2.6 metres from the site frontage. To facilitate sufficient soil volume in the front setback to accommodate a medium sized canopy tree, one car parking space in the north-western corner of both the Basement and Lower Ground level car park will be required to be deleted. Sufficient car parking is provided on site to accommodate this modification and this should be required as a condition of permit. The rear of the building is proposed to be set 4.75 metres in from the rear boundary. Whilst at ground level this provides a good area for canopy tree planting and other more localised landscaping, a number of upper level balconies project into this area. This would restrict the area for tree establishment and reduce the effectiveness of any screen panting required to soften and filter views of the development from neighbouring residences to the south.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 29

4.1

PROPOSED MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 204 - 206 LOWER HEIDELBERG ROAD, IVANHOE EAST cont’d

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

PROPOSED MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 204 - 206 LOWER HEIDELBERG ROAD, IVANHOE EAST cont’d

4.1

The modified plans prepared following the consultation meeting and annexed at Attachment 2 show the rear balconies not projecting into this rear setback area and this should also be required as a condition of permit. In ground planting setbacks of 2.9 metres are provided to the eastern site boundary and 1.6 metres to the western boundary. These are not significant setbacks but they are sufficient to provide for some small canopy tree planting to enhance the setting of the development and filter views between adjacent properties. Combined with the landscaping proposed throughout the remainder of the site as discussed above, the landscape response is considered to be acceptable and consistent with the objectives of the Vegetation Protection Overlay – Schedule 3 which applies to the site. NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER Due to the strategic development site status of the land, the siting and design of the proposed building is considered to meet the built form and landscape objectives and design response outcomes of Council’s Neighbourhood Character Study which are relevant to such a proposal within an Incremental Change area. It is difficult to expect an apartment style building typology to comply strictly with the design responses contained in the Neighbourhood Character Study. It is considered that the proposal responds appropriately to the key objectives by: 

Providing a front setback that provides an appropriate transition from the commercial area to the east and maintains the consistency of current front setbacks whilst enabling tree planting in front gardens.



Ensuring that the built form of the building does not dominate the streetscape or the building, and does not adversely affect the outlook and amenity of neighbouring dwellings.



Ensures that household services are not a visually prominent feature.



Minimises the loss of front garden space, and the dominance of vehicle access, storage facilities and built form as viewed from the street.



Maintains and strengthens the garden dominated streetscape character and landscaped setting of the precinct.

All of these considerations have been addressed in the previous sections of this report. As a result, the proposal will achieve an appropriate neighbourhood character outcome for the site. OBJECTORS CONCERNS In addition to the above, the following concerns have also been raised by objectors with a response provided to each of the matters raised. Inadequate Service Infrastructure The application site is an existing serviced lot within an established developed urban area. It is therefore considered that the site is serviced by existing urban infrastructure that is capable of servicing the development. Any upgrade of this infrastructure, be it for drainage or similar works, will be required to be borne by the permit applicant.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 30

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

PROPOSED MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 204 - 206 LOWER HEIDELBERG ROAD, IVANHOE EAST cont’d

The 546 and 548 bus services operate past the site on Lower Heidelberg Road and the Eaglemont and Ivanhoe Train Stations are located between 1 and 1.2 km from the site respectively. The site is therefore considered to be well located for public transport services. Overshadowing Shadow diagrams have been provided as part of the application. These diagrams demonstrate that whilst there will be overshadowing of some neighbouring residential open space, the north/south orientation of the lot combined with the Standard B17 building setbacks and layout of surrounding development will ensure that overshadowing will be minimal and in accordance with Standard B21 of Clause 55 of the Scheme. No north facing habitable room windows will be affected by the proposal. The proposal complies with Standard B20 of the Scheme. Noise Pollution In terms of noise transmission to site boundaries from activities occurring within the building, noise attenuation of the building would be addressed under the Building Regulations at the construction stage. In terms of noise transmission from residents using outdoor areas, there is no evidence that the use of these areas will result in excessive or unreasonable noise. The noise that is likely to be generated is that associated with residential use and activity. This is to be expected in residential areas. A condition will be required for air-conditioners and other plant and equipment installed on or in the building to be positioned and baffled so that any noise emitted complies with the appropriate Australian Standards and EPA requirements. Noise from vehicle movements is to be expected within a residential area. The proposed car park is however enclosed on all sides with the basement car park entry ramp towards Lower Heidelberg Road being the only open component of the car park. Precedent for Future Development Each application is considered on its merits and precedent is not considered a justification for refusing a development. Loss of Views Loss of a view is not a material planning consideration in this instance.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 31

4.1

A preliminary engineering design for the on site storm water detention system for the development has been undertaken by the applicant. This has been considered to be satisfactory by Council’s drainage engineer.

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

PROPOSED MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 204 - 206 LOWER HEIDELBERG ROAD, IVANHOE EAST contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d

4.1

Security Lighting will Impose on Backyards No details of security lighting are provided on the submitted plans. Should security lighting be required as part of the development, this should be baffled so as to control light spill. This should be required as a condition of permit. Excessive Rubbish Bins A waste management plan has been prepared for the development which advises that a private waste collection service will be required to service the development. No kerbside collection will therefore be required to service the development. Overlooking of neighbouring residences Overlooking of neighbouring property has been designed into the architecture of the building. Balcony balustrading and planter boxes intelligently form an integral part of the built aesthetic whilst limiting views and providing some outlook and solar access. The design response is consistent with the objectives of Clause 55. Removal of fence and damage to trees on neighbouring land on western site boundary The submitted plans show that the existing western boundary fence is to be removed and replaced with a new 1.8 metre high timer paling fence. This will be required as a condition of permit. The cost will be borne by the permit applicant as this is a requirement for development approval. Impacts on neighbouring land during construction ie. car parking, material storage on nature strip A construction management plan should be required as a condition of permit. This will include a requirement that trades vehicle car parking and unloading areas and proposed goods and materials storage areas be designated. This will be enforceable under the planning permit with infringements attracting fines. CONCLUSION The site is considered appropriate for higher density housing. The scale and modulation of the built form of the proposal, combined with the architectural detailing, materials and landscaping, will result in a development that strikes an appropriate balance of achieving urban consolidation in a manner which is respectful of the existing and emerging character of the area and the amenity of neighbouring residences.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 32

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

PROPOSED MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 204 - 206 LOWER HEIDELBERG ROAD, IVANHOE EAST contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d

That Council having complied with Section 52, 58, 60, 61 and 62 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, resolves that a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit be issued in respect of Application No. P1072/2013 for Buildings and works for the construction of a multi-storey apartment building (between 3 and 4 storeys), associated vegetation removal, reduction in on site car parking provision and alteration to access to a Road Zone Category 1 at 204 - 206 Lower Heidelberg Road IVANHOE EAST subject to the following conditions: Plans (1)

(a)

Before the development permitted by this permit starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the advertised plans submitted on 15th January 2014 but modified to show: An increase in boundary setbacks and floor levels, generally in accordance with the modified plans dated 7th July 2014 and received by Council on 5 September 2014;

(b)

Deletion of car parking spaces 1 and 19 to provide an in ground tree planting area within the front setback to Lower Heidelberg Road;

(c)

Deletion of the porthole brickwork in the rear building elevation and provision of alternate visually lightweight balcony balustrading;

(d)

Landscaping as required by Condition 2 of this permit;

(e)

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

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

(ii)

The connection to the Council nominated legal point of discharge;

(iii)

The specified flood level for the property.

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

The Tree Preservation Fencing in accordance with Condition 15 of this permit;

(g)

A schedule of external building materials and colours, including details of cladding and roofing materials. The schedule should be presented on a separate sheet and must include colour samples;. The rainwater storage tank for the development including its location, sizing and a notation of the connections and end use; The location and sizing of solar hot water units;

(h) (i)

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 33

4.1

RECOMMENDATION

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

PROPOSED MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 204 - 206 LOWER HEIDELBERG ROAD, IVANHOE EAST contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d

4.1

(j)

(k)

(l) (m)

(n) (o) (p) (q) (r)

(s)

All sustainable design features indicated in the submitted Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA. Where sustainable design features outlined in the SDA/SMP cannot be visually shown, include a notes table providing details of the requirements (i.e. energy and water efficiency ratings for heating/cooling systems and plumbing fittings and fixtures, etc); Improved solar access to each apartment located on the Lower Ground, Ground and First Floor level located in the south-western corner of the site by either providing an aperture in the western elevation of the balcony above 1.7 metres above the finished floor level of the balcony or increasing the size of the existing aperture above 1.7 metres above the balcony floor level; Elevational details of the site services kiosk within the front garden and relocation, as required, to reduce the visual impact of the kiosk within the front garden and broader streetscape appearance of the development; To facilitate the protection of the canopy of the Desert Ash located at 208 Lower Heidelberg Road and minimise the visual bulk of the development in the south-eastern corner of the site: (i) Lower Ground level Apartment 5 changed from a two bedroom to one bedroom apartment and Apartment 6 floor plan amended to achieve a 5.63 metre setback from the eastern property boundary at Lower Ground level; (ii) Ground Floor one bedroom Apartments 11 and 12 consolidated to form one two bedroom apartment, now labelled as apartment 11 to achieve a 5.63 metre setback from the eastern property boundary; (iii) First Floor Apartment 11 setback amended to 5.63 metres from the eastern property boundary. The Development summary sheet amended to provide for a total of 48 apartments (previously 49 apartments); The location of replacement planting of two street trees within the Lower Heidelberg Road nature strip in front of the application site as required by Condition 2; The width of the driveway and crossover to be 6.1 metres as specified in the Cardno Traffic and Transport Assessment Report, dated 9 January 2014 as required by VicRoads as required by Condition; Waste management plan specifying that bin collection is to be conducted within the basement car park as required by VicRoads; All balconies save that for Dwelling 010 to have an area of no less than 8 square metres with a minimum width of 1.6m (measured to the interior of the balcony rather than the outside face of the enclosing wall) unless an accessible ground level open space is provided for the dwelling; The stair lift within the front setback removed and replaced with landscaping if the disabled access ramp can be designed to be Design and Disability Act compliant.

(2)

The development permitted by this permit must not be commenced until a satisfactory detailed landscaping plan is submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Such plan must be prepared by a person suitably qualified or experienced in landscape design and shall include:

(a)

Details of planting throughout the site;

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 34

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

(b)

The identification of existing vegetation (which is not intended to be removed), and nomination of vegetation for removal throughout the site;

(c)

Planting adjacent to driveways and within landscaping zones to consist of varying heights and species;

(e)

Provision of replacement planting for vegetation that is to be removed including: (i)

a minimum of three large canopy trees (mature height of greater than 12m) planted at a semi-advanced state (minimum pot size 40 litre) within the rear setback of the development

(ii)

5 medium canopy trees (mature height of at least 12m) planted at a semiadvanced state (minimum pot size 16 litre), two in each side boundary setback and one within the front setback of the development

(iii)

The location, species and height at planting of replacement planting of two street trees within the Lower Heidelberg Road nature strip in front of the application site.

(g)

An indigenous and/or drought tolerant planting theme;

(h)

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

(i)

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

(j)

Location, details and cross section drawings of all Water Sensitive Urban Design features in accordance with the endorsed Sustainable Design Assessment and STORM report, with reference to connection details on the engineering plans

(3)

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

Amenity (4)

Outdoor lighting must be designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority such that no direct light is emitted outside the boundaries of the subject land.

(5)

The operation of fixed plant and equipment, including noise emissions from any equipment required for refrigeration, air-conditioning, heating, ventilation and the like must not cause a Nuisance (as defined under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008), to the satisfaction of the responsible Authority. A Nuisance may include noise, odour or any other thing deemed a “nuisance” under the Act.

Urban Design / External Appearance (6)

Prior to the commencement of the development, details of the proposed external facing, roofing and paving materials are to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Responsible Authority.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 35

4.1

PROPOSED MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 204 - 206 LOWER HEIDELBERG ROAD, IVANHOE EAST cont’d

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

PROPOSED MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 204 - 206 LOWER HEIDELBERG ROAD, IVANHOE EAST cont’d

4.1

(7)

All external materials, finishes and paint colours are to be applied to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Car Parking / Access (8)

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

(9)

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

(10) Vehicular access or egress to the subject land from any roadway or service lane must be by way of a vehicle crossing constructed in accordance with Council’s Vehicle Crossing Specifications to suit the proposed driveway(s) and the vehicles that will use the crossing(s). The location, design and construction of the vehicle crossing(s) must be approved by the Responsible Authority. Any existing unused crossing(s) must be removed and replaced with concrete kerb, channel and nature strip to the satisfaction of the Council prior to occupation of the building. All vehicle crossing works are to be carried out with Council Supervision under a Memorandum of Consent for Works which must be obtained prior to commencement of works. (11) The boundaries of all car spaces, access and egress lanes and the direction in which vehicles should proceed along the access lanes must at all times be clearly indicated on the ground to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Tree Protection / Landscaping (12) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, the landscaping areas shown on the endorsed plans must used for landscaping and no other purpose and any landscaping must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced. (13) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, prior to the commencement of works (including demolition) on the site, a canopy management plan is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the responsible Authority for the Desert Ash located at 208 Lower Heidelberg Road. This plan must consider the design of any scaffolding layout for construction work to avoid interference with the tree, as well as the need and extent of any future pruning necessary for construction purposes and the future maintenance of clearances of the tree canopy from the proposed building and private open space within the development once the development has been completed.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 36

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

(14) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, prior to the commencement of works (including demolition) on the site, Tree Preservation Zones must be established around the Desert Ash located at 208 Lower Heidelberg Road. You must contact Council’s Development Planning Arborist on 9457 9878 once the Tree Preservation Fencing is erected so that an inspection of the fencing can be carried out. Once installed and inspected the Tree Preservation Zones must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, and meet the following requirements: (a)

Extent

Tree Preservation Zone is to be provided to the extent of the canopy of the tree and the proposed building footprint as shown on the endorsed plan, as required and as to be agreed on site with Council’s arborist.. (b)

Weed control

Any weeds located within the Tree Preservation Zone are to be removed and the area mulched with 100mm of composted coarse grade woodchips (c)

Fencing (i)

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

(ii)

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

(iii)

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

(d)

Signage

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

Irrigation

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

Access to Tree Preservation Zone (i)

No persons, vehicles or machinery are to enter the Vegetation Protection Zone except with the consent of the Responsible Authority;

(ii)

No fuel, oil dumps or chemicals are allowed to be used or stored within the Vegetation Preservation Zone and the servicing and re-fuelling of equipment and vehicles must be carried out away from the root zones;

(iii)

No storage of material, equipment or temporary building is to take place within the Vegetation Preservation Zone;

(iv)

Nothing whatsoever, including temporary services wires, nails, screws or any other fixing device, is to be attached to any tree.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 37

4.1

PROPOSED MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 204 - 206 LOWER HEIDELBERG ROAD, IVANHOE EAST cont’d

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

PROPOSED MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 204 - 206 LOWER HEIDELBERG ROAD, IVANHOE EAST cont’d

4.1

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

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



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



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

Or other conditions, as relevant, to ensure the ongoing health and stability of the subject tree/s. (15) All tree pruning is to be carried out by a trained and competent arborist who has a thorough knowledge of tree physiology and pruning methods. Pruning must be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard AS4373 Pruning of Amenity Trees and in accordance with the canopy management plan approved under this permit and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Waste Management Plan (16) Prior to the commencement of development, a Waste Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Waste Management Plan must include: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j)

Dimensions of waste areas. The number of bins to be provided and capacity. Details on method and frequency of cleaning and maintenance of waste areas. Details of ventilation. Details of unwanted goods storage. Method of waste and recyclables collection including the need to provide for private waste collection services. Hours of waste and recyclables collection. Measures to minimise impact upon local amenity. Method of presentation of bins for waste collection. Strategies for how the generation of waste and recyclables from the development will be minimised.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 38

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

PROPOSED MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 204 - 206 LOWER HEIDELBERG ROAD, IVANHOE EAST cont’d

(17) Before the development starts, a construction management plan must be prepared and submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. The plan must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Once approved, the plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The plan must address the following issues: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) • • •

measures to control noise, dust and water runoff; prevention of silt or other pollutants from entering into the Council’s underground drainage system or road network; the location of where building materials are to be kept during construction; site security; maintenance of safe movements of vehicles to and from the site during the construction phase; on-site parking of vehicles associated with construction of the development; wash down areas for trucks and vehicles associated with construction activities; cleaning and maintaining surrounding road surfaces; a requirement that construction works must only be carried out during the following hours: Monday to Friday (inclusive) – 7.00am to 6.00pm; Saturday – 9.00am to 1.00pm; Saturday – 1.00pm to 5.00pm (Only activities associated with the erection of buildings. This does not include excavation or the use of heavy machinery.)

VicRoads (18) The crossover and driveway are to be constructed to the satisfaction of the Roads Corporation or the Responsible Authority and at no cost to VicRoads prior to the commencement of the use hereby approved. (19) All disused or redundant vehicle crossings must be removed and the kerb, channel and nature strip must be reinstated to the satisfaction of and at no cost to VicRoads prior to the commencement of the use hereby approved. Time Limits (20) In accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies: 

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



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

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

Before the permit expires, or

(b)

Within six months afterwards, or

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 39

4.1

Construction Management Plan

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

PROPOSED MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 204 - 206 LOWER HEIDELBERG ROAD, IVANHOE EAST cont’d

4.1

(c)

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

Permit Notes (A)

Expiry of Permit

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

Building Permit Required

Building Permit must be obtained prior to the commencement of any works associated with the proposed development. (C)

Completion of Development

Immediately upon completion of the development permitted by this permit, the owner or developer of the subject land must notify Council’s Development Planning Section that the development is complete and complies with all requirements of the permit. The development will then be inspected to ensure compliance. An early inspection process will ensure that the subdivision approvals including the Statement of Compliance can be issued without delay. (D)

Street Numbering

Please note that property addresses are allocated by Council. This is usually formalised at the time of the issue of a certified plan, however it is Council’s intention to number the proposed apartments in accordance with the identification provided in the submitted plans. (E)

Memorandum of Consent for Works

Council’s Construction Department must supervise all works undertaken on Council assets within private property, Council Reserves, easements, drainage reserves and/or road reserves, including connection of the internal drainage system to the existing Council assets. Prior to the commencement of any works, an application must be made and a permit received for: 

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



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

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 40

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

PROPOSED MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 204 - 206 LOWER HEIDELBERG ROAD, IVANHOE EAST cont’d Tree Protection Zones

Requests for the consent or approval of tree protection measures pursuant to Condition should be directed to Council’s Arborist – Development Planning on 9457 9878. Consent for the conduct of works within the Tree Protection Zone, where granted, may be subject to conditions. Such conditions may include a requirement that: 

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



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



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

4.1

(F)

Or other conditions, as relevant, to ensure the ongoing health and stability of the subject tree/s. (G)

VicRoads

The proposed development requires road works within the declared road reserve including reinstatement of discussed crossovers to kerb and channel. Separate approval under the Road Management Act for this activity may be required from VicRoads. Please contact VicRoads prior to commencing any works. ATTACHMENTS No.

Title

Advertised plans

143

Modified plans

170

Referral comments

195

Planning controls

196

Clause 55 assessment

199

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page

Page 41

4.2

MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 40 LIDDESDALE GROVE, ELTHAM NORTH

Author:

Andy Wilson - Team Leader - Development Planning, City Development

Ward:

Beale

File:

P232/14

4.2

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposal includes the development of 10 double storey dwellings and removal of native vegetation. All vegetation assessed as having a high retention value will be retained and sufficient space will be provided between dwellings to plant new trees to maintain the vegetated character of the locality. The dwellings will be constructed using materials and colours that are characteristic of the area. Eight objections have been received raising concerns regarding neighbourhood character and vegetation removal amongst other things. The development is considered to be an appropriate outcome for the site, resulting in a density that is consistent with the rhythm and spacing in the neighbourhood. The dwellings will sit within a well vegetated landscape setting. The application is being referred to Council for a decision as Council is also the applicant and as such a decision should be made in the public forum given that there are objections to the proposal.

Planning Permit Application:

P292/14

Development Planner:

Andy Wilson

Address:

40 Liddesdale Grove, Eltham North

Proposal:

Buildings and works for the construction of 10 double storey dwellings and removal of native vegetation

Existing Use/Development:

Vacant

Applicant:

Banyule City Council

Zoning:

Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ3)

Overlays:

Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO3)

Notification (Advertising):

Letters to adjoining properties and widely distributed in the area (including to residents of Nillumbik Council) and two signs on site.

Objections Received:

Eight

Ward:

Beale

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 42

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 40 LIDDESDALE GROVE, ELTHAM NORTH cont’d

The proposal is for the construction of 10 double storey dwellings and removal native vegetation. 69 trees are proposed to be removed, 35 of which are identified as having a low retention value. All of the trees identified as having a high retention value are proposed to be retained and protected. A total of 60 trees require a planning permit to be removed. The plans assessed in this report are the advertised plans (received by Council on 12 March 2014). These are included as Attachment 1 to this report. The site gains access to Liddesdale Grove via a long 11.5 metre wide access shaft where it is proposed to construct a 5.5 metre wide road which would then provide access to each of the dwellings in a C shape. The dwelling composition includes a mix of two dwelling types. Dwellings 1, 3, 6 and 10 are to be dwelling type A and would include four bedrooms at the upper level as well as a bathroom and living room and living, kitchen, dining, laundry and WC at ground level. Dwellings 1 and 3 would include an attached double garage, while dwellings 6 and 10 would include an attached double carport. Dwellings 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 are to be dwelling type B and would include two bedrooms at the upper level as well as a separate bathroom and a living room, and at ground floor, dining kitchen and master bedroom with ensuite. Dwellings 2 and 9 would include an attached double carport and dwellings 4, 5, 7 and 8 would have attached double garages. Dwelling Density Site Coverage Impervious Site Coverage

1:692m2 23% 30%

The dwellings are to be constructed using a mix of materials including brick at ground level and a combination of timber and cement sheet at the upper level. Feature timber is also proposed for the entries and a vertical ‘chimney’ like feature element on each dwelling. Roofs are to be flat and will not be seen. The maximum overall height for any dwelling will not exceed 8.5 metres. This is measured to the top of the vertical ‘chimney’ feature which is a very small portion of the dwelling. The top of the roof of the dwellings will not exceed 7.5 metres from natural ground level below. Setbacks of each dwelling will be maintained at least 2 metres from boundaries with the exception of dwelling 3 which will be setback 1.3 metres from the northern boundary (2 metre length) and its garage will be setback just 210mm from the boundary (6.1 metres). Car parking spaces for six visitors are proposed adjacent to the accessway to the north of dwellings 4 and 5. The proposal also includes a pedestrian path that would provide a link between Liddesdale Grove and Ryans Road. The path would also provide access to the municipal reserve to the south of the site.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 43

4.2

PROPOSAL

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 40 LIDDESDALE GROVE, ELTHAM NORTH cont’d PLANNING CONTROLS

4.2

The planning controls applicable to the site are outlined in Table 1 below: Table 1: Applicable Planning Controls Control Neighbourhood Residential Zone - Schedule 3 Environmental Significance Overlay – Schedules 3 and 4 Car Parking requirements Native vegetation

Clause 32.09 42.01

Permit Triggered Yes Yes

52.06 52.17

Yes Yes

POLICIES CONSIDERED Relevant policies considered in the assessment of this proposal are outlined in Table 2 below: Table 2: Relevant Planning Scheme Policy Policy SPPF Settlement Environmental and Landscape Values Built Environment and Heritage (including sub clauses) Housing (including sub clauses) Transport Infrastructure LPPF Land Use Natural Environment Built Environment (Limited Incremental area) Transport and Infrastructure Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy – Garden Court Precinct 2 (East). Safer Design Policy

Clause 11 12 15 16 18 19 21.04 21.05 21.06 21.07 22.02 22.03

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 44

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

Land abutting the site to the west comprises 5 lots also created under permit P922/11 which front directly onto Liddesdale Grove. Each of these lots is approximately 800m2 in area. Some of these lots have dwellings currently under construction.

Figure 1: Locality Plan

SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA The subject site is approximately 6962m2 in area and is located on the eastern side of Liddesdale Grove, near the intersection with Calendonia Drive. It is bounded by a narrow reserve to the east (adjacent to Ryans Road), and north, a large reserve to the south and five residential lots to the west. An accessway of approximately 12 metres width provides connectivity to Liddesdale Grove. The land falls approximately 9 metres from the Liddesdale Grove frontage of the site and rises up again 9 metres to the northern boundary. This topography results in a natural gully running from north to south through the site. The land is vegetated by scattered, mostly indigenous, trees and shrubs and varying heights and stages of growth. Much of the site is clear as a result of the previous use of the land for domestic purposes. The surrounding area is characterised by double and single storey dwellings set within a landscaped context including mature indigenous trees. Spacing is typically maintained between and around dwellings which enhances the spacious and vegetated character of the locality.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 45

4.2

MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 40 LIDDESDALE GROVE, ELTHAM NORTH contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 40 LIDDESDALE GROVE, ELTHAM NORTH cont’d

4.2

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION The proposal was advertised by way of notice to surrounding properties and widely within the locality including residents of Nillumbik Shire and Nillumbik Council. Two signs were also placed on the site with one sign on the Liddesdale Grove frontage and an additional sign facing Ryans Road. As a result of notification eight objections have been received. Grounds of objection include:         

The proposed dwelling design is not in keeping with the character of the locality; The proposal would result in excessive vegetation removal; Site coverage and density of development is excessive; Insufficient vegetation maintained along the western boundary to buffer views for dwellings to the west. An increased distance to the accessway should be provided; Garage truck reversing within the site making disturbing noise; Vehicles exiting the development have limited sight. Banyule City Council have not done their due diligence in selecting an appropriate access point; Insufficient visitor parking spaces; Buying and developing land is not what Council should be doing. No central bin collection area.

CONSULTATION Prior to the lodgement of the application, residents were notified of the proposal. Residents were also notified when the application was lodged. Although no formal consultation meeting was held, objectors to the application were given an opportunity to meet individually with Council officers to discuss concerns. Some residents accepted this offer and met with Council officers. Follow up emails and phone calls were made to other objectors. REFERRAL COMMENTS Council’s Engineering Services section has reviewed the proposed development and is satisfied that it would result in an acceptable outcome from a drainage and traffic perspective. Council’s Development Planning Arborist has reviewed the proposal and, subject to appropriate conditions and some alterations to the garage layout for dwelling 1, is satisfied the proposal would result in an acceptable outcome with respect to removal and protection of vegetation. In addition, the arborist recommends the removal of tree 180 as it would be difficult to adequately protect this tree given the proposed development layout. For a full description of referral comments, please see Attachment 2.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 46

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 40 LIDDESDALE GROVE, ELTHAM NORTH cont’d

The proposed development and vegetation removal is considered to be an acceptable response having regard to the various State and Local Planning Policy. The proposed layout has been selected to respond appropriately to the various site constraints, primarily vegetation and topography and the outcome would be a density of development that responds to the residential character of the locality and would sit well within a vegetated landscape. A full assessment of the proposal against the relevant State and local planning policy is included at Attachment 2 of this report. Vegetation protection and Environmental Significance As noted, the layout has been selected to respond to the existing site constraints including high retention value trees and the ecological value of the site. In considering the appropriateness of vegetation removal, the principles of avoid, minimise and offset must be considered. With regards to the first of these principles, it is noted that the original application for subdivision considered this matter in detail, which resulted in the creation of the municipal reserve to the south of the site, thereby avoiding the most significant vegetation on site. With regards to the second principle, the dwellings are proposed to be constructed on the part of the site that is the most degraded and has the least vegetation cover, thereby minimising vegetation removal. Furthermore, the development has been sited to enable the retention of many high value trees. In considering the final principle, offsetting, it is considered appropriate that a condition be included on the permit which would require the preparation and implementation of an Offset Management Plan to the satisfaction of Council. Council’s arborist has reviewed the proposal and notes that the development would be acceptable subject to some alterations to the layout to ensure adequate protection of all trees proposed to be retained. Council’s Development Planning Arborist has also recommended the removal of tree 180 that is currently proposed for retention. The removal of this tree would result in a new opportunity for the planting of a tree which would result in an improved landscape outcome. With regards to the environmental significance of the site, the dwellings have been sited to take advantage of the portion of the site that was previously disturbed through the domestic use of the land for a dwelling. Despite this, it is noted that some rare flora species do exist on site, as discovered during the original subdivision application. Conditions of the approval for the subdivision require the translocation of these species prior to any development commencing on site. Council’s environmental planning officers recommend that these conditions be restated on the current approval. Importantly, more than 50% of the site will remain uncovered and able to accommodate indigenous vegetation including species that are of local provenance to ensure the biodiversity values of the site are maintained. It is noted that to the south of dwellings 7 and 10 a number of trees are proposed to be removed, to construct these dwellings and to construct the pedestrian path. It is thought that some of these trees may be able to be retained where the path could be slightly realigned or tree sensitive construction techniques employed. A condition of approval should include a review of these trees to identify which trees could be retained.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 47

4.2

TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.2

MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 40 LIDDESDALE GROVE, ELTHAM NORTH cont’d The proposal will ensure the site maintains its valuable role in providing habitat for flora and fauna and in particular will provide an important ecological link to the vegetation reserve to the south of the site. As noted in the attached neighbourhood character assessment, the proposal will result in adequate opportunities for new tree planting throughout the site including a mix of large, medium and small trees. Council’s Environmental Planning officers recommend that future landscaping of each lot be done using indigenous species from the same EVC (EVC 22 Grassy Dry Forest). This can be required as a condition of approval. With regards to faunal species of significance, no species were identified as part of the assessment and it was considered unlikely that the study area would be of significance for fauna with regards to the EPBC Act although it was noted that the Swift Parrot and Grey-headed Flying Fox would occasionally forage in the area. Neighbourhood Character The residential character of the locality comprises a mix of development including single and double storey dwellings set within large allotments and maintaining substantial indigenous trees which provides a well vegetated backdrop to development. Dwellings in the immediate locality range from 1970’s to more recent construction. The proposed development seeks to introduce a more contemporary form of design into this locality, however the design is an appropriate response in that it utilises colours and materials that are common in the area including a mixture of brick and timber walls that employ earthy tones. Furthermore, it is considered the subject site enjoys the benefit of being more secluded from the public realm than is typical. This is due to the position of the site being well setback from Liddesdale Grove and Ryans Road as well as maintaining a suitable vegetation buffer to surrounding residential lots to the north and west. From this perspective the proposed design of the development makes an appropriate contribution to the mix of residential development in the locality and importantly maintains an appropriate vegetation cover on site and adequate spacing for new landscaping. In addition, an assessment of the proposal against Council’s neighbourhood character policy has been undertaken (refer to Attachment 3) and found to be generally compliant. It is noted that the proposal will result in some variations to this policy including some sheer two storey wall elements on each dwelling, garages or carports located forward of Dwellings 1, 2, 6, 9 and 10, a tree planting ratio of large to medium trees of less than 1:400m2 and an inability to plant a large tree within the frontage of the site. However, it is considered that these variations are acceptable for the following reasons: 

The extent of upper level and recession will ensure the character of the locality is maintained and the amenity of adjoining properties not unreasonably impacted due to the overall height of the dwellings having been minimised through the use of a flat roof design,



Dwelling type A and B both employ various materials and features to minimise the appearance of an unrecessed two storey form and the dwellings are sited well setback from road frontages and from view of nearby dwellings,

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 48

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment



The dwellings have been oriented internally to the site so as to present most of the building bulk internally and extensive vegetation is to be retained on site and combined with the surrounding vegetation buffer, which will ensure views to the development will be softened and broken by vegetation. In addition, the site enjoys limited views from the public realm which results in an opportunity to create a character that is somewhat of a departure from the prevailing character.



Due to the shape of the subject site, only a narrow frontage is presented to Liddesdale Grove, designed to contain an accessway with appropriate landscaping on each side. Although there is no opportunity to plant a large tree to the front of the site which would contribute to the Liddesdale Grove streetscape, suitable landscaping opportunities to exist within this accessway shaft to ensure the vegetated character of the Liddesdale Grove streetscape is enhanced and protected.



6 large trees of high retention value are proposed to be retained and opportunity exists to plant 4 new large trees, 5 new medium trees and at least 7 small trees through the site and many more along each side of the access shaft. In addition to this, the creation of the subject lot was part of a subdivision that created the large reserve to the south of the subject land. This land has reserve status and contains high quality indigenous vegetation that makes a significant contribution to ecological values in the region. When taken as a whole, the tree planting ratio specified within Council’s neighbourhood character policy is exceeded significantly.

Amenity impacts It is considered the proposal has responded appropriately to the surrounding land uses by ensuring that there would be no offsite amenity impacts in the form of overlooking or overshadowing. It is acknowledged that the development will change the outlook from some residential properties, particularly to the north and the west, however, as discussed above, it is considered that the development adequately responds to the character of the locality and will provide for suitable landscaping opportunities in addition to the substantial vegetation to be retained, to ensure the development will be nestled within the vegetated character of the locality. Objector concerns Many of the objector concerns have been addressed in this report including concerns regarding neighbourhood character and vegetation protection. However, some additional concerns are discussed below: Site coverage and density of development The proposed density is approximately 1: 696m2. At this density, it is considered the development can accommodate sufficient spacing and opportunities to retain and plant vegetation to ensure the character of the locality is maintained and enhanced. It is also noted that a greater density was envisaged at the time of approving the subdivision when 12 dwellings were contemplated and articulated within the requirement for a section 173 agreement.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 49

4.2

MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 40 LIDDESDALE GROVE, ELTHAM NORTH cont’d

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 40 LIDDESDALE GROVE, ELTHAM NORTH cont’d

4.2

Insufficient separation or vegetation maintained along the western boundary to buffer views for dwellings to the west It is noted that the accessway is proposed to be within 2.5 metres from the western boundary of the site, abutting the residential lots to the west. However, the distance that would be maintained between the future dwellings at 42-50 Liddesdale Grove and the subject site would be at least 15 metres with a building exclusion zone maintained at the rear of these lots to further buffer views to future development. Garage truck reversing within the site making disturbing noise It is acknowledged that a garbage truck would need to perform a reversing manoeuvre to enable the truck to exit the site. However, this outcome is not considered to be unusual or warrant changes to the design. A single reversing movement is a typical necessity in many court bowls and dead end streets. Vehicles exiting the development have limited sight. Banyule City Council have not done their due diligence in selecting an appropriate access point The access and egress arrangements have been reviewed by Council’s traffic engineers and no concern has been raised regarding sight lines. Insufficient visitor parking spaces The Banyule Planning Scheme requires 1 visitor car parking space be provided for every 5 dwellings. This 10 dwelling proposal includes 3 visitor spaces, exceeding the statutory requirement. Buying and developing land is not what Council should be doing Council has secured a large portion of the land in a reserve for the benefit of the wider community. The land proposed to be developed forms the most disturbed portion of the land and is proposed to be developed at a density that is consistent with the relevant planning policy. No central bin collection area should be provided The individual bins for each dwelling will be stored within the boundaries of each property and presented to the internal accessway for collection by a Council waste collection service. No central bin storage area is proposed. CONCLUSION The development of 10 double storey dwellings and removal of native vegetation is considered to be an acceptable outcome with regard to the relevant State and local planning policy. The dwellings will be constructed in a manner that responds to the character of the locality, particularly through the use of appropriate materials and colours and maintains space for the protection of existing significant vegetation and planting of new trees.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 50

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 40 LIDDESDALE GROVE, ELTHAM NORTH cont’d

That Council having complied with Section 52, 58, 60, 61 and 62 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, resolves that a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit be issued in respect of Application No. P232/2014 for Buildings and works for the construction of 10 double storey dwellings and removal of native vegetation at 40 Liddesdale Grove ELTHAM NORTH subject to the following conditions: Plans (1)

The accessway modified to incorporate curves to avoid a ‘gun barrel’ effect.

(b)

The entry to the Dwelling 2 relocated to a more visually obvious location, preferably on the southern elevation;

(c)

The Dwelling 1 garage moved outside of the tree protection zone of tree 929;

(d)

The carport finished floor level of Dwelling 2 raised to ensure that no more than 100mm of cut is required;

(e)

Tree 180 shown as removed;

(f)

Measures to ensure protection of tree 792 including relocation of curb and channel if required;

(g)

All trees on site marked as either retained or removed including changes as required by condition 1(h);

(h)

The trees within proximity of the pedestrian path along the southern boundary be assessed to determine their suitability for retention rather than removal. This may include adjustment to the alignment of the path where possible to facilitate their retention;

(i)

A note to indicate where tree sensitive construction techniques are required for trees in proximity to the public path to the south of the site;

(j)

The three visitor car parking spaces on the western site boundary removed;

(k)

6m3 of external storage for each dwelling;

(l)

Dwellings 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 to have doorway widths of 850mm, hallways of 1m, a level area of 1.2m x 1.2m at the entry and a clear space of 1200mm x 1200mm forward of a toilet pan and shower;

(m)

Any fill located within the Tree Protection Zone of tree 235 on lot 5 must be retained through a retaining wall utilising well drained medium;

(n)

Landscape and tree zones to be clearly marked with hatching, colour coding or similar and distinguished from useable open space areas;

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 51

4.2

RECOMMENDATION

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

MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 40 LIDDESDALE GROVE, ELTHAM NORTH contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d A plan notation indicating that no building works or facilities are to be provided within the dedicated landscape areas;

(p)

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

(q)

The provision of a rainwater storage tank for each of the dwellings including its location, sizing and a notation of the connections and end use;

(r)

An Offset Management Plan prepared in accordance with condition 6;

(s)

All sustainable design features indicated in the submitted Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) required by Condition 3. Where sustainable design features outlined in the SDA cannot be visually shown, include a notes table providing details of the requirements (i.e. energy and water efficiency ratings for heating/cooling systems and plumbing fittings and fixtures)

(t)

Landscaping as required by Condition 2 of this permit;

(u)

The Tree Preservation Fencing in accordance with Condition 18 of this permit;

(v)

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

4.2

(o)

(i) (ii)

The use of an On-site Stormwater Detention (OSD) system; The connection to the Council nominated legal point of discharge; Please note the Engineering plans must show all protected and/or retained trees on the development site, on adjoining properties where tree canopies encroach the development site and along proposed outfall drainage and roadway alignments (where applicable) and every effort must be made to locate services away from the canopy drip line of trees and where unavoidable, details of hand work or trenchless installation must be provided. (w)

(2)

Provision of kerbing and Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) measures to minimise the amount of run-off/sheet water entering the municipal conservation reserve;

Species chosen should be of local provenance from the EVC 22 Grassy Dry Forest.

(c)

The identification of existing vegetation (which is not intended to be removed), and nomination of vegetation for removal throughout the site;

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 52

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

(d)

Provision of formed garden beds with edging around the landscape zone within the front setback of each dwelling to prevent cars parking within those areas;

(e)

Planting adjacent to driveways and within landscaping zones to consist of varying heights and species;

(f)

A plan notation indicating that no building works or facilities are to be provided within the dedicated landscape areas;

(g)

Provision of replacement planting for vegetation that is to be removed including a minimum of 4 large canopy trees (mature height of at least 15m) planted at a semi-advanced state (minimum pot size 40 litre) and 5 medium canopy trees (mature height of at least 8m) planted at a semiadvanced state (minimum pot size 16 litre) and 10 small canopy trees (mature height of at least 5m) planted throughout the site. ;

(h)

An indigenous and/or drought tolerant planting theme;

(i)

(j)

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

(k)

(3)

Before the development permitted by this permit starts, a Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When submitted and approved, the SDA and associated notated plans will be endorsed to form part of the permit.

(4)

Prior to the commencement of development, a vegetation Offset Plan (OP) must be prepared and endorsed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The OP must provide an appropriate offset for the removal of 60 indigenous trees in accordance with the Permitted clearing of native vegetation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Biodiversity assessment guidelines (Department of Environment and Primary Industries, September 2013).

(5)

Prior to the commencement of development, a footpath alignment and landscaping plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plan must incorporate realignment of the path as a result of condition 1h and must show the treatment and landscaping of the path.

(6)

Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority the development permitted by this permit must not commence until:-

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 53

4.2

MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 40 LIDDESDALE GROVE, ELTHAM NORTH contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d

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

4.2

MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 40 LIDDESDALE GROVE, ELTHAM NORTH contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d

(7)

(8)

(a)

Orchids (Corybas diemencius, Microtis sp, Pterostylis sp. Thelymitra media,) Geranium sp 3 (pallidiflorum) and Billardiera scandens subsp. braceatha are translocated from the subject site into the municipal reserve to the south;

(b)

Any native fauna from the subject site relocated by an appropriately qualified person into the municipal reserve to the south;

(c)

Tree protection fencing established in accordance with condition 17.

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

Vegetation offsetting secured in accordance with the Offset Management Plan required by condition 6.

(c)

The pedestrian path along the southern boundary to be constructed in accordance with the footpath alignment and landscaping plan required by condition 6.

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

Urban Design / External Appearance (9)

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

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

The tree protection measures required by Condition 13 are installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(b)

A Construction Management Plan is submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority, in accordance with condition 4

Car Parking / Access (11) Areas set aside for the parking of vehicles together with the aisles and access lanes must be properly formed to such levels that they can be utilised in accordance with the endorsed plans and must be drained and provided with an all weather seal coat. The areas must be constructed, drained and maintained in a continuously useable condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. (12) Areas set aside for the parking and movement of vehicles as shown on the endorsed plan(s) must be made available for such use and must not be used for any other purpose.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 54

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 40 LIDDESDALE GROVE, ELTHAM NORTH cont’d

(14) Vehicular access or egress to the subject land from any roadway or service lane must be by way of a vehicle crossing constructed in accordance with Council’s Vehicle Crossing Specifications to suit the proposed driveway(s) and the vehicles that will use the crossing(s). The location, design and construction of the vehicle crossing(s) must be approved by the Responsible Authority. Any existing unused crossing(s) must be removed and replaced with concrete kerb, channel and naturestrip to the satisfaction of the Council prior to occupation of the building. All vehicle crossing works are to be carried out with Council Supervision under a Memorandum of Consent for Works which must be obtained prior to commencement of works. Tree Protection / Landscaping (15) The development permitted by this permit must not be commenced until a satisfactory Tree Management Plan is submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Such plan must be prepared by a person suitably qualified or experienced in arboriculture, must be prepared in accordance with Section 5, AS4970 – Protection of Trees on Development Sites, and shall include: (a) A plan and corresponding detail identifying location of each tree (those to be retained only), their species, tree preservation zones and ground protection (tree protection plan) and other relevant identifying information. (b)

In relation to the development phase: (i)

(c)

The processes required to initiate, manage and protect the canopies, limbs and root systems of retained trees during the construction process. All processes and protective measures must be undertaken in accordance with the guidelines detailed in AS4970-2009 Protection of Trees on Development Sites. Particular detail must given in regards to the management process of tree root systems – including supervision, root exposure and excavation method, and root severance – where works are approved within the TPZ of a retained tree. No works shall be commenced within the TPZ of any of these trees until such a management plan is received and endorsed by the Responsible Authority. (ii) Inclusion of the project arborist details, and dates when periodical inspections will take place to ensure compliance as well as the scheduling of proposed tree management techniques. (iii) Show locations of tree protection fencing, and any other methods such as hording that may be used to protect trees during demolition and construction. Following completion of the development: (i) (ii) (iii)

Maintenance requirements for the trees. Ongoing tree protection requirements. Other relevant recommendations.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 55

4.2

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

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.2

MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 40 LIDDESDALE GROVE, ELTHAM NORTH cont’d (16) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, the landscaping areas shown on the endorsed plans must be used for landscaping and no other purpose and any landscaping must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced. (17) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, prior to the commencement of works (including demolition) on the site Tree Preservation Zones must be established around all of the trees proposed to be retained and trees on neighbouring land that have part of their Tree Protection Zones on the subject land. You must contact Council’s Development Planning Arborist on 9457 9878 once the Tree Preservation Fencing is erected so that an inspection of the fencing can be carried out. Once installed and inspected the Tree Preservation Zones must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, and meet the following requirements: (a)

Extent Tree Preservation Zones and ground protection are to be installed as shown on the endorsed tree protection plan.

(b)

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

(c)

Fencing Vegetation Preservation fences with a minimum height of 1.2 to 1.5 metres of chain mesh or like and a top line of high visibility plastic hazard tape must be erected around the perimeter of the zone.

(d)

(i)

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

(ii)

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

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

(e)

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

(f)

Access to Tree Preservation Zone (iii)

No persons, vehicles or machinery are to enter the Vegetation Protection Zone except with the consent of the Responsible Authority;

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 56

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

(iv)

(v) (vi) NOTE:

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

Requests for consent of the Responsible Authority (City of Banyule) pursuant to this Condition should be directed to Council’s Arborist – Development Planning on 9457 9878. Consent for the conduct of works within the Tree Protection Zone, where granted, may be subject to conditions. Such conditions may include a requirement that:  Any underground service installations within the Tree Protection Zone be bored to a depth of 1.5 metres; All root excavation be carried out by hand digging or with the use of ‘AirExcavation’ techniques;  Roots required to be cut are to be severed by saw cutting and undertaken by a qualified arborist. Or other conditions, as relevant, to ensure the ongoing health and stability of the subject tree/s. 

(18) Except with the further written consent of the Responsible Authority, no vegetation (other than that indicated on the endorsed plan, or exempt from planning permission under the provisions of the Banyule Planning Scheme) shall be damaged, removed, destroyed or lopped. (19) All tree pruning is to be carried out by a trained and competent arborist who has a thorough knowledge of tree physiology and pruning methods. Pruning must be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard AS4373 Pruning of Amenity Trees. Tree pruning is to be restricted to the removal of no greater than 15% of the total live canopy of individual trees. (20) Any underground service installations within a Tree Protection Zone must be bored to a depth of at least 600mm. Time Limits (21) In accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies: 

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



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

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

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 57

4.2

MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 40 LIDDESDALE GROVE, ELTHAM NORTH cont’d

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 40 LIDDESDALE GROVE, ELTHAM NORTH cont’d (b) Within six months afterwards, or

4.2

(c)

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

Permit Notes (A)

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

(B)

Building Permit Required Building Permit must be obtained prior to the commencement of any works associated with the proposed development.

(C)

Building over Easements No structure shall be built over any easement on the subject land except with the consent of the relevant Responsible Authority.

(D)

Completion of Development Immediately upon completion of the development permitted by this permit, the owner or developer of the subject land must notify Council’s Development Planning Section that the development is complete and complies with all requirements of the permit. The development will then be inspected to ensure compliance. An early inspection process will ensure that the subdivision approvals including the Statement of Compliance can be issued without delay.

(E)

Street Numbering Please note that property addresses are allocated by Council. This is usually formalised at the time of the issue of a certified plan, however it is Council’s intention to number the proposed allotments as follows: Dwelling 1 – 1/40 Liddesdale Grove, Eltham North Dwelling 2 – 2/40 Liddesdale Grove, Eltham North Dwelling 3 – 3/40 Liddesdale Grove, Eltham North Dwelling 4 – 4/40 Liddesdale Grove, Eltham North Dwelling 5 – 5/40 Liddesdale Grove, Eltham North Dwelling 6 – 6/40 Liddesdale Grove, Eltham North Dwelling 7 – 7/40 Liddesdale Grove, Eltham North Dwelling 8 – 8/40 Liddesdale Grove, Eltham North Dwelling 9 – 9/40 Liddesdale Grove, Eltham North

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 58

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 40 LIDDESDALE GROVE, ELTHAM NORTH cont’d Dwelling 10 – 10/40 Liddesdale Grove, Eltham North Memorandum of Consent for Works Council’s Construction Department must supervise all works undertaken on Council assets within private property, Council Reserves, easements, drainage reserves and/or road reserves, including connection of the internal drainage system to the existing Council assets. Prior to the commencement of any works, an application must be made and a permit received for: 

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



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

4.2

(F)

Asset Inspection Fee (G)

Prior to the commencement of building works on site in accordance with Local Law 1, a non-refundable Asset Inspection Fee is payable to Council for the inspection of existing Council assets. For further information in relation to this process and the relevant fee please contact Council’s Construction Department on 9490 4222.

ATTACHMENTS No.

Title

Plans

205

Clause 55 Assessment

223

Neighbourhood Character Assessment

228

Planning Policy Assessment

234

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page

Page 59

4.3

BANYULE FLATS AND WARRINGAL PARKLANDS HERITAGE NOMINATION

Author:

Emma Shorter - Senior Strategic Planner, City Development

Ward:

Griffin, Ibbott, Hawdon

File:

BS16/015/010

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

Previous Items Council on 17 March 2014 (Item 4.1 - Warringal Parklands and Banyule Flats Heritage Assessment) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Work is being done to see if Banyule Flats and Warringal Parklands have heritage and environmental significance. Any significance is assessed by Government authorities after they receive nominations and submissions. This report focuses on progress being made for heritage. Heritage Victoria assesses nominations and makes recommendations to the Heritage Council, who then determines if there should be any change to the Victorian Heritage Register (VHR). Council has given a heritage nomination to Heritage Victoria for Banyule Flats and Warringal Parklands (BFWP) and also for Sparks Reserve. Heritage Victoria has recently assessed the nomination for BFWP and its recommendation was advertised in the Herald Sun on the 19 September 2014. Heritage Victoria is yet to assess Council’s nomination for Sparks Reserve. Heritage Victoria is recommending to the Heritage Council that BFWP does not meet their heritage criteria for its inclusion on the VHR. Heritage Victoria is also advertising that interested parties have until 5pm, Tuesday 18 November 2014 to respond to this recommendation. This is done by writing a submission to the Heritage Council, who will make the final decision. Council can make a submission to reiterate its nomination for BFWP to be considered, by the Heritage Council, for the VHR. Whilst Heritage Victoria has advertised that interested parties can make submissions, Council can also ensure the Warringal Conservation Society (WCS) is informed of this opportunity, because the society has had a long-term presence in promoting and protecting the place. 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”.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 60

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

BANYULE FLATS AND WARRINGAL PARKLANDS HERITAGE NOMINATION cont’d

Council has been doing work to explore the heritage and environmental significance of Banyule Flats and Warringal Parklands (BFWP). This work is informing nominations to Government authorities, who then make assessments that inform final decisions. This report is focusing on the process underway for Council’s nomination for BFWP to be considered for State heritage significance. A map showing the boundary of BFWP is shown below.

Figure 1: Banyule Flats and Warringal Parklands Site Boundary (North up the page)

Council’s heritage nomination was sent to Heritage Victoria (HV) in June 2014. This nomination asked HV to consider recommending BFWP, for the Victorian Heritage Register (VHR). A separate nomination has also been made for Sparks Reserve. The Government’s Heritage Council (HC) considers recommendations from HV. Both nominations are helping to implement Council’s 2013 Heritage Strategy, which has an objective to ‘Protect, conserve and enhance places and precincts that contribute to Banyule’s cultural heritage.’ After receiving Council’s BFWP nomination, Heritage Victoria did a detailed assessment and then wrote to Council. This letter is in Attachment 1. HV have yet to do their assessment for Council’s Sparks Reserve nomination.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 61

4.3

BACKGROUND

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

BANYULE FLATS AND WARRINGAL PARKLANDS HERITAGE NOMINATION cont’d

4.3

CURRENT SITUATION HV is recommending to the Heritage Council that BFWP should not be included on the Victorian Heritage Register. A summary of HV’s assessment is below, the full assessment is in Attachment 1. Table 1: Summary of Heritage Victoria Assessment Heritage Council Criteria Criteria A Importance to the course or pattern of Victoria’s cultural history Criterion E Importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics

Council’s Heritage Nomination The landscape shows evidence of its agricultural past and its link to Heidelberg’s prestigious estates. The current landscape retains some qualities that were valued by the Heidelberg School of artists.

Criterion G Strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons Criterion H Special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons of importance in Victoria’s history

The area has an association with an important community lead, conservation movement. The area was important to the Heidelberg School of artists. There were many paintings done along the ridges and river flats of the Yarra River valley.

Summary of Heritage Victoria’s Assessment The land was leased to farmers from estate owners. This history is not of state significance. The landscape is significantly different from what was depicted by the artists. The current landscape does not retain characteristics of state significance. Whilst the conservation movement in the area may have been important, there is no evidence to demonstrate state significance for this association with the land. The landscapes shown in the paintings are different to the current landscapes, there is no special association between the artists and the current landscapes that demonstrates state significance.

On the 19 September 2014 a public notice appeared in the Herald Sun. This notice gave HV’s recommendation that BFWP should not be listed in the Victorian Heritage Register. Separate environmental field work and information for BFWP is underway. This will inform future analysis, to see if enhanced environmental significance for ecological and environmental conservation can be achieved. The outcome of this separate work will be reported to Council in the future. NEXT STEPS Interested parties have 60 days from the date of the public notice to give a written submission in response to Heritage Victoria’s recommendation. The closing date for submissions is 5pm, Tuesday 18 November 2014. More information about the Heritage Council’s process, for nominations to be considered for the VHR, is available from: http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/heritage/victorian-heritage-register The HC will make a final decision on whether BFWP should be included on the VHR.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 62

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

Following the advertised notice, Council can now make a written submission to the Heritage Victoria recommendation. This submission can restate Council’s nomination for the Heritage Council to consider BFWP for the Victorian Heritage Register. When responding to the HV recommendation, Council may also request progress for the Sparks Reserve nomination as well. Because the Warringal Conservation Society has a long-held, established interest for Banyule Flats and Warringal Parklands, Council can also make sure that this important community group is directly informed about the HV recommendation. Environmental field work will continue, through to April 2016. This will ensure enough time, through different seasons, to capture flora and fauna data. Following this, environmental analysis of the collected data will be done so a final environmental assessment report can be completed by June 2016. CONCLUSION Heritage Victoria is recommending that Banyule Flats and Warringal Parklands does not meet the Victorian Heritage Register criteria for State significance. A public notice process is now underway. Interested parties can now write submissions, in response to the Heritage Victoria recommendation. Council’s submission can reiterate the nomination made for Banyule Flats and Warringal Parklands to be included on the Victorian Heritage Register and request consideration of the Sparks Reserve nomination. Council can also ensure community groups are made aware of the Heritage Victoria recommendation, so they can consider their own submissions. Environmental field work will continue for Banyule Flats and Warringal Parklands, to capture information and inform future analysis for the place to have reviewed environmental significance. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1.

Note the Heritage Victoria recommendation that Banyule Flats and Warringal Parkland should not be included on the Victorian Heritage Register.

Write a submission to the Heritage Council, in response to Heritage Victoria’s recommendation. The submission will reiterate Council’s nomination for Banyule Flats and Warringal Parkland to be included on the Victorian Heritage Register.

Write to the Warringal Conservation Society to ensure they are aware of the Heritage Victoria recommendation and the opportunity to write a submission.

Write to Heritage Victoria, seeking a response to Council’s nomination for Sparks Reserve to be considered for the Victorian Heritage Register.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 63

4.3

BANYULE FLATS AND WARRINGAL PARKLANDS HERITAGE NOMINATION cont’d

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

BANYULE FLATS AND WARRINGAL PARKLANDS HERITAGE NOMINATION cont’d ATTACHMENTS Title

Page

Letter from Heritage Victoria including Assessment and Recommendation

4.3

No.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 64

241

4.4

WILLIS STREET, GREENSBOROUGH PROPOSED DISCONTINUANCE OF SECTION OF UNUSED 'ROAD' - DETERMINE INTENTION TO DISCONTINUE

Author:

Lorraine James - Property Officer, City Development

Ward:

Beale

File:

F2014/375

Previous Items Council on 7 July 2014 (Item 4.9 - Willis Street, Greensborough - Proposed discontinuance of section of unused 'road') Council on 15 September 2014 (Item 4.6 - Proposed Discontinuance of Section of Unused 'Road' - Willis Street Greensborough - Hearing of Submissions) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the southern end of Willis Street, Greensborough, adjacent to the access road to Council owned land known as Andrew Yandell Habitat Reserve, 37 St Helena Road (Yandell Reserve) there is a section of un-trafficable ‘road’ (unused ‘road’). It has not been used as a ‘road’ since the access road to Yandell Reserve was constructed in 1967. The purpose of this report is for Council to determine whether or not to proceed with the discontinuance of the unused ‘road’ and retain the land for municipal purposes to augment Council’s open space landholdings. The discontinuance or removal of ‘road’ status requires Council to form the view that the unused ‘road’ is no longer reasonably required as a ‘road’ for public use. In forming that view Council must, in accordance with section 207A(a) and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989, give public notice of its intention to discontinue or remove ‘road’ status and retain for municipal purposes. The giving of public notice provides the opportunity for members of the public to make a written submission in relation to the proposal. In this instance public notice was given in the “Diamond Valley Leader” on 30 July 2014 and no submissions were received. The proposal to discontinue the unused ‘road’ and retain for municipal purposes has been considered having regard to current and potential future uses. The unused ‘road’ does not portray the physical characteristics of a road and is not used by the public as a means of vehicular access. Therefore there would appear to be no impediment to Council forming the view that the unused ‘road’ is no longer reasonably required as a ‘road’ for public use.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 65

4.4

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

WILLIS STREET, GREENSBOROUGH - PROPOSED DISCONTINUANCE OF SECTION OF UNUSED 'ROAD' - DETERMINE INTENTION TO DISCONTINUE cont’d CITY PLAN

4.4

This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “enhance Banyule’s public and open spaces”. 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. Section 20 provides that “A person must not be deprived of his or her property other than in accordance with law”. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues. Council has the legislative power to discontinue or remove ‘road’ status. BACKGROUND In 1956 the former Heidelberg Council compulsorily acquired land immediately adjacent to the south-west section of Willis Street, Greensborough, for the purposes of providing an access road to the Greenhills Reserve, now known as Andrew Yandell Habitat Reserve (Yandell Reserve). The access road was designed in 1966 and construction completed in 1967. After the construction of the entrance to Yandell Reserve, a section of Willis Street became un-trafficable (unused ‘road’) and vehicular access through to the northern section of Willis Street was no longer available via St Helena Road. The unused ‘road’, the subject of this report, is shown delineated in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Unused ‘Road’ Subject to Discontinuance

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 66

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

WILLIS STREET, GREENSBOROUGH - PROPOSED DISCONTINUANCE OF SECTION OF UNUSED 'ROAD' - DETERMINE INTENTION TO DISCONTINUE cont’d

Figure 2: Proposed Plan of Subdivision and Location of Services

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 67

4.4

TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

WILLIS STREET, GREENSBOROUGH - PROPOSED DISCONTINUANCE OF SECTION OF UNUSED 'ROAD' - DETERMINE INTENTION TO DISCONTINUE cont’d

4.4

Yarra Valley Water Limited An easement will be created in favour of Yarra Valley Water Limited in the locations shown as E1 on the plan in Figure 2. APA Group An easement will be created in favour of Vic Gas Distribution Pty Ltd (as the gas network owner) in the locations shown as E3, E4 and E5 on the plan in Figure 2. AusNet Services An easement will be created in favour of SPI Electricity Pty Ltd in the locations shown as E1, E2 and E3 on the plan in Figure 2. Banyule City Council An easement will be created in favour of Council in the location shown as E4 on the plan in Figure 2. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS The Banyule Planning Scheme governs the use and development of land in the municipality and the Banyule City Council is the responsible authority administering the scheme. Under the planning scheme, the land in the unused ‘road’ is included in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 3 (NRZ3). Schedule 1 to the Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO1) and Schedule 8 to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO8) also affect the unused ‘road’. These controls are only relevant if tree removal or certain buildings and works are proposed. They do not affect the proposal to discontinue the ‘road’ status. Banyule’s Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy at Clause 22.02 of the Banyule Planning Scheme includes the area within the Semi Bush (SB West) precinct. Council’s Strategic Planning Coordinator advises that there are no strategic planning concerns. The Development Planning Department advises that a planning permit, pursuant to section 35(8) of the Subdivision Act 1988, is required to create Reserve No. 1 for municipal purposes as shown on the plan in Figure 2. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS There are three trees within the unused ‘road’ to be preserved, namely Corymbia Citriodora, Allocassuarina sp and Eucalyptus Sideroxylon. Council’s Environmental Officer is satisfied that this proposal will have no effect on the existing vegetation. CURRENT SITUATION All surrounding parcels have been developed and are not reliant on the unused ‘road’ for access. There is an existing footpath along the eastern boundary of Willis Street, which, if the proposal proceeds in its current form, will be retained for pedestrian access.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 68

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

WILLIS STREET, GREENSBOROUGH - PROPOSED DISCONTINUANCE OF SECTION OF UNUSED 'ROAD' - DETERMINE INTENTION TO DISCONTINUE cont’d

Council’s Road Register does not include the southern-most section of Willis Street. Accordingly the Road Register should be amended to reflect the unused ‘road’ as discontinued rather than closed. LEGAL CONSIDERATION Section 206 and Clause 3 of Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1989 gives Council the power to discontinue or remove ‘road’ status from roads no longer reasonably required for public use. Sections 207A (a) and 223 of that Act provides that Council must give public notice and invite submissions from the public before exercising such power. At its Ordinary Meeting of 7 July 2014, Council directed that the statutory procedures be commenced to give public notice of its intention to discontinue the unused ‘road’ and retain the land for municipal purposes. At Council’s Meeting of 15 September 2015 it was recorded that, following public notice being given in the “Diamond Valley Leader’ on 30 July 2014, no submissions were received. In order to complete the statutory procedures Council must now direct by resolution that the unused ‘road’ be discontinued and, upon publication of the resolution in the Victoria Government Gazette, the unused ‘road’ will be discontinued and vest in Council’s name for municipal purposes. CONCLUSION The discontinuance or removal of ‘road’ status requires Council to form the view that the unused ‘road’ is no longer reasonably required as a ‘road’ for public use. Council must, in accordance with section 207A(a) and 223 of the Act, give public notice of its intention to discontinue or remove the ‘road’ status. Council must invite submissions from the public and consider all submissions received. In this instance no submissions were received in response to the public notice given. The unused ‘road’ does not portray the physical characteristics of a road and is not used by the public as a means of vehicular access. The unused ‘road’ is maintained by Council. The proposal to discontinue the unused ‘road’ and vest the land in Council’s name for municipal purposes has been considered having regard to current and potential future uses. Other than for purposes of augmenting Council’s existing open space landholdings, there is no strategic or long term use for the unused ‘road’ or the balance of the compulsorily acquired land.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 69

4.4

Reserve No. 1, having an area of 151m2, is heavily encumbered by easement and would be difficult to develop in isolation. Therefore adding the land to Council’s adjacent open space landholdings will not alter the current situation.

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.4

WILLIS STREET, GREENSBOROUGH - PROPOSED DISCONTINUANCE OF SECTION OF UNUSED 'ROAD' - DETERMINE INTENTION TO DISCONTINUE cont’d Service authorities and Council officers have commented on aspects that relate to this proposal and the relevant matters of Council’s policy regarding the discontinuance of roads. From responses received there appears to be no impediment to Council forming the view that the unused ‘road’ is no longer reasonably required as a ‘road for public use. Accordingly, the proposal to discontinue the unused ‘road’ and vest the land in Council’s name, for municipal purposes, should be supported. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1.

In accordance with sections 207A(a) and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989, having given notice of Council’s intention to discontinue the ‘untrafficable’ section of Willis Street, Greensborough, adjacent to the access road to the Council owned land known as Andrew Yandell Habitat Reserve, 37 St Helena Road, Greensborough (unused ‘road’) and no submissions having been received, forms the view that the unused ‘road’ is no longer reasonably required as a ‘road’ for public use for the following reasons: (a)

the unused ‘road’ is not currently used by the public as a means of vehicular or pedestrian access; and

(b)

the unused ‘road’ has been landscaped and is currently maintained by Council as part of the Andrew Yandell Habitat Reserve.

Direct that the unused ‘road’ be discontinued and the land vest in Council for municipal purposes.

Authorise the publication of its resolution in the Victoria Government Gazette.

Acknowledge that upon publication of the resolution in the Victoria Government Gazette the unused ‘road’ is discontinued and the land thereafter vests in Council for municipal purposes.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 70

4.5

MARGARET AVENUE, MONTMORENCY PROPOSED DISCONTINUANCE OF SECTION OF UNUSED 'ROAD' - DETERMINE INTENTION TO DISCONTINUE

Author:

Lorraine James - Property Officer, City Development

Ward:

Hawdon

File:

F2014/374

Previous Items Council on 7 July 2014 (Item 4.8 - Margaret Avenue, Montmorency - Proposed discontinuance of section of unused 'road') Council on 15 September 2014 (Item 4.3 - Proposed Discontinuance of Section of Unused Road - Margaret Avenue Montmorency - Hearing of Submissions) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The northern most section of Margaret Avenue, Montmorency, adjacent to Council owned land known as 1A Margaret Avenue, is unused and has not been used as a ‘road’ since Margaret Avenue was deviated and constructed in about 1970 (unused ‘road’). The purpose of this report is for Council to determine whether or not to proceed with the discontinuance of the unused ‘road’ and retain the land for municipal purposes to augment Council’s open space landholdings. The discontinuance or removal of ‘road’ status requires Council to form the view that the unused ‘road’ is no longer reasonably required as a ‘road’ for public use. In forming that view Council must, in accordance with section 207A(a) and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989, give public notice of its intention to discontinue or remove ‘road’ status and retain for municipal purposes. The giving of public notice provides the opportunity for members of the public to make a written submission in relation to the proposal. In this instance public notice was given in the “Diamond Valley Leader” on 30 July 2014 and no submissions were received. The proposal to discontinue the unused ‘road’ and retain for municipal purposes has been considered having regard to current and potential future uses. The unused ‘road’ does not portray the physical characteristics of a road and is not used by the public as a means of vehicular access. Therefore there would appear to be no impediment to Council forming the view that the unused ‘road’ is no longer reasonably required as a ‘road’ for public use. 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 - 6 October 2014

Page 71

4.5

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

MARGARET AVENUE, MONTMORENCY - PROPOSED DISCONTINUANCE OF SECTION OF UNUSED 'ROAD' - DETERMINE INTENTION TO DISCONTINUE cont’d CITY PLAN

4.5

This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “enhance Banyule’s public and open spaces”. 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. Section 20 provides that “A person must not be deprived of his or her property other than in accordance with law”. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues. Council has the legislative power to discontinue or remove ‘road’ status. BACKGROUND In about 1970 the former Eltham Council compulsorily acquired land, which comprised all of the land marked 1A and 1 on the plan in Figure 1 below, for road diversion purposes. Subsequently, the alignment of Margaret Avenue was deviated and constructed over part of the compulsorily acquired land and the former alignment of Margaret Avenue became unused (unused ‘road’). Banyule City Council, as successor at law to the Eltham Council, sold part of the compulsorily acquired land, now known as 1 Margaret Avenue shown in Figure 1, in 1997. The balance of the compulsorily acquired land remains in Council’s name. The unused ‘road’ remains on title as ‘road’. It forms part of the land remaining untransferred in certificates of title volume 7837 folios 031 and 029 registered in the name of the original subdivider.

Figure 1: Unused ‘Road’ Subject to Discontinuance

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 72

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

MARGARET AVENUE, MONTMORENCY - PROPOSED DISCONTINUANCE OF SECTION OF UNUSED 'ROAD' - DETERMINE INTENTION TO DISCONTINUE cont’d

Consultation with the relevant service authorities reveals that the unused ‘road’ contains multiple assets. Easements to protect these assets will be created in a plan of subdivision. Yarra Valley Water Limited Easement rights will be created in favour of Yarra Valley Water Limited in the locations shown as E2, E3, E5, E6 and E7 on the plan in Figure 2. AusNet Services Easement rights will be created in favour of SPI Electricity Pty Ltd in the location shown as E1 and E7 on the plan in Figure 2. APA Group Easement rights will be created in favour of Vic Gas Distribution Pty Ltd, (as the gas network owner) in the locations shown as E3, E4 and E5 on the plan in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Proposed Plan of Subdivision and Location of Services

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 73

4.5

TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

MARGARET AVENUE, MONTMORENCY - PROPOSED DISCONTINUANCE OF SECTION OF UNUSED 'ROAD' - DETERMINE INTENTION TO DISCONTINUE cont’d

4.5

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS The Banyule Planning Scheme governs the use and development of land in the municipality. Banyule City Council is the responsible authority administering the scheme. Under the planning scheme, the land in the unused ‘road’ and balance of the compulsorily acquired land are included in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 3 (NRZ3). Schedule 1 to the Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO1) and Schedule 8 to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO8) also affect the balance of the compulsorily acquired land and the unused ‘road’. These controls are only relevant if tree removal or certain buildings and works are proposed. They do not affect the proposal to discontinue the ‘road’ status. Amendment C73 proposes to introduce a new Local Planning Policy, Clause 22.07 Environmentally Sustainable Development. The Amendment has been adopted by Council and a request for its approval has been sent to the Minister for Planning. The proposal affects residential and non-residential developments that require a planning permit. Council’s Strategic Planner advises current Amendment C73 to the Banyule Planning Scheme affects the land in question. It is considered that Amendment C73 will have no effect on the proposal as it does not entail development. Banyule’s Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy at Clause 22.02 of the Banyule Planning Scheme includes the area within its Bush Garden (East) precinct. The Development Planning Department advises that a planning permit, pursuant to section 35(8) of the Subdivision Act 1988, is required to create Reserve No. 1 for municipal purposes as shown on the plan in Figure 2. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Council’s Environment Officer indicates that the proposal will have no effect on the existing vegetation. There are some immature Eucalyptus and Acacia species, which should be retained. Although they are not large or outstanding specimens, they contribute to the ecology of the area and provide the effect of continuous canopy cover for the movement and dispersal of local native animals. CURRENT SITUATION Reserve No. 1, having an area of 386m2 including 250m2 of unused ‘road’, is heavily encumbered by easement and would be difficult to develop in isolation. Therefore adding the land to Council’s adjacent open space landholdings will not alter the current situation. Vehicular access to 178 Rattray Road, Montmorency, is via Margaret Avenue. As is evidenced from the street view photograph in Figure 3 below, there are two access points from Margaret Avenue into 178 Rattray Road. The most southern is a paved vehicle crossover and driveway providing access to the stand alone carport, and the other, is an unformed concrete pad, providing access to the garage under the existing dwelling.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 74

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.5

MARGARET AVENUE, MONTMORENCY - PROPOSED DISCONTINUANCE OF SECTION OF UNUSED 'ROAD' - DETERMINE INTENTION TO DISCONTINUE cont’d

Figure 3: Street View of Property at 178 Rattray Road

This is further evidenced in the feature survey in Figure 4 below, which clearly shows the southern boundary of the road proposed to be discontinued aligning with the existing post, wire and netting fence on the western boundary of 178 Rattray Road.

Figure 4: Feature Survey of Site

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 75

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

MARGARET AVENUE, MONTMORENCY - PROPOSED DISCONTINUANCE OF SECTION OF UNUSED 'ROAD' - DETERMINE INTENTION TO DISCONTINUE cont’d

4.5

Neither access points from Margaret Avenue are compromised by any aspects of the proposal. Council’s Road Register reflects the current alignment of Margaret Avenue. Accordingly no amendment is required to the Road Register. LEGAL CONSIDERATION Section 206 and Clause 3 of Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1989 gives Council the power to discontinue or remove ‘road’ status from roads no longer reasonably required for public use. Sections 207A (a) and 223 of that Act provides that Council must give public notice and invite submissions from the public before exercising such power. At its Ordinary Meeting of 7 July 2014, Council directed that the statutory procedures be commenced to give public notice of its intention to discontinue the unused ‘road’ and retain the land for municipal purposes. At Council’s Meeting of 15 September 2015 it was recorded that, following public notice being given in the “Diamond Valley Leader’ on 30 July 2014, no submissions were received. In order to complete the statutory procedures Council must direct by resolution that the unused ‘road’ be discontinued and, upon publication of the resolution in the Victoria Government Gazette, the unused ‘road’ will be discontinued and vest in Council’s name for municipal purposes. CONCLUSION The discontinuance or removal of ‘road’ status requires Council to form the view that the unused ‘road’ is no longer reasonably required as a ‘road’ for public use. Council must, in accordance with section 207A(a) and 223 of the Act, give public notice of its intention to discontinue or remove the ‘road’ status. Council must invite submissions from the public and consider all submissions received. In this instance no submissions were received in response to the public notice given. The unused ‘road’ does not portray the physical characteristics of a road and is not used by the public as a means of vehicular access. The unused ‘road’ and the balance of the compulsorily acquired land are maintained by Council. The proposal to discontinue the unused ‘road’ and vest the land in Council’s name for municipal purposes has been considered having regard to current and potential future uses. Other than for purposes of augmenting Council’s existing open space landholdings, there is no strategic or long term use for the unused ‘road’ or the balance of the compulsorily acquired land. Service authorities and Council officers have commented on aspects that relate to this proposal and the relevant matters of Council’s policy regarding the discontinuance of roads. From responses received there appears to be no impediment to Council forming the view that the unused ‘road’ is no longer reasonably required as a ‘road for public use. Accordingly, the proposal to discontinue the unused ‘road’ and vest the land in Council’s name, for municipal purposes, should be supported.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 76

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

MARGARET AVENUE, MONTMORENCY - PROPOSED DISCONTINUANCE OF SECTION OF UNUSED 'ROAD' - DETERMINE INTENTION TO DISCONTINUE cont’d RECOMMENDATION

In accordance with sections 207A(a) and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989, having given notice of Council’s intention to discontinue the northern most section of Margaret Avenue, Montmorency, adjacent to Council owned land known as 1A Margaret Avenue (unused ‘road’) and no submissions having been received, forms the view that the unused ‘road’ is no longer reasonably required as a ‘road’ for public use for the following reasons: (a)

the unused ‘road’ is not currently used by the public as a means of vehicular or pedestrian access; and

(b)

the unused ‘road’ is currently maintained by Council as part of Council owned land known as 1A Margaret Avenue, Montmorency.

Direct that the unused ‘road’ be discontinued and the land vest in Council for municipal purposes.

Authorise the publication of its resolution in Victoria Government Gazette.

Acknowledge that upon publication of the resolution in the Victoria Government Gazette the unused ‘road’ is discontinued and the land thereafter vests in Council for municipal purposes.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 77

4.5

That Council:

4.6

JULINDA COURT, GREENSBOROUGH PROPOSED DISCONTINUANCE OF UNUSED 'ROAD' - HEARING OF SUBMISSIONS

Author:

Lorraine James - Property Officer, City Development

Ward:

Bakewell

File:

F2014/428

Previous Items Council on 7 July 2014 (Item 4.10 - Julinda Court, Greensborough - Proposed discontinuance of section of unused 'road') EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A section of Julinda Court, Greensborough, being the unused ‘road’ between 30 and 34 Paterson Crescent, Greensborough (unused ‘road’) has never been constructed as a ‘road’. Council at its Ordinary Meeting of 7 July 2014 (Item CO2014/203) considered a report in relation to the proposal to discontinue the unused ‘road’ and retain the resultant land for municipal purposes. Council resolved to commence the statutory procedures in accordance with section 207A(a) and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act) by giving public notice of this proposal. Public notice of Council’s intention to discontinue the unused ‘road’ and retain it for municipal purposes was given in the “Diamond Valley Leader’ on 30 July 2014, with submissions on the proposal invited in accordance with section 223 of the Act. The submission period closed on 27 August 2014. One written submission was received, which included a request to be heard before a meeting of Council. The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the written submission received and to hear from the submitter. The submitter has been invited to attend Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 6 October 2014 to be heard in support of the written submission received. 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”.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 78

4.6

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

JULINDA COURT, GREENSBOROUGH - PROPOSED DISCONTINUANCE OF UNUSED 'ROAD' - HEARING OF SUBMISSIONS cont’d

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. Section 20 provides that “A person must not be deprived of his or her property other than in accordance with law”. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues. Council has the legislative power to discontinue or remove ‘road’ status. Also, sections 207A (a) and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 provides that a person may make a submission in respect of a proposal to discontinue a ‘road’. BACKGROUND A section of Julinda Court, Greensborough, being the unused ‘road’ between 30 and 34 Paterson Crescent, Greensborough (unused ‘road’) has never been constructed as a ‘road’. The unused ‘road’ extends east from Paterson Crescent to the Plenty River as delineated in Figure 1. The unused ‘road’ is currently listed as RW452 in Council’s Road Register and is recorded as unformed.

Figure 1: Location of Unused ‘road’

CURRENT SITUATION The unused ‘road’ functions as an overland flow path for stormwater during large rainfall events and has the potential as an important dedicated walking/cycling link between off-road shared trail infrastructure and the Greensborough Activity Centre. The flooding conditions of the unused ‘road’ and land in the vicinity are well understood by Council’s Drainage Engineers, and soon to be recognised with the introduction of a flooding Special Building Overlay control in the Banyule Planning Scheme over part or whole of the unused ‘road’ and adjacent properties.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 79

4.6

HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.6

JULINDA COURT GREENSBOROUGH - PROPOSED DISCONTINUANCE OF UNUSED 'ROAD' - HEARING OF SUBMISSIONS cont’d According to Council’s Transport Engineers, the long term prospects for the unused ‘road’ to act as an important link from the Plenty River Corridor to the Greensborough Activity Centre are less understood at this time. The unused ‘road’ is a preferable alignment due to its connectivity with the Activity Centre via the local road network, as opposed to the right of way located 50 metres to the north east which has less desirable connectivity via Para Road. The unused ‘road is regularly mowed by Council’s Parks Department in order to maintain and direct the stormwater flow path.

Figure 2: Physical Characteristics of the Unused ‘Road’

The unused ‘road’ does not portray the physical characteristics of a ‘road’ as shown in the photographs in Figure 2 above. There is a set of the double gates within the side fence of 36 Paterson Crescent, Greensborough, which show little evidence of being used. See the photographs in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3: Double Gates within the Side Fence of 36 Paterson Crescent

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 80

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

JULINDA COURT, GREENSBOROUGH - PROPOSED DISCONTINUANCE OF UNUSED 'ROAD' - HEARING OF SUBMISSIONS cont’d Council at its Ordinary Meeting of 7 July 2014 (Item CO2014/203) considered a report in relation to the proposal to discontinue the unused ‘road’ and retain the resultant land for municipal purposes.

4.6

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS STATUTORY PROCEDURES Section 206 and Clause 3 of Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1989 gives Council the power to discontinue or remove ‘road’ status from roads no longer reasonably required as a ‘road’ for public use. Sections 207A (a) and 223 of that Act provides that Council must give public notice and invite submissions from the public before exercising such power. Public notice of Council’s intention to discontinue the unused ‘road’ and retain the resultant land for municipal purposes was given in the “Diamond Valley Leader’ on 30 July 2014, with submissions on the proposal invited. Section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 provides that any person may make a written submission on a proposal to discontinue a ‘road’. Any person who makes a submission incorporating a request to be heard is entitled to appear in person or to be represented by a person acting on their behalf, before a meeting of Council. SUBMISSION RECEIVED One submission was received from Clement-Stone Town Planners on behalf of an adjoining owner. The submission included a request to be heard before a meeting of Council. The submitter has been invited to attend Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 6 October 2014 to be heard in support of the written submission received. A copy of the written submission has been provided to the Councillors previously. The issues raised in the submission are paraphrased and a response outlined in the summary below.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 81

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

JULINDA COURT GREENSBOROUGH - PROPOSED DISCONTINUANCE OF UNUSED 'ROAD' - HEARING OF SUBMISSIONS cont’d Table 1: Summary of Written Submission Issue

Submission

Response

4.6

Clement-Stone Town Planners on behalf of the registered proprietors of an abutting property namely 30 Paterson Crescent, Greensborough 1.

Request to purchase a section of the unused ‘road’ immediately adjacent to their client’s property.

The current proposal is to discontinue the unused ‘road’ and retain the resultant land for municipal purposes as public access to the Plenty River and to maintain an overland flow path. The sale of land cannot be considered under the current proposal.

There is already and existing pedestrian/bike access point from Paterson Crescent onto the Plenty River Trail within 50 metres of Julinda Court.

There is an existing pedestrian/bike access point from Paterson Crescent within 50 metres of Julinda Court however it is only partially constructed and provides vehicle access to 227A Para Road.

The section of Julinda Court to the west of Paterson Crescent is sealed and already provides direct access to properties.

The constructed section of Julinda Court (west of Paterson Crescent) is not being considered for discontinuance.

There is no requirement for the proposed reserve to be 9 metres in width. It will be an expensive ongoing maintenance issue for Council.

Yarra Valley Water requires the whole of the land to be retained as overland flow path. There is a Yarra Valley Water main located in the unused ‘road’ immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of the unused ‘road’. Council already maintains the land.

It is import that no structures be constructed on the land to ensure that the path for stormwater flow is not impeded.

Service authorities have indicated that easements must be created over the whole of the land for drainage and sewerage purposes. Accordingly approval would be required for any proposal to build over easement.

DISCUSSION The current proposal is to discontinue the unused ‘road’ and retain the land for municipal purposes. The submission received raises a request to purchase the land. As previously indicated, the land from the unused ‘road’ is required for access to the Plenty River as an overland flow path for stormwater. The land cannot be offered for sale unless and until public notice of Council’s intention to sell has been given and any submissions to that proposal have been considered. It would also require the consent of relevant service authorities, which have already indicated that they would not object to the discontinuance of the unused ‘road’ provided it remains in public ownership as a reserve.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 82

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

JULINDA COURT, GREENSBOROUGH - PROPOSED DISCONTINUANCE OF UNUSED 'ROAD' - HEARING OF SUBMISSIONS cont’d

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the written submission received in respect to the proposal to discontinue the unused ‘road’ and to hear from the submitter who has made a written request to be heard before a meeting of the Council. The unused ‘road’ has been recognised as having the potential to provide future pedestrian/cycle link to the Plenty River Trail. It is considered also to be an important overland flow path for stormwater. Consequently the land from the unused ‘road’ should be retained for municipal purposes. Should the sale of the land be entertained public notice would be required to sell the land. The sale of the land cannot be considered under the current proposal. Council must consider the submission received and hear from the submitter. It is appropriate for Council to consider the discontinuance of the unused ‘road’ and its retention for municipal purposes at a future Council meeting. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1.

Note one submission, which included a request to be heard, was received in response to the public notice given pursuant to Sections 207A(a) and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 of Council’s intention to discontinue and retain for municipal purposes, the unformed section of Julinda Court, Greensborough, being the unused ‘road’ between 30 and 34 Paterson Crescent, Greensborough (unused ‘road’) also known as right of way RW452.

Determine whether or not to proceed with the discontinuance of the unused ‘road’ and to retain for municipal purposes at its Ordinary Meeting of 20 October 2014, noting one submission on the proposed discontinuance was received and that this submission was considered and the submitter heard by Council at its Ordinary Meeting of 6 October 2014.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 83

4.6

CONCLUSION

4.7

PROPOSED MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 47 LOWER PLENTY ROAD, ROSANNA

Author:

Jackie Bernoth - Acting Co-ordinator Development Planner , City Development

Ward:

Ibbott

File:

P494/2013

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposal is for the construction of an apartment development comprising of 18 dwellings in what presents as three distinct built forms. Planning approval is also required for the proposed modifications to access to a main road and for tree removal. The proposal is considered to achieve an appropriate balance between the need to provide an increase in residential density near activity centres whilst maintaining and enhancing the character of the area in which it is located. The amenity of surrounding properties is also appropriately maintained. The proposal incorporates a greater number of dwellings than that previously proposed for the site, however the apartment style of construction ensures that greater areas are provided for landscaping throughout the site, with significantly larger setbacks from both side and rear boundaries now proposed. Determination of the application was deferred at the 1 September 2014 Council meeting to provide the permit applicant with the opportunity to consider amending the proposal, and in particular a reduction in the height of sections of the building. The applicant has since confirmed that no changes would be entertained in the regard and that a decision is required on the application as presented to Council. It is recommended that the application be approved.

Planning Permit Application:

P494/2013

Development Planner:

Mrs Jackie Bernoth

Address:

47 Lower Plenty Road ROSANNA

Proposal:

Multi-dwelling development (18 Dwellings), associated vegetation removal and alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1

Existing Use/Development:

Single dwelling

Applicant:

Mr Anthony Quattrocchi

Zoning:

General Residential Zone (GRZ1)

Overlays:

Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO5)

Notification (Advertising):

Sign on site Notices to surrounding properties

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 84

4.7

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

Objections Received:

Fourteen

Ward:

Ibbott

PROPOSAL The proposal is for the construction of 18 apartment-style dwellings above a basement car park which would accommodate parking for 24 cars, 3 motor bikes and 35 bicycles. The advertised plans are included as Attachment 1 to this report. The dwellings would range in size from one to three bedrooms, with open spaces that vary from 8.1m2 balconies to ground level spaces of 137.7m2. A summary of the development is set out below: Bedrooms Lower Ground Floor Dwelling 1 3 Ground Floor Dwelling 2 3 Dwelling 3 2 Dwelling 4 2 Dwelling 5 2 Dwelling 6 2 Dwelling 13 1 Dwelling 11 2 Dwelling 12 2 Dwelling 14 2 First floor Dwelling 7 2 Dwelling 8 2 Dwelling 9 2 Dwelling 10 2 Dwelling 15 2 Dwelling 16 2 Dwelling 17 2 Dwelling 18 2 Total

Site area Dwelling Density Site Coverage Impervious Site Coverage

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Open space

Car parking spaces

94.8m2 courtyard

2 (stacker)

8.4m2 balcony 35.5m2 courtyard 69.3m2 courtyard 129.7m2 courtyard 85.1m2 courtyard 8.8m2 balcony 8.5m2 balcony 99.2m2 courtyard 156.6m2 courtyard

2 (stacker) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

12.5m2 balcony 8.1m2 balcony 9.2m2 balcony 9.2m2 balcony 8.5m2 balcony 9.2m2 balcony 137.7m2 courtyard 8.5 m2 balcony

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 resident spaces +1 surplus, 3 visitor spaces

2299m2 1:128m2 47% 62%

Page 85

4.7

PROPOSED MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 47 LOWER PLENTY ROAD, ROSANNA contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.7

PROPOSED MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 47 LOWER PLENTY ROAD, ROSANNA cont’d Whilst located within a single building with a shared basement car park, the building reads as three distinct forms, being the front two-storey component (containing three dwellings), the middle three-storey component (containing eight dwellings) and the rear three-storey component (containing seven dwellings). A minimum frontage setback of 9m is proposed to the front component, with side and rear boundary setbacks generally ranging from 4m to 6.9m, although a small single storey component is located at a setback of 2.1m from the northern boundary. The middle and rear (three storey) components of the building are proposed to have frontage setbacks of 21.8m and 48.2m respectively, with a separation of 5m between the middle and rear components. Due to the steep slope of the site from the front to the rear, the proposed basement car park is located at ground floor level at the front of the building, but 6.6m below ground at the rear. Similarly, whilst the development extends over three levels in its centre and rear, the building would present as no more than single storey in height to the rear, and between ½ storey and 2 ½ storeys in height when viewed from the side. The setback of the middle and rear components from the street mean that the development will essentially present as double storey from Lower Plenty Road. Pedestrian access to the rear building is provided via a pathway extending along the northern side of the buildings to a lobby with lift and stair access. Due to the slope of the site this pathway incorporates steps, however it is noted that access to the rear building is also available from within the basement garage via lift or stairs. The proposed design is modern contemporary with highly articulated facades and variation in materials and finishes (face brick, timber, render and Colorbond roof cladding), together with low pitched and skillion roof profiles to provide a visually interesting building with light weight upper levels. OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 requires members of Council staff, and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council, to disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates. Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. BACKGROUND/HISTORY CURRENT APPLICATION Determination of the application was deferred at the 1 September 2014 Council meeting to provide the permit applicant with the opportunity to consider amending the proposal, and in particular a reduction in the height of sections of the building. The applicant has since confirmed that no changes would be entertained and that a decision is required on the application as presented to Council.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 86

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

PROPOSED MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 47 LOWER PLENTY ROAD, ROSANNA cont’d

A previous planning application (ref: P622/10) was considered by Council for the construction of eight townhouse style dwellings on the site (six two-storey and two single-storey dwellings) arranged around a central accessway. This application was refused by Council on 6 July 2011. The permit applicant subsequently lodged an application to VCAT to review the decision and sought to substitute amended plans at the hearing. The amended plans were considered to be a transformation of the proposal and the Tribunal Member refused the request. The permit applicant consequently withdrew their application for review. The current proposal, in altering to an apartment style development, increases the number of dwellings proposed by ten, but also increases the boundary setbacks and reduces impervious surface coverage as follows: Minimum frontage setback Rear setback Northern boundary setback Southern boundary setback Open space areas provided Site coverage Impervious site coverage

Previous application 9m 1m Nil – 3.8m Nil – 2.2m

Current application 9m 5m 4m – 5.9m (4.2m wide section at 2.1m) 5m – 6.9m

34 m2 – 46 m2

8.1 m2 – 137.7 m2

43% 71%

47% 62%

It is noted that in the intervening period there have been modifications to the Neighbourhood Character Policy, with this document now reflecting the fact that higher levels of site coverage may now be considered to be acceptable in Accessible areas as opposed to those outside of accessible areas. Notwithstanding this, the proposal’s reduced impervious surface coverage and the arrangement of garden areas in larger boundary setbacks (as opposed to smaller yard areas and incidental areas adjacent to driveways) means that the current proposal incorporates significantly better opportunities for landscaping than the previous proposal.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 87

4.7

PREVIOUS APPLICATION

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

PROPOSED MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 47 LOWER PLENTY ROAD, ROSANNA cont’d

4.7

SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

Figure 1: Locality Plan

The subject site is located on the north-western side of Lower Plenty Road in Rosanna. The site has an area of 2,299m2, is rectangular in shape, and has a frontage of 30.48 metres and a depth of 75.44 metres. The site has a significant fall of approximately 11 metres from the north western corner to its south eastern corner. A single dwelling, tennis court and swimming pool occupy the site, with the dwelling set back approximately 20 metres from the street frontage. Vegetation is present around the perimeter and within the front setback. The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of single dwellings and multi-dwelling developments. Adjoining to the north-east is a set of seven single storey dwellings with courtyards abutting the review site. To the north-west is another multi-dwelling development (55 Invermay Grove) with two of the dwellings and their respective secluded private open spaces within 5.5 metres of the review site’s rear boundary. To the south-west is a two storey dwelling (45 Lower Plenty Road). To its rear are the private open space yards of dwellings facing Mount Ida Avenue (single storey dwellings with large open space areas abutting the review site). Lower Plenty Road is a main road (Road Zone, Category 1). It is a four lane road and on-street parking is permitted outside of when the road operates as a ‘clearway’ between 4:30 and 6:30pm, Monday to Friday. The site is approximately 250m from the western end of the Rosanna Neighbourhood Activity Centre and 500 metres from Rosanna Railway Station. There is also a bus stop at the front of the site which is served by bus route 517 which provides a connection to shops and services at Greensborough, various schools and Northland Shopping Centre.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 88

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

PROPOSED MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 47 LOWER PLENTY ROAD, ROSANNA cont’d

The application was notified in accordance with section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 because it was deemed that the application could cause material detriment. As a result of advertising a total of fourteen objections have been received to date. Grounds of objection are summarised as follows: AMENITY AND SAFETY           

Loss of privacy to 4 Mt Ida Avenue, 57 Invermay Grove, and 45 and 51 Lower Plenty Road; Noise from cars, air conditioning/heating units and people; Overshadowing to 4 Mt Ida Avenue, 57 Invermay Grove, Loss of sunlight to 51 Lower Plenty Road; The proposed pedestrian path is too close to 51 Lower Plenty Road and may pose a security risk to neighbours; Will be too close to the boundary with 4 Mt Ida Avenue; Impact on views from 4 Mt Ida Avenue and 57 Invermay Grove; Visual bulk to 45, 50, 51 and 52 Lower Plenty Road and 57 Invermay Grove; Conflict with bus stop; The boundary fence with 51 Lower Plenty Road needs replacing; Is there a fire plan?

CAR PARKING AND TRAFFIC     

Increased traffic and congestion; Insufficient car parking; Use of car stackers is inappropriate; Additional on-street parking makes exit from properties unsafe; Pollution due to proximity of cars and driveway to open space at 51 Lower Plenty Road;

NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER       

Will change the character of the area; Tree removal is inappropriate; May damage trees on neighbouring properties; Insufficient open space and landscaping opportunities; Site not appropriate for an apartment complex or this number of dwellings; The proposed materials and ‘box-like’ design is inappropriate; The proposal is too close to Lower Plenty Road;

MISCELLANEOUS       

What is the impact of the proposed site cut? Impact upon existing infrastructure; The proposal will not provide quality homes for families or the elderly; Design detail/ style is not appropriate; Rubbish collection; Overdevelopment of the site; and Overcrowding leads to mental health issues.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 89

4.7

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

PROPOSED MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 47 LOWER PLENTY ROAD, ROSANNA cont’d

4.7

CONSULTATION A consultation meeting was held with objectors and the local Ward Councillor on 21 May 2014. No new issues or concerns were raised at the meeting beyond that which were identified in the written objections. No resolution or agreement for amendments was achieved at this meeting. Following detailed assessment of the proposal, officers also met with the permit applicant to discuss the presentation of the proposal to the street and to the west. As a result of these discussions, the applicant supplied an updated plan and elevations for Dwellings 1 and 2 (dated 4 August 2014). These plans indicate use of a skillion roof form to the front of the dwelling, with greater articulation to the front façade. It is considered that these changes are an improvement to the streetscape presentation of the proposal, however the changes in themselves are not so significant to warrant re-advertising of the proposal. Perspectives have also been provided to assist in understanding the views available to the building from outside the site. This drawing is contained in Attachment 2 to this report. It is recommended that in supporting the application Council require the changes shown on it. REFERRAL COMMENTS The application was referred to Council’s Developments Engineers, Environmentally Sustainable Design consultant, VicRoads and Public Transport Victoria for comment. Details of their responses are contained in Attachment 3 to this report, however in summary:     

The proposed parking provision and layout is considered to be acceptable; The proposed tree removal is acceptable; Subject to appropriate tree protection conditions, Trees 22 and 23 (on site) and trees on the adjoining properties will not be negatively affected by the proposal; Additional investigation is required in order to determine the impact of the proposed works on the street tree outside the site; Some clarification is required in relation to rainwater tank sizing etc., and the way that the proposal is screened to restrict overlooking to the neighbouring properties should be considered in light of the impact of screening on the energy efficiency of dwellings

PLANNING CONTROLS Control General Residential Zone Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO5) Land Adjacent to a Road Zone Category 1

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Clause Permit Triggered? 32.08 Yes 42.02 Yes Permit required to remove Trees 4, 16, 18, 21, 28 52.29 Yes Altered access to Lower Plenty Road

Page 90

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

PROPOSED MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 47 LOWER PLENTY ROAD, ROSANNA cont’d TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION

The subject site is located in an area considered to be accessible to services and as such is identified for change. Its proximity to the Rosanna Village Activity Centre with associated parkland and community, commercial, transport facilities, along with the size of the allotment, suit it to multi-dwelling development. Clause 21.06 (Residential Areas Framework) places the site within an ‘Accessible’ Residential Area. As stated above, these areas will provide: …town house and other medium density living and some dispersed single dwellings. Some opportunities for higher density housing will also exist. These areas include strategic redevelopment sites that provide for medium density and a higher density housing component. Development must make a positive contribution to the desired future neighbourhood character, including opportunities for tree protection and planting. [Emphasis added] Whilst apartment style development has not occurred to the south of the shopping strip to date, there are numerous examples of multi dwelling development in the area, with apartment style development both within the shopping strip and to its north. This form of development in this location is clearly contemplated by the Framework, with the qualifier being that the built form must make a positive contribution to the desired future character, including opportunities for tree protection and planting. The form of the proposed development allows such opportunities, and significantly provides greater space for landscaping and greater boundary setbacks than would be accommodated in a more traditional unit development. For example, the previously refused multi dwelling development for this site included boundary setbacks that ranged from garage walls on the boundary through to a maximum setback of 3.8m, whilst development on the adjoining properties is often sited within 3m of the boundary with the subject site. By comparison, the apartment style proposed allows for a southern boundary setback which ranges between 4m and 6.9m, a 5m setback to the rear, and a 4m setback along the majority of the northern boundary. On balance, the proposal is considered to make a positive contribution to the desired future character, in the following ways: 

The presentation of the development to the street is two storeys with the three storey components positioned deeper within the site.



The setback of the built form from the frontage (9 metres) is consistent with the prevailing setback of dwellings from Lower Plenty Road and means that two substantial trees (Tree nos 22 and 23) can be retained.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 91

4.7

STRATEGIC CONTEXT

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.7

PROPOSED MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 47 LOWER PLENTY ROAD, ROSANNA cont’d 

The proposal will result in the removal of all other vegetation on the site – however, none of these trees are considered worthy of retention. In their place, a significant number of new canopy trees will be established on site including at least one new large canopy tree, four new medium canopy trees and at least fourteen small canopy trees. This exceeds the requirement to provide one medium-large tree per 400m2 of site area (i.e. 6 trees).



Site coverage is 47% which exceeds the preferred maximum of 40%. The policy does however state that this can be varied if the site is in an ‘Accessible’ area and demonstrates that that the vegetated character can be maintained. A variation in this instance is considered acceptable given the significant number of new trees that can be provided on site.



Whilst the design is contemporary in its style, the front two-storey component incorporates elements of the surrounding character such as a low pitched roof form with narrow eaves. The skillion roof forms which are located over the three storey components are set deeper within the site and would appear as recessive elements to the street. Overall the proposed built form is considered to be of a high architectural quality, is highly articulated and incorporates an appropriate mix of building materials and finishes/ colours (including face brick, timber cladding, render and Colorbond roof cladding in earthy colours).



There is one (double width) common accessway providing access into a basement garage.

Assessments of the proposal against the provisions of Clause 55 of the Planning Scheme and Council’s Neighbourhood Character Policy are included as Attachments 4 and 5 to this report. AMENITY IMPLICATIONS The proposal has been designed to minimise overlooking to the adjoining properties by means of a combination of the proposed site cut, use of highlight windows, and use of screening measures such as obscure glazing. The result is that minimal overlooking is possible into the adjoining properties. Areas that warrant additional discussion are as follows: 

There is some potential for overlooking of the adjoining properties from the north and south facing lobby and stairwell windows of the rear component of the building. These spaces are transitory in nature, and their setback from the property boundaries also reduces the potential for overlooking of the adjoining properties. It is considered that screening of these windows is not required;



The proposal includes screening of west facing windows to Dwelling 17 where these windows will in fact be screened by the existing boundary fence. It is considered that screening of these windows is not warranted, and that the internal amenity of the dwelling would be better improved through the provision of clear glass to these windows.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 92

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

The shadow diagrams submitted with the application indicate that the front and central portions of the built form would cast some additional shadow to the adjoining properties at 45 Lower Plenty Road and 4 Mt Ida Avenue at 9am on 22 September. The shadow cast is, particularly in the case of 4 Mt Ida Avenue, quite limited in extent, and no additional shadow is cast to the adjoining properties at either noon or 3pm. The extent of overshadowing proposed is well within the range that is considered to be acceptable by ResCode. It should also be noted that the shadow diagrams indicate the line of shadow cast on the ground, and that the elevated deck and windows at 47 Lower Plenty Road would be unlikely to experience any overshadowing at 9am at the equinox. TREE IMPLICATIONS The proposal incorporates the removal of a total of 25 trees from the site, with the retention of Trees 22 and 23 within the frontage setback. Council’s arborist has advised that these trees, along with those on the adjoining properties, can be retained as proposed, provided that they are appropriately protected during construction works. Of the trees proposed for removal, Trees 4, 16, 18, 21 and 28 are protected by the Vegetation Protection Overlay. The applicant’s arborist describes them as follows: No. 4

Species Melaleuca stypehelioides Prickly-leaved paperbark

Height 8m

Width 6m

Acmena smithii Lilly Pilly

Syzygium austral Scrub Cherry

11m

Syzygium austral Scrub Cherry

Melaleuca linariifolia Snow in Summer

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Rating and Comment Low Multiple stems with structurally defective attachment Low Structurally defective primary limb attachment, developed in sheltered position Low Structurally defective primary and subordinate limb attachments, developed in sheltered position Low Structurally defective primary and subordinate limb attachments, developed in sheltered position Low Multiple limb failure, canopy separation, structurally defective primary limb attachments

Page 93

4.7

PROPOSED MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 47 LOWER PLENTY ROAD, ROSANNA cont’d

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.7

PROPOSED MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 47 LOWER PLENTY ROAD, ROSANNA cont’d As confirmed by Council’s arborist, the removal of these trees is acceptable. However, to allow for the treed character of the area to be maintained in the mediumlong term it is necessary to provide appropriate replacement planting. The landscape concept/tree planting zone plan provided with the application indicates the provision of an additional one large, six medium and 14 small trees on the land. This provision would appear to be largely achievable, and is considered to be acceptable response to the Neighbourhood Character Policy’s desire to achieve the planting of six medium-large trees on the land, with a preference for larger trees and at least one large tree in the front setback. However, improvements in the size of trees (and in particular their canopy spread) are to be encouraged through the provision of a detailed landscape plan. Use of species with spreading canopies, rather than a hedge, along the northern boundary should be specifically investigated. This can be required by permit condition. TRAFFIC AND PARKING IMPLICATIONS The proposal incorporates the provision of 24 parking spaces, 21 of which would be allocated to the dwellings and 3 for visitors. In addition, three motorbike and 35 bicycle parking spaces are indicated. This provision compares favourably with the planning scheme requirement for:   

20 parking spaces for residents 3 parking spaces for visitors No bicycle parking spaces

It is considered that the proposed parking provision is acceptable, particularly having regard to the site’s proximity to public transport and other services. Lower Plenty Road is a main road, and the additional traffic generated by the proposal (in the order of 170 vehicle movements a day) will not be noticeable to users of that roadway. ADDITIONAL OBJECTOR CONCERNS The majority of objector concerns have been addressed above and in the attached Neighbourhood Character and Clause 55 assessments. However comment in relation to additional matters is as follows: 

The proposed pedestrian walkway is located at and below natural ground level, and will not present either a security or privacy risk to the adjoining property.



It is a longstanding planning principle that there is no statutory right to a view in a suburban context. The proposal will potentially alter the outlook from adjoining properties, however it is considered that the height and location of the building is not so significant to be considered to be enclosing as viewed from those properties. This is particularly the case from those properties who have raised it as an issue: o o

The rear yard of 4 Mt Ida Avenue is located directly adjacent to the 5m space between the central and rear built forms; The property correctly known as 55 Invermay Grove (referred to as No. 57 by the objectors) is located to the rear, where the built form presents as no more than 1 ½ storeys in height, and at a setback of 5m from the boundary; and

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 94

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

The dwelling at 45 Lower Plnety Road is elevated above the subject site, and whilst the proposed built form largely presents as 1 – ½ storeys in height when viewed from that property, the proposal is in fact lower than the existing dwelling on that property, which would retain views over the site towards Rosanna Village.

In this context also, the concern that overcrowding and an associated loss of outlook causes mental health issues would appear to be unfounded. 

The replacement of boundary fences is a matter to be negotiated between property owners, and does not form part of consideration of a planning application.



It is noted that the site is not subject to risk of bushfire. However, all residents are encouraged by fire authorities to have a fire plan. This would be a matter for any body corporate or individual occupiers to consider.



The plans indicate site cut for the basement which is located well inside the property, with additional site works appearing to also be proposed approximately 1.5m from the boundary in the rear section of the site. This is not fully documented in the proposed plans. Any landscape plan should include details of finished surface levels and any retaining walls. These would need to be appropriately designed and the relevant building permit obtained for them, at which point the ability of the retaining walls to perform the desired function would be assessed.

CONCLUSION The proposed development is consistent with State and Local Planning Policies, including Council’s Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy and complies with Clause 55 of the Banyule Planning Scheme. As such, the application should be supported with appropriate conditions. RECOMMENDATION That Council having complied with Section 52, 58, 60, 61 and 62 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, resolve to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit in respect of Application No. P494/2013 for a multi-dwelling development (18 dwellings), associated vegetation removal and alteration of access to a Road Zone, Category 1 at 47 Lower Plenty Road ROSANNA subject to the following conditions: Plans (1)

Modifications to the layout and façade presentation of Dwellings 1 and 2, generally in accordance with the discussion plan provided to Council on 4 August 2014;

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 95

4.7

PROPOSED MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 47 LOWER PLENTY ROAD, ROSANNA cont’d

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

4.7

PROPOSED MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 47 LOWER PLENTY ROAD, ROSANNA contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d (b)

The southern elevation modified to indicate the south facing window of Dwelling 17;

(c)

The north elevation or the floor plan of Dwelling 15 altered to accord with one another with respect to the living area windows of that dwelling;

(d)

Deletion of the proposed obscure glazing to the lower sections of the west facing windows of Dwelling 17, with these panes replaced with clear glazing;

(e)

Siting and dimensions of external heating/ cooling units for each dwelling, as required.

(f)

Details of ventilation systems within the basement garage annotated on the plans.

(g)

Details of any over-bonnet storage or otherwise (minimum 6m3) provided for each dwelling.

(h)

All balconies fully dimensioned and complying with minimum requirements Clause 55, Standard B28 (Private open space) of the Banyule Planning Scheme.

(i)

Details of any lift overruns shown on the plans.

(j)

Landscaping as required by Condition 2 of this permit.

(k)

The Tree Preservation Fencing in accordance with Condition 12 of this permit.

(l)

A Waste Management Plan in accordance with Condition 14 of this permit.

(m)

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

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

(ii)

The connection to the Council nominated legal point of discharge.

Note: The Engineering plans must show all protected and/or retained trees on the development site, on adjoining properties where tree canopies encroach the development site and along proposed outfall drainage and roadway alignments (where applicable) and every effort must be made to locate services away from the canopy drip line of trees and where unavoidable, details of hand work or trenchless installation must be provided. (2)

Details of the proposed finished surface levels and associated site cut and fill, retaining walls and batters. It is anticipated that this will include the provision of sections through the site;

(b)

Details of planting throughout the site.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 96

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

(c)

The identification of existing vegetation (which is not intended to be removed), and nomination of vegetation for removal throughout the site

(d)

Provision of formed garden beds with edging around the landscape zone within the front setback to prevent cars parking within those areas.

(e)

Planting adjacent to driveways and within landscaping zones to consist of varying heights and species.

(f)

Provision of canopy trees including at least two new large canopy trees (one in the front setback and one along the southern side of the development) (mature height of +13m), four new medium canopy trees (mature height of at least 8m to 12m) and at least twelve small canopy trees (mature height of at least 5m to 8m), with a predominance of trees with spreading, rather than fastigiated forms. Note: Tree planting zones are to have sufficient area to accommodate the trees required (refer to the ‘Banyule City Council Tree Planting Zone Guidelines, January 2011). Trees must also be planted at a semiadvanced state (minimum pot size 40 litre).

(g)

An indigenous and/or drought tolerant planting theme.

(h)

(i)

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

General (3)

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

(4)

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

Car Parking / Access (5)

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 97

4.7

PROPOSED MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 47 LOWER PLENTY ROAD, ROSANNA cont’d

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.7

PROPOSED MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 47 LOWER PLENTY ROAD, ROSANNA cont’d (6)

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

(7)

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

Tree Protection / Landscaping (8)

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

(9)

Any underground service installations within a Tree Protection Zone must be bored to a depth of at least 600mm.

(10) Prior to the commencement of construction, the project arborist must undertake or coordinate an exploratory dig along the line of the proposed crossover nearest to Tree #24, and contact council’s development planning arborists to arrange an inspection. Once the tree roots have been exposed, roots are to be cleanly severed and further maintenance requirements are to be identified and scheduled. (11) Where decking is proposed within the TPZ of any retained tree, any and all excavations for posts must be undertaken by hand under the supervision of the project arborist, and final post locations must be set away from structural roots. Furthermore, the decking must be constructed using the minimum number of piers necessary, and so that gaps between boards are no more or less than 6mm in width. (12) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, prior to the commencement of works (including demolition) on the site Tree Preservation Zones must be established around Trees 10, 13, 14, 22-26, and #2. You must contact Council’s Development Planning Arborist on 9457 9808 once the Tree Preservation Fencing is erected so that an inspection of the fencing can be carried out. Once installed and inspected the Tree Preservation Zones must be maintained until the conclusion of works to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, and meet the following requirements:

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 98

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

PROPOSED MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 47 LOWER PLENTY ROAD, ROSANNA cont’d Extent Tree Preservation Zones are to be provided to the extent of the TPZ where it occurs within the subject property of all trees indicated as being retained on the endorsed plan. The fencing can be realigned and suitable ground protection provided to allow the approved construction therein only to the satisfaction of the project arborist and only when approved by the Responsible Authority. (b)

Management of works A suitably qualified arborist must supervise or undertake all approved activity within the calculated TPZ of a retained tree. Any root severance within the TPZ must be undertaken to their satisfaction using a clean sharp and sterilised pruning saw. All and any excavations within the TPZ of retained trees must be undertaken by hand or by approved nondestructive techniques suitable in the vicinity of trees.

(c)

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

(d)

Fencing (i) (ii) (iii)

(e)

Protective fencing must consist of chain wire mesh panels with shade cloth attached, held in place with concrete feet. The fences must not be removed or relocated without the prior consent of the Responsible Authority. Canopy and Limb protection must be provided in accordance with the guidelines detailed in AS4970-2009 Protection of Trees on Development Sites.

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

(f)

Irrigation The area must be irrigated during the summer months with 5 litres of clean water for every 1 cm of trunk girth measured at the soil / trunk interface on a monthly basis during summer (or a percentage thereof equivalent to the percentage of TPZ area occurring within the subject site).

(g)

Access to Tree Preservation Zone (i) (ii)

(iii)

No persons, vehicles or machinery are to enter the Vegetation Protection Zone except with the consent of the Responsible Authority; No fuel, oil dumps or chemicals are allowed to be used or stored within the Vegetation Preservation Zone and the servicing and refuelling of equipment and vehicles must be carried out away from the root zones; No storage of material, equipment or temporary building is to take place within the Vegetation Preservation Zone;

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 99

4.7

(a)

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

PROPOSED MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 47 LOWER PLENTY ROAD, ROSANNA cont’d (iv)

Nothing whatsoever, including temporary services wires, nails, screws or any other fixing device, is to be attached to any tree.

4.7

Note: Requests for consent of the Responsible Authority (City of Banyule) pursuant to this Condition should be directed to Council’s Arborist – Development Planning on 9457 9808. Consent for the conduct of further works within the Tree Protection Zone, where granted, may be subject to conditions. Such conditions may include a requirement that:  Any underground service installations within the Tree Protection Zone be bored to a depth of at least 0.6 metres;  All root excavation be carried out by hand digging or with the use of ‘Air-Excavation’ techniques; 

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

Or other conditions, as relevant, to ensure the ongoing health and stability of the subject tree/s. (13) All and any tree pruning is to be carried out by a trained and competent arborist who has a thorough knowledge of tree physiology and pruning methods. Pruning must be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard AS43732007 Pruning of Amenity Trees. Tree pruning is to be restricted to the removal of no greater than 15% of the total live canopy of individual trees. Rubbish Collection (14) The development permitted by this permit must not be commenced until a satisfactory Waste Management Plan is submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Such plan must be prepared by a person suitably qualified or experienced in landscape design and shall include: (a)

Dimensions of waste areas.

(b)

The number of bins to be provided and capacity.

(c)

Details on method and frequency of cleaning and maintenance of waste areas.

(d)

Details of ventilation.

(e)

Details of unwanted goods storage.

(f)

Method of waste and recyclables collection including the need to provide for private services or utilisation of Council services.

(g)

Hours of waste and recyclables collection.

(h)

Measures to minimise impact upon local residential amenity.

(i)

Method of presentation of bins for waste collection.

(j)

Strategies for how the generation of waste and recyclables from the development will be minimised.

(k)

If waste is to arrive in the basement level refuse room via a chute system details as to how waste will be sorted into hard and recycling waste to ensure minimal landfill results.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 100

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

PROPOSED MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 47 LOWER PLENTY ROAD, ROSANNA cont’d Details as to how prospective purchasers will be made aware that all refuse and recycling collection for the property shall be provided internally by a private contractor at the expense of the owner of the land.

When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit and must be complied with at all times. Waste collection from the development must be in accordance with the plan, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. VicRoads (15) The crossover and driveway are to be constructed to the satisfaction of the VicRoads and the Responsible Authority and at no cost to VicRoads prior to the commencement of the use or the occupation of the works hereby approved. (16) All disused or redundant vehicle crossings must be removed and the area reinstated to the satisfaction of and at no cost to VicRoads. Public Transport Victoria (17) The permit holder must take all reasonable steps to ensure that disruption to bus operations along Lower Plenty Road is kept to a minimum during the construction of the development. Foreseen disruptions to bus operations and mitigation measures must be communicated to Public Transport Victoria fourteen days (14) prior. (18) The existing bus stop associated infrastructure on Lower Plenty Road must not be altered without the prior consent of Public Transport Victoria. Any alterations including temporary works or damage during construction must be rectified to the satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria and at the cost of the permit holder. Time Limits (19) In accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies: 

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



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

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

Before the permit expires, or

(b)

Within six months afterwards, or

(c)

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

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 101

4.7

(l)

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

PROPOSED MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 47 LOWER PLENTY ROAD, ROSANNA cont’d Permit Notes (A)

Expiry of Permit

4.7

Building Permit Required Building Permit must be obtained prior to the commencement of any works associated with the proposed development.

(C)

Building over Easements No structure shall be built over any easement on the subject land except with the consent of the relevant Responsible Authority.

(D)

(E)

Street Numbering Please note that property addresses are allocated by Council. This is usually formalised at the time of the issue of a certified plan, however it is Council’s intention to number the proposed allotments as follows: Front Building Dwelling 1 Dwelling 2 Dwelling 3 Dwelling 4 Dwelling 5 Dwelling 6 Dwelling 7 Dwelling 8 Dwelling 9 Dwelling 10 Dwelling 13

– – – – – – – – – – –

1/47 Lower Plenty Road, Rosanna 2/47 Lower Plenty Road, Rosanna 3/47 Lower Plenty Road, Rosanna 4/47 Lower Plenty Road, Rosanna 5/47 Lower Plenty Road, Rosanna 6/47 Lower Plenty Road, Rosanna 7/47 Lower Plenty Road, Rosanna 8/47 Lower Plenty Road, Rosanna 9/47 Lower Plenty Road, Rosanna 10/47 Lower Plenty Road, Rosanna 11/47 Lower Plenty Road, Rosanna

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 102

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

PROPOSED MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 47 LOWER PLENTY ROAD, ROSANNA cont’d Rear Building

(F)

– – – – – – –

12/47 Lower Plenty Road, Rosanna 13/47 Lower Plenty Road, Rosanna 14/47 Lower Plenty Road, Rosanna 15/47 Lower Plenty Road, Rosanna 16/47 Lower Plenty Road, Rosanna 17/47 Lower Plenty Road, Rosanna 18/47 Lower Plenty Road, Rosanna

4.7

Dwelling 11 Dwelling 12 Dwelling 14 Dwelling 15 Dwelling 16 Dwelling 17 Dwelling 18

Memorandum of Consent for Works Council’s Construction Department must supervise all works undertaken on Council assets within private property, Council Reserves, easements, drainage reserves and/or road reserves, including connection of the internal drainage system to the existing Council assets. Prior to the commencement of any works, an application must be made and a permit received for:  A “Memorandum of Consent for Works” for any works within the road reserve; and/or  A “Drainage Connection Permit” for any works other than within a road reserve.

(G)

Building Site Code of Practice All construction works must comply with the requirements of the ‘Building Site Code of Practice – Banyule City Council’. A copy of the Code is available on the Banyule City Council website or at Council Service Centres.

(H)

VicRoads The proposed development requires the construction of a new crossover and reinstatement of disused crossovers to kerb and channel. Separate approval under the Road Management Act for this activity may be required from VicRoads. Please contact VicRoads prior to commencing any works. Traffic management plan shall be submitted to VicRoads for consent at least 15 days prior to the commencement of any works on the road reserve. No traffic management devices are to be erected until VicRoads issues authorisation for the erection of those devices in accordance with the traffic management plan. Work site traffic management practices on Lower Plenty Road must be in accordance with “Road Management Act 2004 – Worksite Safety Traffic Management – Code of Practice” and Australian Standard AS 1742.3 - 2009 “Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices – Part 3: Traffic Control Devices for Works on Roads”. If traffic congestion becomes excessive at anytime, the contractor must undertake measures to ease congestion.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 103

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

PROPOSED MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AT 47 LOWER PLENTY ROAD, ROSANNA cont’d

4.7

ATTACHMENTS No.

Title

Advertised plans

273

Modified plan 4 August 2014

287

Additional background information

289

4 5

Clause 55 Assessment Neighbourhood Character Policy Assessment

292 297

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page

Page 104

5.1

PROPOSED LEASE OF PART OF CHELSWORTH PARK TO IVANHOE GRAMMAR SCHOOL- REPORT ON SUBMISSIONS

Author: Tom Zappulla - Leisure Facilities, Place & Partnership Co-Ordinator, Community Programs File:

BS28/015/055

Previous Items Council on 16 July 2012 (Item 12.2 - Proposed Lease of Part of Chelsworth Park to Ivanhoe Grammar School) Council on 21 October 2013 (Item 11.1 - Chelsworth Park and Proposed Lease with Ivanhoe Grammar School) Council on 18 November 2013 (Item 4.5 - Chelsworth Park and Proposed Leases with Ivanhoe Grammar School) Council on 16 December 2013 (Item 5.2 - Chelsworth Park Lease) Council on 4 August 2014 (Item 4.2 - Public Notice advertising period of the proposed Lease of Part of Chelsworth Park to Ivanhoe Grammar School) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Following the resolution of Council in July 2012 Council Officers have been negotiating a lease proposal with The Ivanhoe Grammar School in respect of the Council-owned land, tennis courts and improvements known as Chelsworth Park located at 18-28 Irvine Road, Ivanhoe. Council authorised officers to give public notice of Council’s intention to enter into a proposed lease with The Ivanhoe Grammar School. The giving of public notice provides the opportunity for members of the public to make a written submission in relation to the lease. Council is required, under section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989, to hear and give consideration to any submissions received in relation to the proposed lease at a future meeting of the Council. In August 2014 Council advertised its intention to enter into a proposed lease with The Ivanhoe Grammar School in The Heidelberg Leader and on Councils website. The public were able to view the proposed lease between 12 August - 9 September 2014 on Council’s web site and at Council’s Customer Service Centres. The submission period was extended by 10 days and closed on 19 September. Council received a total of 65 submissions by this time. Thirty-eight (38) submissions in support of the proposed lease and twenty-seven (27) submissions against the proposed lease have been received. All submission writers are Banyule residents and four (4) submitters have elected to speak on behalf of their submissions. A summary of all submissions is included in Attachment One. Following the formal hearing of submissions, Council officers will prepare a report and recommendation, having regard to all of the submissions received and present to Council for a decision in relation to the proposed lease of part of Chelsworth Park to The Ivanhoe Grammar School.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 105

5.1

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

PROPOSED LEASE OF PART OF CHELSWORTH PARK TO IVANHOE GRAMMAR SCHOOL- REPORT ON SUBMISSIONS cont’d

5.1

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 “promote and support health and wellbeing”. BACKGROUND Banyule City Council has a current lease arrangement with The Ivanhoe Grammar School (IGS) for the six playing surfaces and two club houses located at Chelsworth Park which expires in November 2014. In July 2012, Council resolved (Resolution CO2012/212) to negotiate a new twenty (20) year lease (with a further ten (10) year option) with the IGS. A number of reports and briefings in relation to the lease with IGS have been presented since this date. A Chelsworth Park Information Sheet was distributed to the community in September 2013 outlining Council’s intention to re-new the lease with IGS, provided information about the Storm Water Harvesting Project and also included information regarding the Ivanhoe Golf Course and Chelsworth Park Tennis Club. A petition (484 signatures) regarding the lease of Chelsworth Park to IGS was submitted by members of the community at the Council Meeting on the 7 October 2013 requesting full disclosure of financial commitments by IGS as well as disclosing to the community the lease details and park management in the future. Financial details regarding the lease between Council and IGS was made available at the Council Meeting in November 2013. In December 2013, Council endorsed a proposed Community Meeting scheduled for 19 February 2014. Petition signatories and key representatives from Chelsworth Park sporting clubs were invited and a second Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) document was distributed to all petition signatories and resident club representatives prior to the meeting. The information session was held at The Centre Ivanhoe and forty (40) people attended. During the session, community members raised further issues for Council to consider during the preparation of the proposed lease. A summary outlining the concerns raised and further explanation in relation to how the key issues will be addressed was presented to Council in August 2014.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 106

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

PROPOSED LEASE OF PART OF CHELSWORTH PARK TO IVANHOE GRAMMAR SCHOOL- REPORT ON SUBMISSIONS cont’d

Authorise the giving of public notice, pursuant to section 190 of the Local Government Act 1989, of its intention to enter into a 20 year lease with The Ivanhoe Grammar School in respect of the Council-owned land, tennis courts and improvements known as Chelsworth Park located at 18-28 Irvine Road, Ivanhoe.

Consider any submissions received in accordance with section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 at a future meeting of the Council.

Officers advertised Council’s intention to enter into a proposed lease with The Ivanhoe Grammar School in The Heidelberg Leader and on Councils website. The proposed leased was initially advertised from 13 August 2014 closing 9 September 2014. Due to community requests seeking further time allowing submissions, Council extended the advertising period for the proposed lease, closing on 19 September 2014. A further Frequently Asked Question document was distributed during the public notice period outlining the key issues within the proposed lease and informing the community how they can engage in the process during the public notice period. Locality Plan

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.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 107

5.1

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 4 August 2014 Council resolved to:

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

PROPOSED LEASE OF PART OF CHELSWORTH PARK TO IVANHOE GRAMMAR SCHOOL- REPORT ON SUBMISSIONS cont’d

5.1

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS Section 190 of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act) provides that Council must give public notice of its intention to enter into a Lease. At its Ordinary Meeting of 4 August 2014 Council authorised officers to give public notice of its intention to enter into a lease with IGS. Public Notice was given in the “Heidelberg Leader” on 12 August 2014. Pursuant to section 223 of the Act Council must invite submissions from the public and provide the opportunity for submitters, who include in their submission a request to be heard in support of their submission, to be heard before a meeting of Council. SUBMISSIONS Sixty-five (65) submissions were received in response to the public notice given. 57% of the submissions received were supportive and 43% were not supportive. A summary of the submissions received is included in Attachment One. Councillors have received copies of all submissions. All submitters are Banyule residents and four submitters have elected to be heard in favour of their submission in accordance with the provisions of S223 of the Act. The names of each submitter seeking to be heard have been provided to the Chair for the purpose of the meeting. Following consideration of submissions, Council will determine the outcome of the proposed lease at an Ordinary Meeting to be determined. CONCLUSION The process under section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 has provided an opportunity for the community to provide submissions in relation to the proposed lease. At the Council Meeting on 6 October 2014, Council will be hearing from those persons who have asked to speak in support of their submissions. Following the hearing of submissions, Council officers will prepare a further report and recommendation, having regard to all of the submissions received and present this further report to Council for a decision in relation to the proposed lease of part of Chelsworth Park to Ivanhoe Grammar School. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1.

Receives and notes the submissions in respect of Council’s intention to lease the land and buildings at 18-24 Irvine Road Ivanhoe, known as Chelsworth Park (Land) to The Ivanhoe Grammar School (School) in accordance with section 190 and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 108

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

At its Ordinary Meeting of Council [date to be determined] determine an outcome in relation to the proposed lease of the Land to the Ivanhoe Grammar School, noting sixty-five (65) submissions on the proposed lease have been received and that these submissions were considered and submitters heard by Council at its Ordinary Meeting on 6 October 2014.

5.1

PROPOSED LEASE OF PART OF CHELSWORTH PARK TO IVANHOE GRAMMAR SCHOOL- REPORT ON SUBMISSIONS cont’d

ATTACHMENTS No.

Title

Proposed Chelsworth Park Lease Submission Summary

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 303

Page 109

5.2

WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION'S -GLOBAL NETWORK OF AGE FRIENDLY CITIES MEMBERSHIP

Author:

Catherine Simcox - Community Planning Consultant, Community Programs

File:

F2014/311

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The World Health Organisation's (WHO) Age-friendly Cities program is an international effort to help cities prepare for the rapid ageing of populations and increasing urbanisation. The program targets the environmental, social and economic factors that influence the health and wellbeing of older people. Due to widespread interest a Global Network of Age–friendly Cities has been established. Membership to this Network would support Banyule’s continual improvement in enhancing the lives of older people. To also assist in the strategic planning for older people in Banyule, it is recommended that an Older Persons Advisory Committee be established. 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 2006, WHO brought together 33 cities in 22 countries for a project to help determine the key elements of the urban environment that support active and healthy ageing. The result was a framework for assessing the age-friendliness of a city. A core aspect of this approach was to include older people as active participants in the process. The guide identifies eight domains of city life that might influence the health and quality of life of older people, they are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Outdoor spaces and buildings Transportation Housing Social participation Respect and social inclusion Civic participation and employment

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 110

5.2

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION'S -GLOBAL NETWORK OF AGE FRIENDLY CITIES MEMBERSHIP cont’d Communication and information Community support and health services.

WHO established the WHO Global Network of Age-friendly Cities (the Network) to link participating cities to WHO and to each other. Today, there are approximately 115 members from across 20 countries. The Network facilitates the exchange of information and best practices and provides technical support and training. The Network provides opportunities for partnerships with other cities and fosters interventions that are appropriate, sustainable and cost-effective for improving the lives of older people. 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 Banyule City Council does not have a strategic plan on older people. An Age-friendly City Plan 2015- 2018 will be developed and presented to Council for consideration by mid-2015. It will include a whole of Council approach and will consider the eight domains of city life as identified by the WHO. FUNDING IMPLICATIONS There is no membership cost involved in being part of the Network. To join, Council must complete an application form and submit a letter from the Mayor to WHO indicating Banyule’s commitment to the cycle of continual improvement. The development of the Banyule Age-friendly City Plan 2015-2018 will use funds from Health & Aged Services budget. Existing funds will also be used to support the establishment of an Older Persons Advisory Committee. CONSULTATION There will be a variety of opportunities for Residents, Community Organisations, Agencies and Service providers to inform, engage and contribute to the development of the Age-friendly City Plan 2015- 2018. An Older Persons Advisory Committee should be established. The initial terms of reference would be for the development of the Plan. Following Council’s adoption of the Plan the terms of reference will be reviewed along with membership to the Committee. The Committee will consist of up to 15 members and will include representation from Council, Residents, Community Organisations, Agencies and Service providers who have a focus on provision of services to older people in Banyule and Community Groups.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 111

5.2

7. 8.

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

5.2

WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION'S -GLOBAL NETWORK OF AGE FRIENDLY CITIES MEMBERSHIP cont’d The Network has a checklist of essential age-friendly city features. The checklist is a tool for a city to self-assess and a map for charting progress. The WHO suggests that older people help in assessing the city’s strengths and deficiencies and that they should play a role in suggesting changes and in implementing and monitoring improvements. This tool will be used as part of Banyule’s strategic planning process into older people. DISCUSSION Councils participating in the Network commit to a cycle of continually assessing and improving their age-friendliness. The WHO suggests a five year cycle involving planning, implementation, evaluation and continual improvement. We would suggest that Banyule’s initial plan be three years to coincide with the national older person reform implementation dates. Being part of the Network will allow Banyule to link with Cities from across Australia and around the world to exchange information and access technical guidance on improving the lives of older people. A city may remain a member of the Network for as long as it demonstrates continual improvement against its developed indicators. Refer to Attachment 1 for the WHO Global Network of Age-friendly Cities Brochure. CONCLUSION City of Banyule does not have a strategic plan to address the changing needs of older people. The WHO Global Network of Age-friendly Cities supports the exchange of information and best practices targeting the environmental, social and economic factors that influence the health and wellbeing of older people. To become a member, Council needs to commit to a cycle of continually assessing and improving their age-friendliness. This will happen through the development and implementation of the Banyule Age-friendly City Plan 2015-2018. Banyule’s application for membership to the WHO Global Network of Age-friendly Cities will demonstrate to residents and the global community that Banyule values older people and their safe participation in our community. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1.

Support an application to be a member of the Global Network of Age-friendly Cities.

Support the establishment of an Older Persons Advisory Committee that will oversee the development of Banyule’s Age-friendly City Plan.

ATTACHMENTS No.

Title

WHO Global Network of Age-friendly Cities Brochure

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 345

Page 112

5.3

PROPOSED LEASE FOR SHOP 48 THE MALL, WEST HEIDELBERG, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMUNITY INFORMATION AND SUPPORT SERVICES

Author:

Giovanna Failla - Manager Youth & Family Services, Community Programs

Ward:

Olympia

File:

F2014/2005

Previous Items Council on 22 April 2013 (Item 2.1 - Relocation of Banyule Support and Information Centre (BANSIC)) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Following a review of several Council funded community services Council resolved to move to an integrated regional community information and support service to maximise efficiency, reduce duplication and address priority need. The Mall, Heidelberg West, was determined as the best location for an information services hub and that a shop be identified as the possible relocation site. Following protracted negotiations, ‘in principle’ agreement has been reached on terms and conditions for a proposed lease. The lease proposal provides for an initial term of nine (9) years and nine (9) months with options for two (2) further terms of five (5) years each. The obligation to pay rental commences on 1 July 2016 effectively giving Council a rent free period of twenty (20) months i.e. from 1 October 2014 until 30 June 2016. The commencing rental has been fixed at $80,000 per annum is to be indexed annually by CPI. Sections 190 and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 do not apply because Council is not granting a lease. This proposal delivers on Council’s priorities around fiscal responsibility and partnerships by leveraging both community and business partnerships toward realising and delivering maximum social and financial dividends to the community. Council should support the proposal to enter into the lease with Gilmour’s Pty Ltd in respect to the leasing of Shop 48 The Mall, Heidelberg West, by ratifying the proposal and resolving to affix Council’s common seal to the lease. 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 - 6 October 2014

Page 113

5.3

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

PROPOSED LEASE FOR SHOP 48 THE MALL, WEST HEIDELBERG, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMUNITY INFORMATION AND SUPPORT SERVICES cont’d CITY PLAN

5.3

This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “encourage diverse and inclusive community participation”. BACKGROUND On the 22nd April, 2013 Council resolved (CO2013/121) to undertake a review of Banyule Support and Information Centre (BANSIC), Volunteers of Banyule (VOB) and Diamond Valley Community Service (DVCS) as part of its accountability both towards the community and for its effective use of resources. On the 29 January and 10 February 2014 respectively, Council officers presented to Councillors the key findings of the review with the recommendation to move to an integrated regional community information and support service to maximise efficiency, reduce duplication and address priority need. The recommendation also proposed there to initially be three satellite service hubs; retaining the existing DVCS Greensborough and VOB Heidelberg sites and leasing a new site at Heidelberg West replacing the existing BANSIC leased site in Heidelberg. Rationale for Heidelberg West Hub The rationale for determining Heidelberg West, The Mall specifically as the best location for an information services hub was in response to a number of drivers. In 2009 the Bell Street Mall Urban Design Framework (UDF) and Master Plan was adopted by Council (Resolution FPOC.61 23/11/2009), as the culmination of a comprehensive community consultation exercise. The master plan includes a proposed community hub, with the following principle guiding its development: “The whole community will feel welcome and safe in a place that has been designed to enrich the community.” Through partnerships, elements of the community hub have been delivered (The Mall business incubator – digiDECL; the Olympia Housing Initiative Our Hub skilling and IT hub on Oriel Road). There is still a need for an information and support hub. Heidelberg West is classified as a highly disadvantaged area and culturally diverse. As part of a broader community plan to develop the community to become more selfsufficient and resilient, locating community information and support services in this area is a valuable resource. LOCALITY PLAN Various site options in the Heidelberg West area were investigated, with proposals presented to a Council Briefing in March and May 2014 respectively. The leasing of Shop 48 The Mall, Heidelberg West was determined to be the preferred option.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 114

Participation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Community Involvement in Community Life

5.3

PROPOSED LEASE FOR SHOP 48 THE MALL, WEST HEIDELBERG, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMUNITY INFORMATION AND SUPPORT SERVICES contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d

This preferred option required an upfront capital allocation of $400,000 to undertake refurbishment works to make the space fit for purpose, with a forward plan returning to Council the full allocation (in cash and in-kind) within 4 years, with a further ongoing income stream for Council. The required budget was allocated for in the 2014/15 financial year. It is anticipated that the Hub space at Shop 48 The Mall could also support the colocation of other services such as a much needed Food Share service for the southern end of Banyule, Banyule Housing and Support, and further support social enterprise opportunities such as Car Boot Sales generating further income and reinvigorating The Mall activity centre. 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. LEGAL CONSIDERATION The lease provides for an initial term of nine (9) years and nine (9) months with options for two (2) further terms of five (5) years each. The obligation to pay rental commences on 1 July 2016 effectively giving Council a rent free period of twenty (20) months i.e. from 1 October 2014 until 30 June 2016. The commencing rental has been fixed at $80,000 per annum is to be indexed annually by CPI. Sections 190 and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 do not apply because Council is not granting a lease.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 115

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

PROPOSED LEASE FOR SHOP 48 THE MALL, WEST HEIDELBERG, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMUNITY INFORMATION AND SUPPORT SERVICES cont’d

5.3

FUNDING IMPLICATIONS Various site options in the Heidelberg West area were investigated, with proposals presented to a Council Briefing in March and May 2014 respectively. The leasing of shop 48 The Mall, Heidelberg West, was determined to be the preferred option. This preferred option requires an upfront capital allocation of $400,000 to undertake refurbishment works to make the space fit for purpose, with a forward plan returning to Council the full allocation (in cash and in-kind) within four (4) years, with a further ongoing income stream for Council. The required budget was allocated for in the 2014/15 financial year. It is anticipated that the Hub space at Shop 48 The Mall could also support the colocation of other services such as a much needed Food Share service for the southern end of Banyule, Banyule Housing and Support, and further support social enterprise opportunities such as Car Boot Sales generating further income and reinvigorating The Mall activity centre. CONCLUSION This proposal delivers on Council’s priorities around fiscal responsibility and partnerships by leveraging both community and business partnerships toward realising and delivering maximum social and financial dividends to the community. Consequently, the proposal to enter into the lease with Gilmours Pty Ltd in respect to the leasing of Shop 48 The Mall, Heidelberg West, should be supported. RECOMMENDATION That the Common Seal of the Banyule City Council be affixed to the Lease between Gilmour’s Pty Ltd and Banyule City Council in respect of the lease of Shop 48 The Mall, Heidelberg West, for a term nine (9 ) years and nine (9) months with options for two (2) further terms of five (5) years. 1.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 116

6.1

CONTRACT NO. 1212/1017 - NATURAL GAS & ASSOCIATED SERVICES TO ALL SITES

Author:

David McCutcheon - Senior Contracts Officer, Corporate Services

File:

1212/1017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Banyule City Council has contracted AGL Sales Pty Ltd (AGL) through a Procurement Australia (PA) contract (1212/1017) for four (4) years to 31 March 2014 for the provision of natural gas to its large and small sites. Council endorsement is sought to extend the contract for two (2) years from 1 April 2014 until 31 March 2016 at an estimated cost of $300,000 ($150,000 per annum). Since WaterMarc was commissioned in September 2012, Energy Australia (EA) has been the supplier of natural gas to the site at a cost of approx. $27,140 per month ($352,680 per annum). The EA agreement finishes 31 October 2014. It is intended to roll supply of natural gas to WaterMarc into the AGL natural gas contract from 1 November 2014 to achieve savings. The effect of this report is to consolidate provision of natural gas to Council facilities under one contract up until 31 March 2016 when the AGL contract expires. 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. The Director Corporate Services, Keith Yeo, holds shares in AGL. These shares have been disclosed in the Register of Interests Ordinary Return. CITY PLAN This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “provide responsible financial management and business planning processes”. BACKGROUND Council at its Meeting 15 February 2010 approved that:  

Contract No. 1212/1017 for Natural Gas & Associated Services to all Sites be awarded to AGL Sales Pty Ltd for the 4 year period between 1/4/2010 to 31/3/2014 at an estimated cost of $618,000; the Common Seal of the Banyule City Council be affixed to contract No. 1212/1017.

The Contract was awarded following a collaborative tender facilitated by the then Strategic Purchasing (now Procurement Australia) on behalf of some 68 other Victorian Councils and various State Government Authorities and Agencies (Members). The tender process met the requirements of S186 of the Local Government Act.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 117

6.1

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

CONTRACT NO. 1212/1017 - NATURAL GAS & ASSOCIATED SERVICES TO ALL SITES cont’d

6.1

The outcome of this tender was the best possible financial return to all participants to the tender in respect provision of natural gas to both large and small sites. In December 2013 Procurement Australia advised that, following benchmarking of the existing AGL offer against the other two (2) retailers (being EA and Origin), the decision had been made to extend the AGL contract until 31 March 2016. A presentation (refer attached) was provided to Members to the contract as way of explaining the current and future movement of gas pricing which confirmed AGL as the preferred supplier for the next two (2) years. Council officers at that time completed the AGL Variation Agreement. In September 2012 WaterMarc opened. An agreement to supply gas to the new facility was signed by Council Officers with EA (the previous retailer of natural gas to the previous Greensborough Swimming Pool). This agreement with EA expires 31 October 2014. CURRENT SITUATION The annual expenditure under the AGL contract for gas supply for Council facilities has been on average $150,000 over the previous two financial years. It is anticipated with increases in gas tariffs expenditure will increase but this will be offset to some degree with the removal of emissions charges. Monthly gas usage at WaterMarc over the last year has averaged approx. 3,100 gigajoules with expenditure under the EA agreement averaging $27,140 per month or, $352,680 per annum. At this rate the estimated cost to be absorbed into the AGL contract over the remaining 17 months (1 November 2014 to 31 March 2016) until the AGL contract expires is $461,380. A comparison of the July 2014 gas invoices from the two suppliers shows a commodity charge of $5.48814 per gigajoule for AGL as compared to $5.59800 for EA. Other charges for network, regulation, etc. exist which are comparable between the two suppliers. However, there are expected to be different charges due to variables such as:  the carbon / emissions tax being removed  increased gas usage with the co-generator at WaterMarc. FUNDING IMPLICATIONS Gas charges are funded through Council’s Operating budget. CONCLUSION The AGL gas contract will continue to provide Council with the most economical supply of natural gas for its facilities under the current Procurement Australia contract expires 31 March 2016.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 118

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

CONTRACT NO. 1212/1017 - NATURAL GAS & ASSOCIATED SERVICES TO ALL SITES cont’d RECOMMENDATION That Contract No. 1212/1017 for the Supply of Natural Gas & Associated Services with AGL Sales Pty Ltd be:   2.

extended retrospectively for two (2) years from 1 April 2014 until 31 March 2016 varied to include WaterMarc, 44 Grimshaw Street, Greensborough from 1 November 2014.

6.1

That the Common Seal of the Banyule City Council be affixed to the Variation of Agreement for Contract No. 1212/1017 for the Supply of Natural Gas & Associated Services

ATTACHMENTS No.

Title

Procurement Australia presentation for extension of Gas Contract 2013

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page

Page 119

347

6.2

ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS

Author:

Cindy Ho - Governance Officer, City Development

File:

F2014/337

6.2

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

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

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

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

Date of Assembly:

13 August 2014

Type of Meeting:

Banyule Environmental Advisory Committee (BEAC)

Matters Considered:

  

Councillors Present:

Tom Melican

Staff Present:

John Milkins Fleur Anderson

Others Present:

Conflict of Interest:

John D’Aloia – Interim Chair Alan Leenaerts Jonathan Thom Matt Hall Kate Roberts Denise Fernando Maree Keenan Peter Castaldo Nil

Date of Assembly:

15 September 2014

Type of Meeting:

Councillor Briefing

Matters Considered:

Items on the Council Agenda for the Ordinary Meeting of 15 September 2014 (excluding confidential items) as listed below: 1.1 Petition - Chelsworth Park and Ivanhoe Grammar Proposed Lease

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Environmental Sustainability Grants 2014 Review BEAC Terms of Reference Discussion 100% Renewable Energy – Energy Efficiency in Council Buildings

Page 120

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

2.1 Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure Local Facilities for Local Clubs Program 2014 - 2015 funding program 4.1 A Draft Vision for Watsonia Village 4.2 Work Program for Strategic Planning Unit 4.3 Proposed Discontinuance of Section of Unused Road - Margaret Avenue, Montmorency - Hearing of Submissions 4.4 Proposed Sale of 229 Banksia Street, Ivanhoe (former Bellfield Primary School Site) 4.5 McArthur Road, Ivanhoe East - Speed Limit Reduction 4.6 Proposed Discontinuance of Section of Unused 'Road' - Willis Street, Greensborough - Hearing of Submissions 4.7 Ivanhoe Grammar School Resident Interest Group - Replacement Resident 5.1 Motions for Municipal Association Victoria (MAV) State Meeting 5.2 Flag Raising Protocols at Banyule 6.1 Assembly of Councillors 6.2 Councillor Motions - Status Update 6.3 Certification of the Statutory Statements: For the Year Ending 30 June 2014 8.1 Monthly Financial Report 8.2 Rosanna Station and Lower Plenty Road pedestrian safety 8.3 “Resolve Rosanna Road” - Petition 8.4 Victoria Cross Estate 8.5 Ward Newsletter Councillors Present:

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

Staff Present:

Simon McMillan – Chief Executive Officer Allison Beckwith - Community Programs Scott Walker – Director City Development Geoff Glynn – Director Assets and City Services Keith Yeo - Director Corporate Services Vivien Ferlaino – Governance and Information Coordinator Emily Outlaw - Governance Liaison Officer Daniel Kollmorgen – Acting Manager Strategic and Economic Development

Others Present:

Nil

Conflict of Interest:

Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 121

6.2

ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS cont’d

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS cont’d

6.2

Date of Assembly:

22 September 2014

Type of Meeting:

Councillor Briefing

Matters Considered:

  

Meet the Candidates Proposed Lease – Chelsworth Park to Ivanhoe Grammar School Budget discussion

Councillors Present:

Steven Briffa Mark Di Pasquale Rick Garotti Craig Langdon Tom Melican Wayne Phillips

Staff Present:

Simon McMillan – Chief Executive Officer Geoff Glynn – Director Assets and City Services Keith Yeo - Director Corporate Services Daniel Kollmorgen – Acting Manager Strategic and Economic Development Darren Bennett - Manager Leisure, Recreation & Culture Tom Zappulla – Leisure Facilities, Place & Partnership Co-ordinator Giovanna Failla – Manager Youth & Family Services Tania O’Reilly – Manager Finance & Procurement

Others Present:

Carl Ziebell Anita Gill

Conflict of Interest:

Nil

Date of Assembly:

22 September 2014

Type of Meeting:

Confidential Councillor Briefing

Matters Considered:

Contractual Matters

Councillors Present:

Steven Briffa Mark Di Pasquale Rick Garotti Craig Langdon Tom Melican Wayne Phillips

Staff Present:

Others Present:

Nil

Conflict of Interest:

Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 122

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

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

6.2

That the Assembly of Councillors report be received. ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 123

Sealing of Documents

SEALING OF DOCUMENTS

Author:

Joanna Nuttall - Property Team Leader, City Development & Ellen Kavanagh â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Governance Officer, City Development

Ward:

Hawdon & Bakewell

File:

F2013/1355, F2013/1059, F2013/1158, F2013/1131, BS040/010/002

7.1

The following documents require the affixing of the Common Seal of Council: 1

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

Airservices Australia (Licensor) and Banyule City Council (Licensee) Joanna Nuttall F2013/1355 Licence Agreement 16 Palara Court, Montmorency Hawdon In 1991 the former Eltham Council and the Civil Aviation Authority (now known as Airservices Australia) entered into a Licence Agreement with respect to 16 Palara Court, Montmorency owned by Airservices Australia. The Licence Agreement permitted Council and the public with access across 16 Palara Court, Montmorency to and from the Council owned land known as 16A Palara Court, Montmorency where there is a locator station operated by the Licensor. This locator station is used in connection with the Navigational Aid System of the Essendon Airport Instrument Landing System. A draft Licence Agreement has been prepared essentially on the same terms and conditions as the original. Council should support the proposal to renew the current Licence Agreement for the further term of seven (7) years by resolving to affix its Common Seal to the Licence Agreement.

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

Banyule City Council (Licensor) and Airservices Australia (Licensee) Joanna Nuttall F2013/1059 Licence Agreement 16A Palara Court, Montmorency Hawdon

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 125

Sealing of Documents

SEALING OF DOCUMENTS contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d In 1991 the former Eltham Council and the Civil Aviation Authority (now known as Airservices Australia) entered into a Licence Agreement with respect to 16A Palara Court, Montmorency, now owned by Council. The Licence Agreement provided for the use of and continued access rights to and from 16A Palara Court, Montmorency as a locator station used in connection with the Navigational Aid System of the Essendon Airport Instrument Landing System. A draft Licence Agreement has been prepared essentially on the same terms and conditions as the original. Council should support the proposal to renew the current Licence Agreement for the further term of seven (7) years by resolving to affix its Common Seal to the Licence Agreement.

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

Banyule City Council (Landlord) and Greensborough Bowling Club Inc (Tenant) Joanna Nuttall F2013/1158 & F2013/1131 Variation of Lease 18 Liat Way, Greensborough Bakewell In 2010 Banyule City Council and the Greensborough Bowling Club Inc entered into a lease with respect to 18 Liat Way, Greensborough. The Lease provides for the use of 18 Liat Way, Greensborough for recreation, lawn bowls, dining and social gatherings, primarily for the benefit of the residents and ratepayers of the City of Banyule, including those who are socially and/or financially disadvantaged and people with special needs. In 2013 the Club obtained a planning permit for the construction of a veranda, deck and retractable shade awnings. A Variation of Lease has been prepared to vary the terms and conditions of the existing Lease to include in the maintenance schedule an obligation for the Club to maintain the veranda, the deck and the retractable shade awnings. Council should support the proposal to vary the Lease to make the Club responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the veranda, the deck and the retractable shade awnings by resolving to affix its Common Seal to the Variation of Lease.

PARTY\PARTIES: .OFFICER: FILE NUMBER: DOCUMENT:

Banyule City Council Ellen Kavanagh BS040/010/002 Instrument of Authorisation

7.1

BRIEF EXPLANATION:

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 126

Sealing of Documents

SEALING OF DOCUMENTS cont’d Pursuant to section 224 of the Local Government Act 1989 a Council may appoint any person other than a Councillor to be an authorised officer for the purposes of the administration and enforcement of any Act, regulations or local laws which relate to the functions and powers of the Council.

7.1

BRIEF EXPLANATION:

Officers who undertake the Statutory role of Planner and Planning Enforcement Officers require Authorisation pursuant to the Local Government Act and Planning and Environment Act. An authorised officer has the power to: 



Demand the name and address of a person who has committed, or who the authorised officer reasonably suspects has committed or is about to commit, an offence against any Act, regulation or local law in respect of which he or she is appointed. To enter land at any reasonable time and to enforce the Planning and Environment Act.

The Instrument of Authorisation requires the Council Seal for the following staff: Faza Fauzi, Amy King and Luca Verduci.

RECOMMENDATION That the Common Seal of the Banyule City Council be affixed to the following documents: 1.

Licence Agreement between Airservices Australia and Banyule City Council in respect of 16 Palara Court, Montmorency, for a term of seven (7) years commencing on 1 January 2014.

Licence Agreement between Banyule City Council and Airservices Australia in respect of 16A Palara Court, Montmorency, for a term of seven (7) years commencing on 1 January 2014.

Variation of Lease between Banyule City Council and Greensborough Bowling Club Inc in respect of 18 Liat Way, Greensborough.

Instrument of Authorisation for Planning Technical Officers Faza Fauzi, Amy King and Luca Verduci and they be appointed and authorised as set out in the Instrument.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 127

8.1

BUY LOCAL CAMPAIGN

Author:

Cr Jenny Mulholland

Ward:

Griffin

File:

F2014/492

8.1

Notice of Motion

TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move: “That Council promote a campaign of buying locally in the lead-up to Christmas 2014.” Explanation Council works in partnership with 11 individual traders’ associations to strengthen the local economy and develop community activities and marketing across the local centres of Bell Street Mall, Eaglemont, East Ivanhoe, Greensborough, Heidelberg, Ivanhoe, Lower Plenty, Macleod, Montmorency, Rosanna and Watsonia. Banyule has nearly 10,000 registered businesses, which together create over 47,000 local jobs. Retail is a significant sector in the local economy, accounting for nearly 7,000 jobs and nearly 8% of total value. The busiest period for our local shopping centres is in the lead-up to Christmas. On 4 October 2014 the State Government is coordinating and funding a range of activities for Support Small Business Day. Council is running a local social media campaign (“Why Do You Love Your Local?”) in the month leading up to, and two weeks following, Support Small Business Day. The campaign engages the local community by asking them to share via Council’s Facebook page what they love most about their local business, incentivised by a draw for local shopping vouchers. The “Why Do You Love Your Local?” campaign will provide an excellent lead-in to a “Buy Local” campaign prior to Christmas. The “Buy Local” campaign can be a multi-pronged campaign using a double page spread in the next Banyule Banner, the Banyule website and integrated in existing advertorials, such as Banyule in Brief, in the local Heidelberg and Diamond Valley Leader newspapers, and September ward newsletters. Local trader groups should also be encouraged to produce A3 “Buy Local” posters for shop windows. Further opportunities may also be explored for Council to continue a “Buy Local” campaign by improving the Banyule Business website. The website has the opportunity to play an increasingly significant role in promoting the shared Banyule retail offering across our shopping centres, and providing a platform for local small businesses. CR JENNY MULHOLLAND Griffin Ward ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 129

8.2

MAYORAL DUTIES AND ATTENDANCES (JULY-SEPTEMBER 2014)

Author:

Cr Craig Langdon

Ward:

Olympia

File:

F2014/492

8.2

Notice of Motion

TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move: “That Council notes the report from the Mayor on the meetings he has attended.” Explanation Below is a summary of the various meetings I have attended, including Council Meetings, Council Briefings, Advisory Committee meetings, Community meetings and events. Council Meetings 23 June 2014 7 July 2014 21 July 2014 4 August 2014 18 August 2014 1 September 2014 15 September 2014

Council Briefings 30 June 2014 14 July 2014 28 July 2014 11 August 2014 25 August 2014 8 September 2014 16 September 2014* 22 September 2014

Cemetery Trust 15 September 2014

Other Council Related Meetings: 1 July 2014 7 July 2014 14 July 2014 15 July 2014 16 July 2014 18 July 2014 21 July 2014 24 July 2014 25 July 2014 – 27 July 2014 28 July 2014 29 July 2014 30 July 2014 31 July 2014 1 August 2014

Planning Consultation

Strategic Property Strategic Planning Meeting Strategic Planning Meeting Malahang Advisory Committee Meeting Planning Meeting OHI-CLC Meeting Bell Street Issues meeting Community Development Meeting Planning Meeting Banyule Citizenship Ceremony MAV Councillor Development Weekend Community Development Meeting Unregistered Bike Discussion Malahang Advisory Committee Meeting NMIT Car parking meeting Northern Metro Mayors & CEO Meeting Multicultural Advisory Committee Meeting Banksia Community Stadium Meeting Development Services Meeting

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 130

Notice of Motion

4 August 2014 5 August 2014 6 August 2014 7 August 2014 8 August 2014 11 August 2014 12 August 2014 13 August 2014 15 August 2014 18 August 2014 20 August 2014 21 August 2014 22 August 2014 23 August 2014 26 August 2014

27 August 2014 28 August 2014 29 August 2014 1 September 2014 5 September 2014 8 September 2014 9 September 2014 10 September 2014 11 September 2014 12 September 2014 15 September 2014 16 September 2014 17 September 2014 22 September 2014 24 September 2014

25 September 2014 30 September 2014

Community Safety Working Group Strategic Planning Meeting GLBTI Advisory Committee Meeting CGD Mayoral Forum MAV Metropolitan Forum & Dinner Cyril Cummins Reserve Meeting Heidelberg Uniting Football Club Meeting Malahang Court Meeting VicRoads & Inner Northern Municipal Forum Planning Meeting Malahang Advisory Committee MTF Leader Community Transport Forum Public Safety Infrastructure Upgrade Reference Group Banyule Environment Advisory Committee CCAV Annual General Meeting and Tradeshow Lunch Planning meeting Heidelberg Park Pavilion Meeting Banyule Dog Forum Development Services Meeting Public Safety Infrastructure Upgrade th VLGA 20 Anniversary Preventing Vulnerability for Children in Melbourne’s North Public Safety Infrastructure Upgrade Community Engagement Public Safety Infrastructure Upgrade Community Engagement DigiDECL Launch Olympia Housing Initiative Anniversary Olympic Village Child & Family Centre Ministerial Event Malahang Advisory Committee Meeting Darebin Creek Management Committee Banyule Bullying Forum Department of Justice High Volume Crime Program MAV Aged Care Forum Planning Consultation Meeting Community Safety Working Group Strategic Planning Meeting Banyule Audit Committee Meeting MAV Financial Assistance Grants & Rate Capping Taskforce VicHealth Leading Thinkers Initiative Parliamentary Welcome Ministerial Mayors & CEOs Forum & Dinner Strategic Planning Meeting Planning Consultation Meeting Youth Foundation 3081 Strategic Planning Meeting *Special Strategic Planning Councillor Briefing OHI-CLC Meeting Fences Amendment Act 2014 and Mediation Information Seminar Simms Road Pavilion Meeting White Ribbon Action Team Meeting Clyde James Smith Memorial Leadership Award Panel Meeting Planning Consultation Meeting Planning Meeting Melbourne’s Northern Metropolitan Mayors and CEOs Meeting Planning Consultation Meeting

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 131

8.2

MAYORAL DUTIES AND ATTENDANCES cont’d

Notice of Motion

MAYORAL DUTIES AND ATTENDANCES cont’d

8.2

Community Meetings/Events 2 July 2014 6 July 2014 7 July 2014 11 July 2014 18 July 2014 19 July 2014 20 July 2014

23 July 2014 24 July 2014 30 July 2014 31 July 2014 2 August 2014 5 August 2014 6 August 2014 9 August 2014 10 August 2014 12 August 2014 13 August 2014 14 August 2014

15 August 2014 16 August 2014 19 August 2014 20 August 2014 22 August 2014 24 August 2014 26 August 2014 27 August 2014 28 August 2014 29 August 2014 30 August 2014 31 August 2014 1 September 2014 2 September 2014 3 September 2014 6 September 2014 7 September 2014

Booklovers Festival Launch Ivanhoe Library Public Meeting Community Safety Working Group Austin Health Watsonia RSL visit Diploma of Nursing Graduation Ramadan IFTAR Dinner Grand Opening of Cole Family Chiropractic Official Opening of Possum Hollow Kiosk St Johns Community Garden Darebin Parklands Association Park Care Day Banyule Uniting Church Network Meeting Bellfield Community Garden Working Group Meeting Yarra Plenty Regional Library Live Read on the Road Iftar Dinner Banyule Gardeners Almanac Launch 2014 Main Street Australia Awards 3081Connect Meeting & Working Group Olympic Village Winters Market Bell Street Mall Event Ivanhoe Grammar Resident Interest Group Meeting Banyule Bicycle User Group Annual General Meeting Australian Air League Public Meeting Heidelberg Primary School 160 Years Open Day New Assisi Facility Opening One Hundred Faces Project School Visit – Bundoora Primary School Macleod Park Sports Field Lighting Opening One Hundred Faces Project School Visit One Hundred Faces Project School Visit – Mary Immaculate PS One Hundred Faces Project School Visit – Streeton Primary School One Hundred Faces Project School Visit – Watsonia Heights PS 3081 Connect Review Meeting Austin Health Observance Ceremony for Vietnam Veterans Day Vietnam Veterans Day Memorial Service Wellness Walk & Ivanhoe Street Party th Heart to Heart Activity Group 25 Anniversary st All Saints Anglican Church Community Meal 1 Anniversary Lunch with Defence Force officers at Simpson Army Barracks th Montmorency Uniting Church 100 Anniversary th St Pius X School 60 Anniversary Garden Bed Making – Bellfield Community Garden Ivanhoe Traders Annual General Meeting Brunswick Library Official Opening Darebin Parklands Information Evening Boulevard Lights Community Workshop Ivanhoe Park Croquet Club Opening Day Eltham College Music & Performance Centre Official Opening Eaglemont Village Step into Spring Fair th Greensborough Bowling Club 20 Anniversary Southern Road Wetlands Planting Community Backyard Blitz Project Rosanna Fire Station Annual General Meeting Ivanhoe Grammar School Resident Interest Group Banyule District Scout Association Annual General Meeting West Ivanhoe Family Day th North Eastern Melbourne Chinese Association 20 Anniversary

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 132

Notice of Motion

8 September 2014 9 September 2014 11 September 2014 14 September 2014 15 September 2014 17 September 2014 18 September 2014 23 September 2014 25 September 2014 28 September 2014

Olivia Newton John Cancer Research Institute Official Opening Dolphin Products Official Opening Prevention & Recovery Care Service Opening Heidelberg Soccer Club visit West Heidelberg RSL Y Singers Banyule YouthFest Macleod Sustainable Artwork Competition 2014 Melbourne Fringe Festival Opening Night DigiDECL visit Diamond Valley Community Support Annual General Meeting ENGAGE Funding Ministerial Announcement Viewbank Preschool Ministerial Visit Olivia Newton John Wellness Walk & Ivanhoe Street Party

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

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 133

8.2

MAYORAL DUTIES AND ATTENDANCES contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d

8.3

MAYORAL ELECTION 2014

Author:

Cr Craig Langdon

File:

F2014/492

8.3

Notice of Motion

TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move: That Council: 1.

Call a Special Council meeting to be held on Tuesday, 28 October 2014 for the purpose of holding the Mayoral election for the 2014/15 year.

Give notice of the bringing forward of the Mayoral election from 17 November 2014 to 28 October 2014.

Explanation Councils are required under the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act) to elect a Councillor to be Mayor of the Council. There is a short period of time each year in which it is prescribed that a mayoral election can be held. The election must be held on a date after the fourth Saturday in October (25 October 2014) but no later than 30 November each year. Council sets its meeting dates each year in advance and gives public notice of the dates as required by the Act. The Mayoral election for 2014 was set last year to be held on Monday 17 November 2014. Consequently, however, this date falls within the nomination and caretaker period for this yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s State Government election to be held on Saturday, 29 November 2014. Council has been formally advised by Cr Steven Briffa that he will be a candidate in the upcoming State Election and will be taking a leave of absence during this period. To avoid conflict with the timing of the State Election and to enable all Councillors to participate in the Mayoral election it would be appropriate for Council to bring forward the Mayoral election. The suggested date of 28 October 2014 fits within the specified period for holding Mayoral elections but avoids conflict with the nomination and caretaker period for the State Election. CR CRAIG LANGDON Olympia Ward ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 6 October 2014

Page 134

ATTACHMENTS 3.1

Allocation of the 2014 Banyule Environmental Sustainability Grants Attachment 1 Attachment 2

4.1

Proposed multi dwelling development at 204 - 206 Lower Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe East Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Attachment 5

4.2

Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary ............. 303

World Health Organisation's -Global Network of Age Friendly Cities Membership Attachment 1

6.1

Advertised plans ............................................................................ 273 Modified plan 4 August 2014 ......................................................... 287 Additional background information................................................. 289 Clause 55 Assessment .................................................................. 292 Neighbourhood Character Policy Assessment ............................... 297

Proposed Lease of Part of Chelsworth Park to Ivanhoe Grammar School- Report on Submissions Attachment 1

5.2

Letter from Heritage Victoria including Assessment and Recommendation .......................................................................... 241

Proposed multi-dwelling development at 47 Lower Plenty Road, Rosanna Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Attachment 5

5.1

Plans ............................................................................................. 205 Clause 55 Assessment .................................................................. 223 Neighbourhood Character Assessment ......................................... 228 Planning Policy Assessment.......................................................... 234

Banyule Flats and Warringal Parklands Heritage Nomination Attachment 1

4.7

Advertised plans ............................................................................ 143 Modified plans ............................................................................... 170 Referral comments ........................................................................ 195 Planning controls ........................................................................... 196 Clause 55 assessment .................................................................. 199

Multi Dwelling Development at 40 Liddesdale Grove, Eltham North Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Attachment 4

4.3

BEAC Terms of Reference ............................................................ 136 Environmental Sustainability Grant Guidelines 2014 ..................... 138

WHO Global Network of Age-friendly Cities Brochure ................... 345

Contract No. 1212/1017 - Natural Gas & Associated Services to all Sites Attachment 1

Procurement Australia presentation for extension of Gas Contract 2013 ................................................................................ 347

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 135

Attachment 1: BEAC Terms of Reference

Attachment 1

3.1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 136

3.1

Attachment 1: BEAC Terms of Reference

Attachment 1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 137

Attachment 2: Environmental Sustainability Grant Guidelines 2014

Attachment 2

3.1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 138

3.1

Attachment 2: Environmental Sustainability Grant Guidelines 2014

Attachment 2

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 139

Attachment 2: Environmental Sustainability Grant Guidelines 2014

Attachment 2

3.1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 140

3.1

Attachment 2: Environmental Sustainability Grant Guidelines 2014

Attachment 2

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 141

Attachment 2: Environmental Sustainability Grant Guidelines 2014

Attachment 2

3.1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 142

4.1

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 143

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 144

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

4.1

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 145

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 146

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

4.1

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 147

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 148

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

4.1

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 149

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 150

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

4.1

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 151

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 152

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

4.1

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 153

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 154

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

4.1

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 155

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 156

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

4.1

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 157

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 158

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

4.1

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 159

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 160

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

4.1

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 161

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 162

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

4.1

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 163

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 164

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

4.1

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 165

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 166

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

4.1

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 167

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 168

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

4.1

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 169

Attachment 2

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 170

Attachment 2: Modified plans

4.1

Attachment 2: Modified plans

Attachment 2

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 171

Attachment 2

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 172

Attachment 2: Modified plans

4.1

Attachment 2: Modified plans

Attachment 2

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 173

Attachment 2

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 174

Attachment 2: Modified plans

4.1

Attachment 2: Modified plans

Attachment 2

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 175

Attachment 2

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 176

Attachment 2: Modified plans

4.1

Attachment 2: Modified plans

Attachment 2

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 177

Attachment 2

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 178

Attachment 2: Modified plans

4.1

Attachment 2: Modified plans

Attachment 2

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 179

Attachment 2

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 180

Attachment 2: Modified plans

4.1

Attachment 2: Modified plans

Attachment 2

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 181

Attachment 2

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 182

Attachment 2: Modified plans

4.1

Attachment 2: Modified plans

Attachment 2

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 183

Attachment 2

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 184

Attachment 2: Modified plans

4.1

Attachment 2: Modified plans

Attachment 2

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 185

Attachment 2

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 186

Attachment 2: Modified plans

4.1

Attachment 2: Modified plans

Attachment 2

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 187

Attachment 2

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 188

Attachment 2: Modified plans

4.1

Attachment 2: Modified plans

Attachment 2

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 189

Attachment 2

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 190

Attachment 2: Modified plans

4.1

Attachment 2: Modified plans

Attachment 2

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 191

Attachment 2

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 192

Attachment 2: Modified plans

4.1

Attachment 2: Modified plans

Attachment 2

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 193

Attachment 2

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 194

Attachment 2: Modified plans

Item: 4.1

Attachment 3: Referral comments

Referral Comments

VICROADS VicRoads raise no objection to the proposal and require amended plans showing minimum driveway and vehicle crossing width, visibility splays at the driveway entry, removal of the redundant vehicle crossover and a waste management plan requiring waste collection from the basement car park.

4.1

The following referral comments have been received.

Flooding Council’s Engineer’s raise no objection subject to finished floor levels of two lower ground floor apartments in the south-eastern corner of the site being raised 300mm above the preliminary flood depth of the Council drain running along the rear of the site. Additional conditions are required to prevent alteration of topography within the floodway, all boundary and internal fencing to be permeable to overland stormwater flows and works not impeding or restricting the free passage of overland stormwater flows. Drainage A preliminary On Site Stormwater Detention design has been assessed as satisfactory with further details to be submitted as a condition of permit. Car parking The proposal generates 49 residential car parking spaces and 9 visitor spaces with 57 residential spaces and 3 visitor car parking spaces provided. An oversupply of 8 resident spaces and a shortfall of 6 visitor spaces are therefore proposed. Car parking has been assessed as satisfactory subject to minor internal reallocation of car parking spaces between apartments and reconfiguration of the layout and provision of visibility splays at the driveway entry. ESD Council’s ESD adviser raises no objection subject to conditions. ARBORIST Council’s arborist raises no objection subject to increased setback of the upper level of the building from the south-east corner of the site to protect the canopy of the Desert Ash located at the rear of 208 Lower Heidelberg Road.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 195

Attachment 3

ENGINEERING SERVICES Council’s Engineering Services Section have assessed the proposal with the key findings outlined below.

Item: 4.1

Attachment 4: Planning controls

4.1

PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning provisions and policy are relevant to the assessment of application. GENERAL RESIDENTIAL SCHEDULE 1 ZONE Planning approval is required for the construction of more than one dwelling on a lot within this zone. Under Clause 32.08-4, as the development is less than five storeys high, the development is required to be assessed under Clause 55 of the Scheme..

Attachment 4

VEGETATION PROTECTION OVERLAY SCHEDULE 3 OVERLAY Planning approval is required to remove destroy or lop any vegetation pursuant to Clause 42.02. This does not apply to any vegetation which is less than 5 m in height or has a trunk circumference of less than 0.5 metres at 1m above the ground. Trees 25,48,59,61,62 and 73 are proposed to be removed and all of these trees require permission for removal. Tree 93 is a street tree which also requires planning permission for removal.. STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK The following policy is relevant to the assessment of the proposal and is outlined below and expanded on where considered appropriate: Urban Design Clause 15.01-2 seeks to achieve high quality urban design and architecture. In assessing the design and built form of residential development of four or more storeys development must be considered under the Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development (Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2004). Cultural Identity and Neighbourhood Character Clause 15.01-5 seeks to recognise and protect cultural identity, neighbourhood character and sense of place. Sustainable Development Clause 15.02-1 seeks to encourage energy and resource efficiency. Residential Development Clause 16.01 sets out objectives in relation to integrated housing, location of residential development, strategic redevelopment sites, housing diversity and housing affordability. Relevant objectives include:  To promote a housing market that meets community needs.  To locate new housing in or close to activity centres and employment corridors and at other strategic redevelopment sites that offer good access to services and transport.  To identify strategic redevelopment sites for large residential development in Metropolitan Melbourne.  To provide for a range of housing types to meet increasingly diverse needs. ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 196

Item: 4.1

Attachment 4: Planning controls

 To deliver more affordable housing closer to jobs, transport and services.

Municipal Strategic Statement Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement sets the direction for land use and development in Banyule by identifying key planning elements for consideration and nominating a series of objectives and strategies for each. The overarching vision of the Municipality is:

4.1

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

“Banyule will be regarded as a city offering a range of quality lifestyles in an urban setting enhanced by the natural environment, and served by an efficient and committed Council”.

Housing Clause 21.04-1 seeks to encourage higher density housing close to activity centres and the Principal Public Transport Network and protect residential amenity and provide for the desired future neighbourhood character of residential areas. Built environment The objective in relation to Clause 21.06 is: ‘To ensure that development respects and contributes to the desired future character of residential neighbourhoods and the identity of Activity Centres, in a manner that supports varying degrees of housing change.’ Strategies include but are not limited to:  Promoting high quality design in all new residential development that makes a positive contribution to the desired future neighbourhood character.  Encourage the retention and planting of significant trees, substantial trees and other vegetation to protect and improve the landscape character, streetscapes, habitat links and biodiversity of the area.  Support residential development in accordance with the Residential Areas Framework which identifies varying degrees of housing change across the City’s residential neighbourhoods and Activity Centres. In relation to sustainable design, strategies include:  Support the retention of significant trees and the planting of trees and other vegetation. In relation to housing, strategies include:  Encourage a substantial proportion of new housing to be located within or close to Activity Centres and the Principal Public Transport Network ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 197

Attachment 4

The relevant objective encompasses Environmental Management.

Item: 4.1

Attachment 4: Planning controls

4.1

particularly where there is high frequency and quality of public transport services in operation.  Encourage a range of types and sizes of housing, particularly in areas located close to public transport, services and facilities.  Encourage development to provide a wider range of household types particularly smaller sized dwellings, including those with only one bedroom.

Attachment 4

Clause 21.06-2 - Residential Areas Framework identifies that the site is located within an Incremental Area in the indicative map forming part of Clause 21.06 of the Housing Framework Map. Incremental Areas are typically ‘located further away from Activity Centres and the Principal Public Transport Network, where there is less convenient pedestrian access. ‘ Incremental Areas are identified to ‘… provide for well designed single dwellings and medium density dwellings.’ In addition, ‘Development must make a positive contribution to the desired future neighbourhood character, including opportunities for tree protection and planting.’ As an exception, there will be limited opportunities for higher density housing at well located, large strategic redevelopment sites only. Sites must also be large enough to make a significant contribution to the provision of a diversity of housing types in the area and space for the following:  Buildings and open spaces that provide a transition between abutting dwellings and any taller on-site building component.  Landscaping, including the planting of substantial trees, at streetscapes, boundaries and between buildings. Development must make a positive contribution to the desired future neighbourhood character, including opportunities for tree protection and planting. Clause 22.02 Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy Clause 22.02 of the Banyule Planning Scheme outlines Council’s Neighbourhood Character Policy. This policy will expire on 31 March 2013. Policy objectives are:  To ensure that development complements and respects the desired future character of the area.  To retain and enhance the identified elements that contribute to the desired future character of the area.  To recognise the need for new or additional Design Objectives and Design Responses for areas within and around activity centres that are or will be subject to structure planning or design frameworks. Discussion on the relevance of Council’s stated desired future character for the Garden Suburban 6 precinct is included in the main planning report.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 198

Item: 4.1

Attachment 5: Clause 55 assessment

APPLICATION NO.: DEVELOPMENT ADDRESS.: PROPOSAL:

P1072/2013 204 Lower Heidelberg Road IVANHOE EAST, 206 Lower Heidelberg Road IVANHOE EAST Buildings and works for the construction of a multistorey apartment building (between 3 and 4 storeys), associated vegetation removal, reduction in on site car parking provision and alteration to access to a Road Zone Category 1

4.1

ASSESSMENT AGAINST CLAUSE 55

Clause 55.02 (Neighbourhood Character and Infrastructure)  

Complies

To ensure that the design respects the existing neighbourhood character or contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character. To ensure that development responds to the features of the site and the surrounding area Standard B1

Residential policy objectives 



Complies

To ensure that residential development is provided in accordance with any policy for housing in the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies. To support medium densities in areas where development can take advantage of public transport and community infrastructure and services. Standard B2

Dwelling diversity objective 



To encourage a range of dwelling sizes and types in developments of ten or more dwellings. Standard B3

Both one and two bedroom apartments are provided within the development.

Complies

To ensure development is provided with appropriate utility services and infrastructure. To ensure development does not unreasonably overload the capacity of utility services and infrastructure. Standard B4

Integration with the street objective 

The proposal is consistent with Council’s housing strategy. Refer to main planning report for further detail

Complies

Infrastructure objectives 

Refer to detailed assessment in main planning report

The full suite of existing services within the area are capable of accommodating the proposed development

Complies

To integrate the layout of development with the street. Standard B5

The proposal successfully integrates with the street with a façade that makes a strong architectural presentation to the street, clearly identifies the main pedestrian entry to the building form the street and has an open plan front garden with a low wall on top of the retaining wall in front of the ground level terrace of Apartment 1

Clause 55.03 (Site Layout and Building Massing) Street setback objective 

Variation to Standard

To ensure that the setbacks of buildings from a street respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and make efficient use of the site. Standard B6

The front setbacks of the development to the east are 4.5 metres at Ground level and 6.3 metres for the two upper levels, excluding balcony projections for the approved apartment building at 208. For the neighbouring two

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 199

Attachment 5

Neighbourhood Character objectives

Item: 4.1

Attachment 5: Clause 55 assessment

4.1

storey dwelling to the west at 202 Lower Heidelberg Road, the front setback is between 8.3 and 9.5 metres ag Ground level and 13.5 metres at First Floor level. This provides a maximum average frontage setback at Ground level of 7 metres . The proposed Ground level setback for the development is between 8 and 10.3 metres. At First Floor level this ranges from 6 to 10.2 metres and at Third Floor level from 8.3 to 12.4 metres. These varied setbacks achieve a dual purpose of articulating the façade with a waved façade and in a manner that provides an appropriate transition at all levels of the building between all levels of the building either side of the application site.

Building height objective To ensure that the height of buildings respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character. Standard B7

Attachment 5



Site coverage objective 

To ensure that the site coverage respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and responds to the features of the site. Standard B8

Permeability objectives  



The proposed maximum building height is 13.2 metres measured on the eastern elevation of the building. Whilst the preferred maximum building height under this Standard is 10 metres for a sloping site such as this, the maximum building height for the top floor of the development is set 3.6 metres in from the site boundary. To further reduce the visual impact of this upper floor from the south and east, the modified plans prepared by the applicant following the consultation meeting increase these upper levels setbacks to between 5.1 and 7.5 metres. These modifications assist in centring the building height towards the core of the site and away from the site boundaries, thereby reducing the visual mass and bulk of the building. These modifications will be required as a condition of permit. In addition, further modification to the built form will be required to protect the canopy of the Desert Ash located in the vicinity of the south-eastern corner of the site and this will be required as a condition of permit.

Variation to Standard Site coverage under this Standard is required to be no greater than 60%. A site coverage of 62% is proposed. The modified plans have removed the projection of balconies/terraces and the building footprint from the rear building setback and this will further reduce site coverage by approximately 20 sqm. Due to the strategic development site status of the land and the supporting housing framework and the landscape and design outcomes to be achieved through the submitted design and further modifications to be required as a condition permit to increase landscaping and reduce the building bulk and form, this minor variation is considered acceptable in this instance.

Complies

To reduce the impact of increased stormwater run-off on the drainage system. To facilitate on-site stormwater infiltration. Standard B9

Energy efficiency objectives 

Conditions Required

To achieve and protect energy efficient dwellings and residential buildings. To ensure the orientation and layout of development reduce fossil fuel energy use and make appropriate use of daylight and solar energy. Standard B10

Open space objective

Complies Permit condition to require compliance with the Sustainability Design Assessment submitted with the application

N/A

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 200

Item: 4.1

Safety objective 

Complies

To ensure the layout of development provides for the safety and security of residents and property. Standard B12

Landscaping objectives    

Conditions Required

To encourage development that respects the landscape character of the neighbourhood. To encourage development that maintains and enhances habitat for plants and animals in locations of habitat importance. To provide appropriate landscaping. To encourage the retention of mature vegetation on the site. Standard B13

Access objectives  

 

In ground landscaping for canopy tree planting has been compromised at the front through the intrusion of the basement car park into the front setback of the building. Reduction in the extent of the basement car park in the north-western corner of the site will be required to facilitate the provision of a 50 sqm area of deep soil to accommodate a canopy tree. Lower and middle storey landscaping can be accommodated within the remainder of the front garden and additional planting of street trees will be required to replace the tree to be removed and further enhance the streetscape.

Conditions Required

To ensure vehicle access to and from a development is safe, manageable and convenient. To ensure the number and design of vehicle crossovers respects the neighbourhood character. Standard B14

Parking location objectives 

Building access is to be well defined, lit and surveyed by dwellings within the development.

VicRoads and Council’s Engineering Department require minor fine tuning of the design to achieve a satisfactory vehicle access outcome for the development. These requirements are to be attached as conditions to the permit

Complies

To provide convenient parking for resident and visitor vehicles. To avoid parking and traffic difficulties in the development and the neighbourhood. To protect residents from vehicular noise within developments. Standard B15

Clause 55.04 (Amenity Impacts) Side and rear setbacks objective 

Variation to Standard

To ensure that the height and setback of a building from a boundary respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and limits the impact on the amenity of existing dwellings. Standard B17

Walls on boundaries objective 

To ensure that the location, length and height of a wall on a boundary respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and limits the impact on the amenity of existing dwellings. Standard B18

Complies

To allow adequate daylight into existing habitable room windows. Standard B19

North-facing windows objective 

Refer to detailed assessment in main planning report

N/A

Daylight to existing windows objective 

4.1

To integrate the layout of development with any public and communal open space provided in or adjacent to the development. Standard B11

N/A

To allow adequate solar access to existing northfacing habitable room windows. Standard B20

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 201

Attachment 5



Attachment 5: Clause 55 assessment

Item: 4.1

Attachment 5: Clause 55 assessment

Overshadowing open space objective

4.1



Overlooking objective 

Complies

To limit views into existing secluded private open space and habitable room windows. Standard B22

Internal views objective 

Attachment 5



Complies

To limit views into the secluded private open space and habitable room windows of dwellings and residential buildings within a development. Standard B23

Noise impacts objectives 

Complies

To ensure buildings do not significantly overshadow existing secluded private open space. Standard B21

To contain noise sources in developments that may affect existing dwellings. To protect residents from external noise. Standard B24

Conditions Required Refer to detailed assessment in main planning report

Clause 55.05 (On-site Amenity and Facilities) Accessibility objective 

To encourage the consideration of the needs of people with limited mobility in the design of developments. Standard B25

Dwelling entry objective 

To provide adequate private open space for the reasonable recreation and service needs of residents. Standard B28

Solar access to open space objective 

To allow solar access into the secluded private open space of new dwellings and residential buildings. Standard B29

Storage objective 

Complies

To allow adequate daylight into new habitable room windows. Standard B27

Private open space objective 

The proposal complies with the Standard and Council’s Liveable Housing Guidelines

To provide each dwelling or residential building with its own sense of identity. Standard B26

Daylight to new windows objective 

Complies

To provide adequate storage facilities for each dwelling.

Variation to Standard Seven of the one bedroom apartments on the modified plans will have a balcony less than the Standard. A number of these are only marginally below the Standard and facilitate the provision of greater air space for landscaping. On balance, the private open space provision is considered acceptable.

Conditions Required The majority of apartments have north, east or west facing balconies. The modified plans show that six apartments would have southern facing balconies. This would represent 12% of the dwellings which is a small proportion of the total number of dwellings. Solar access can be improved to each apartment located on the Lower Ground, Ground and First Floor level located in the south-western corner of the site by either providing an aperture in the western elevation of the balcony above 1.7 metres above the floor level of the balcony or increasing the size of the existing aperture above 1.7 metres above the floor level of the balcony.

Variation to Standard A minimum volume of 3.5 cubic metres of storage space

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 202

Item: 4.1

Attachment 5: Clause 55 assessment Standard B30

will be provided for each apartment. This is considered to be acceptable for smaller apartments.

Design detail objective

Conditions Required

To encourage design detail that respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character. Standard B31

Front fences objective 

Complies

To encourage front fence design that respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character. Standard B32

Common property objectives  



No front fence is proposed

Complies

To ensure that communal open space, car parking, access areas and site facilities are practical, attractive and easily maintained. To avoid future management difficulties in areas of common ownership. Standard B33

Site services objectives 

Refer to detailed assessment in main planning report

Conditions Required

To ensure that site services can be installed and easily maintained. To ensure that site facilities are accessible, adequate and attractive. Standard B34

The site services kiosk is shown in a potentially visually obtrusive location within the front garden. No details have been provided of the scale or appearance of the kiosk and this will be required as a condition of permit

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 203

Attachment 5



4.1

Clause 55.06 (Detailed Design)

4.2

Attachment 1: Plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 205

Attachment 1

4.2

Item: 4.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 206

Attachment 1: Plans

4.2

Attachment 1: Plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 207

Attachment 1

4.2

Item: 4.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 208

Attachment 1: Plans

4.2

Attachment 1: Plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 209

Attachment 1

4.2

Item: 4.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 210

Attachment 1: Plans

4.2

Attachment 1: Plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 211

Attachment 1

4.2

Item: 4.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 212

Attachment 1: Plans

4.2

Attachment 1: Plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 213

Attachment 1

4.2

Item: 4.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 214

Attachment 1: Plans

4.2

Attachment 1: Plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 215

Attachment 1

4.2

Item: 4.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 216

Attachment 1: Plans

4.2

Attachment 1: Plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 217

Attachment 1

4.2

Item: 4.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 218

Attachment 1: Plans

4.2

Attachment 1: Plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 219

Attachment 1

4.2

Item: 4.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 220

Attachment 1: Plans

4.2

Attachment 1: Plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 221

Attachment 1

4.2

Item: 4.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 222

Attachment 1: Plans

Item: 4.2

Attachment 2: Clause 55 Assessment

APPLICATION NO.: DEVELOPMENT ADDRESS.: PROPOSAL:

P232/2014 40 Liddesdale Grove ELTHAM NORTH Buildings and works for the construction of 10 double storey dwellings and removal of native vegetation

4.2

ASSESSMENT AGAINST CLAUSE 55

Clause 55.02 (Neighbourhood Character and Infrastructure)  

Complies

Residential policy objectives 



Complies

Dwelling diversity objective 



10 dwellings have been proposed in a mix of two dwellings types – A and B. Dwelling type A (4 dwellings) would consist of four bedrooms at the upper level and dwelling type B (6 dwellings) would consist of three bedrooms, one at ground level.

Complies

Integration with the street objective 

Refer to response in delegate report.

Complies

To encourage a range of dwelling sizes and types in developments of ten or more dwellings. Standard B3

Infrastructure objectives 

The proposed development is considered to result in an appropriate neighbourhood character response as discussed in the main report and attached neighbourhood character assessment

Complies

To integrate the layout of development with the street. Standard B5

The site maintains a narrow frontage to Liddesdale Grove, consisting of an access shaft. An accessway and appropriate landscaping can be accommodated in this space, therefore creating an appropriate integration with the street.

Clause 55.03 (Site Layout and Building Massing) Street setback objective 

N/A

To ensure that the setbacks of buildings from a street respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and make efficient use of the site. Standard B6

Building height objective

The dwellings are proposed to be constructed well setback from the street and make no contribution to the streetscape given the site’s location to the rear of a number of existing residential lots.

Complies

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 223

Attachment 2

Neighbourhood Character objectives

Item: 4.2

4.2



Attachment 2: Clause 55 Assessment

To ensure that the height of buildings respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character. Standard B7

Site coverage objective 

Complies

To ensure that the site coverage respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and responds to the features of the site. Standard B8

Permeability objectives  

Complies

To reduce the impact of increased stormwater run-off on the drainage system. To facilitate on-site stormwater infiltration. Standard B9

Energy efficiency objectives

Attachment 2

 

Complies

Open space objective 

Complies

To integrate the layout of development with any public and communal open space provided in or adjacent to the development. Standard B11

Safety objective 

  

To ensure the layout of development provides for the safety and security of residents and property. Standard B12

Complies

Access objectives  

Complies

To ensure vehicle access to and from a development is safe, manageable and convenient. To ensure the number and design of vehicle crossovers respects the neighbourhood character. Standard B14

Parking location objectives   

A pedestrian path is proposed along the southern boundary of the site which would provide access to the reserve to the south.

Complies

Landscaping objectives 

Each of the dwellings has been appropriately oriented to maximise the northern solar access. Each living room at ground level and, where provided, at the first floor, have direct northern orientation. It is also noted that there are no western windows for dwelling type A and only very small windows to the west for dwelling type B. Only dwellings 4, 5 and 9 have their secluded private open space on the south.

Complies

Clause 55.04 (Amenity Impacts)

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 224

Item: 4.2

Attachment 2: Clause 55 Assessment

To ensure that the height and setback of a building from a boundary respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and limits the impact on the amenity of existing dwellings. Standard B17

Walls on boundaries objective 

N/A

Daylight to existing windows objective 

Complies

To allow adequate daylight into existing habitable room windows. Standard B19

North-facing windows objective 

Complies

To allow adequate solar access to existing northfacing habitable room windows. Standard B20

Overshadowing open space objective 

Complies

To ensure buildings do not significantly overshadow existing secluded private open space. Standard B21

Overlooking objective 

Complies

To limit views into existing secluded private open space and habitable room windows. Standard B22

Internal views objective 

Complies

To limit views into the secluded private open space and habitable room windows of dwellings and residential buildings within a development. Standard B23

Noise impacts objectives  

It is noted that the garage for Lot 3 is located 210mm from the northern boundary and therefore not considered a wall on boundary.

Complies

To contain noise sources in developments that may affect existing dwellings. To protect residents from external noise. Standard B24

Clause 55.05 (On-site Amenity and Facilities) Accessibility objective 

Complies

To encourage the consideration of the needs of people with limited mobility in the design of developments. Standard B25

6 of the dwellings (dwelling type B) have been allocated a bedroom with ensuite at ground level along with all living spaces. Entries and main hallways for these dwellings are 950mm in width. Doorway widths are less than 850mm. Although the proposal meets the requirements of this standard, it is considered appropriate to require conditions to provide for the doorway widths to increase to 850mm and hallways to be 1m. A level area of 1.2m x 1.2m could also be required at the entry of these dwellings. It is noted that these dwellings could not be made to comply with Council’s livable housing guidelines without more significant redesigning especially with reference to the bathroom and toilet arrangements where a 1.2m space in front of these facilities is required. However, with conditions as specified above, it is considered the proposal would result in an acceptable outcome with regards to livable housing.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 225

Attachment 2



Complies

4.2

Side and rear setbacks objective

Item: 4.2

Attachment 2: Clause 55 Assessment

4.2

Dwelling entry objective 

Conditions Required

To provide each dwelling or residential building with its own sense of identity. Standard B26

Daylight to new windows objective 

Attachment 2

Complies

To provide adequate private open space for the reasonable recreation and service needs of residents. Standard B28

Solar access to open space objective 

To allow solar access into the secluded private open space of new dwellings and residential buildings. Standard B29

Storage objective 

Complies

To allow adequate daylight into new habitable room windows. Standard B27

Private open space objective 

It is considered that the entry for the dwelling on Lot 2 presents poorly to the internal accessway, resulting in a poor sense of address. This should be amended to locate the entry to this dwelling on the southern side of this dwelling.

Complies Conditions Required

Conditions Required

To provide adequate storage facilities for each dwelling. Standard B30

No external storage space has been proposed for the dwellings. Sufficient space would exist in the rear yard of each of the dwellings and therefore a condition should be 3 included on any approval granted to ensure that 6m of external storage space is provided for each dwelling.

Clause 55.06 (Detailed Design) Design detail objective 

To encourage design detail that respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character. Standard B31

Front fences objective 



Complies

Site services objectives 

It is noted that the dwellings would result in an architectural form that is more modern than the typical dwelling stock in the locality. This is considered acceptable due to the use of materials and colours that will ensure the dwellings blend in with the natural bush like character of the heavily vegetated site and surrounds. Furthermore, the dwellings are well setback from view in Liddesdale Grove and therefore enjoy the benefit of a secluded context.

To encourage front fence design that respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character. Standard B32

Common property objectives 

Complies

To ensure that site services can be installed and easily maintained. To ensure that site facilities are accessible, adequate and attractive. Standard B34

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 226

4.2

Attachment 2: Clause 55 Assessment

Attachment 2

Item: 4.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 227

4.2

Item: 4.2

Attachment 3: Neighbourhood Character Assessment

CLAUSE 22.02: RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER POLICY ASSESSMENT â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Garden Court 2 (West / South) APPLICATION NO: P232/2014 DEVELOPMENT ADDRESS:

40 Liddesdale Grove ELTHAM NORTH

PROPOSAL:

Buildings and works for the construction of 10 double storey dwellings and removal of native vegetation

Attachment 3

The Garden Court Precinct is comprised of the following sections identified on the Neighbourhood Character Precinct Map: - GC2 (North) -

GC2 (South)

GC2 (East)

GC2 (West)

Outside Accessible Areas Proposals in these areas will protect and enhance the garden character of the precinct with an emphasis on protecting trees and creating new opportunities for vegetation throughout sites. They will provide for a mix of well designed single dwellings and medium density dwellings in garden settings, with space around and between dwellings to create an attractive, treed landscape setting.

Objective Complies? To ensure buildings and extensions do not dominate the streetscape or the building, and Yes do not adversely affect the outlook and amenity of neighbouring dwellings. Design Response 1. Developments should minimise the need for cut and fill throughout the site.

Yes

Second storey portions of buildings should be recessed from ground level wall surfaces, incorporated within roof spaces where possible and minimised in height.

Variation

In accessible areas, upper levels should be positioned towards the street frontage and recessed from the lower level wall surfaces.

n/a

Buildings at the rear of a site should be designed to follow the topography of the land and respond sensitively to each interface. Second storeys (where appropriate) should be modest in size, have generous side and rear setbacks and be screened with vegetation.

Yes

In GC2 (West), the plan and roof form of new dwellings should reflect those of nearby development.

n/a

Discussion The proposed dwellings have generally been sited to follow the contours of the land, therefore minimising the need for significant cut and fill. It is noted that the 10 dwellings are comprised of two separate dwelling designs â&#x20AC;&#x201C; type A and B. It is noted that type B (Lots 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9) propose a modest upper level that would be recessive from the lower level through the use of angled walls, giving the appearance of recession despite the walls not being setback from the lower levels. Despite this, some sheer walls would remain as evident on the west elevation of dwellings on lots 4, and 7 and the east elevation of the dwellings on lots 5, 8 and 9. ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 228

Attachment 3: Neighbourhood Character Assessment

With regards to dwelling type B (Lots 1, 3, 6 and 10), the extent of upper levels are much greater, resulting in less recession of the upper levels. In fact, dwelling type B would result in some elements of overhang evident on the north elevation of each of these dwellings, the result of the master bedroom overhanging the living room below it. Large parts of the southern elevation of these dwellings is also evident.

4.2

Item: 4.2

A vertical feature element is also proposed for dwelling type A and B. This encloses the stairs of the dwellings and would protrude above the roof of the dwellings.

 Dwelling type A and B both employ various materials and features to minimise the appearance of an unrecessed two storey form;  The dwellings are sited well setback from road frontages and from view of nearby dwellings;  The dwellings have been oriented internally to the site so as to present most of the building bulk internally;  Extensive vegetation is to be retained on site and combined with the surrounding vegetation buffer, would ensure views to the development will be softened and broken by vegetation.

Objective To ensure new buildings and extensions are sympathetic to the current building form and architectural style. Design Response 6. In GC2 (North) and GC2 (West), new dwellings should incorporate the main themes from nearby buildings including the predominant roof forms, and articulation to the façade.

Complies? n/a

n/a

In GC2 (South), infill development in 1960s/1970s areas should incorporate the main themes, in correct proportion and scale, from the 1960s/1970s styles ie: low wall heights and low hipped roof forms.

n/a

In GC2 (South), wall materials should be exposed brick and materials for extensions should blend with existing materials.

n/a

Variation should be provided between each dwelling of a development that faces the street. This can be achieved through varied roof pitches, window and door placement, materials, façade articulation and other design detailing.

n/a

Discussion The subject site is located in GC2 East and does not present any dwellings to a street. However, it is noted that the design of these dwellings is more contemporary than the majority of the housing stock in the locality. In considering this though, the proposal is considered acceptable given the secluded nature of the site, being isolated from any meaningful street interaction and through the use of appropriate materials and colours which will ensure the development blends in with the well vegetated character of the locality. ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 229

Attachment 3

However, the extent of upper levels of these dwellings and the extent of recession is considered acceptable in this instance for a number of reasons including:  The overall height of the dwellings has been minimised through the use of a flat roof design;

4.2

Item: 4.2

Attachment 3: Neighbourhood Character Assessment

Objective To ensure that household services are not a visually prominent feature. Design Response 10. 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. 11.

In accessible areas, rooftop plant equipment should be screened and/or located to minimise their visual impact and integrate with the roof form.

Complies? Yes

Yes

n/a

Attachment 3

Discussion Solar panels have not been proposed however, given the flat roof of the dwellings, any future installation of solar panels could be achieved without impacting unreasonably on the visual amenity of surrounding properties. Air conditioning, tanks, bins and storage can easily be accommodated out of view from the street.

Objective To maintain consistency of current front setbacks, whilst enabling tree planting in front gardens. Design Response 12. Dwellings should be setback in line with the predominant front setback of dwellings along the street.

Complies? n/a

n/a

13.

In accessible areas only, a reduced front setback for new buildings (including basements) may be acceptable, if this respects the predominant front setback of nearby dwellings and supports the planting and future growth of a large tree to maturity.

n/a

14.

For corner sites, the front setback of a dwelling facing the side street should be at a transition between the predominant setback along the side street, and the side setback of the dwelling facing the front street.

n/a

Discussion The development is to be accommodated on a lot that does not have a typical street frontage, resulting in all dwellings being well setback from the street, well behind the line of any dwelling that faces Liddesdale Grove.

Objective Complies? To minimise loss of front garden space, and the dominance of vehicle access, vehicle Yes storage facilities and built form as viewed from the street. Design Response 15. Locate carports and garages behind the line of the dwelling.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 230

Variation

16.

In GC2 (East) locate carports, garages, and all uncovered parking spaces behind the line of the dwelling. Landscaping such as large shrubs and trees in the front setback and garden beds along driveway edges should be provided to discourage car parking in the front yard

Variation

17.

In GC2 (North) (South) & (West), 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 should be provided to discourage car parking in this location.

n/a

18.

Encourage outcomes that consider the Banyule City Council Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy 2012.

Yes

19.

Driveways should include curves and bends that provide sufficient room for landscaping at varying heights.

Yes

20.

Driveways should be finished in muted tones that soften their appearance and blend with vegetation.

Yes

Discussion The proposal includes a number of garages and carports forward of the dwellings. Wherever possible the dwellings have their car ports located behind the line of the dwelling. However, it is noted that lots 1, 2, 6, 9 and 10 all have their garage or carport forward of the dwelling. This has been proposed in an attempt to minimise impacts upon vegetation the nearby significant trees. This response is considered acceptable due to the fact that the development will not be seen in the Liddesdale Grove streetscape and therefore will not adversely impact upon the existing rhythm of vegetated front gardens where car parking is not dominant. Furthermore, carports have been proposed for lots 6, 9 and 10, ensuring a more light weight appearance with less visual dominance. The location of the carports is also considered acceptable in that they would not unreasonably obscure the entrances of dwellings or detract from the design of the dwellings. However, it is noted that the entry to dwelling 2 is less than ideal and should be relocated to the southern side of the dwelling to provide convenient and easily identifiable entry to the dwelling. An appropriate landscape plan can be requested as a condition of any approval granted to ensure that car parking is discouraged in the front areas of dwellings. The width of the lot where it abuts Liddesdale Grove is 11.5 metres, and the accessway is proposed to be 5.5 in width, resulting in a 3 metre buffer on each side of the accessway which can accommodate landscaping of varying heights. A condition of any approval granted should require an amended plan to clearly show the entire accessway with curves and bends and coloured and finished appropriately. A detailed landscape plan can also be requested which would demonstrate how the accessway would be appropriately softened with vegetation.

Objective To maintain the openness of front boundary treatments and the presentation of dwellings to the street.

Complies? Yes

Design Response ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 231

4.2

Attachment 3: Neighbourhood Character Assessment

Attachment 3

Item: 4.2

4.2

Item: 4.2

Attachment 3: Neighbourhood Character Assessment

21.

Front fences should not be provided.

Yes

22.

A large tree and understorey landscaping including large shrubs should be provided in the front setback.

Variation

23.

Secluded private open space should be located behind the line of a dwelling that faces the street.

Yes

Discussion

Attachment 3

As noted earlier, the proposal does not present directly to Liddesdale Grove with the exception of the accessway. No front fence is proposed at the Liddesdale Grove frontage or at the front of dwellings within the site. It is noted that the spaces available forward of dwellings and at the front of the site would not accommodate a large tree. However, sufficient space is accommodated within the accessway shaft to provide for substantial landscaping including small trees which will enhance the appearance of the site within Liddesdale Grove. It is also noted that sufficient space would be maintained to the front and sides of dwellings to accommodate new tree plantings. In addition, the proposal maintains the most significant vegetation on site including 7 large trees. No secluded private open space would be located forward of the proposed dwellings.

Objective Complies? To maintain and strengthen the garden and tree dominated streetscape character and Yes the landscaped setting of the precinct, and to support the maintenance of wildlife habitats. Design Response 24. Retain existing trees wherever possible. If this cannot be achieved, or a tree is Yes considered appropriate for removal, the site should provide adequate space for offset planting of indigenous or native trees that will grow to a mature height similar to the mature height of the tree to be removed. 25.

Retain the existing Melbourne Yellow-gums (Eucalyptus leucoxylon subsp. Connata), which are listed as vulnerable on the Advisory List of Rare or Threatened Plants in Victoria, DSE 2005.

n/a

26.

One (1) medium to large tree should be provided for every 400 sq.m of site area, with a preference for large trees. This may include existing trees that are worthy of retention. At least one of the large trees should be provided in the front setback.

Variation

27.

Buildings (including basements) should be a sufficient distance from at least one side or rear property boundary to enable the planting and growth of medium to large trees. These setbacks should provide sufficient area for future growth of the mature canopy of trees, and understorey planting.

Yes

28.

If more than one dwelling is proposed on a site outside an accessible area, sufficient

Yes

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 232

Item: 4.2

Attachment 3: Neighbourhood Character Assessment

Tree species and planting locations should be carefully selected to avoid canopy or root conflicts with overhead wires, easements and existing trees.

Yes

30.

If there is no street tree within the frontage of a dwelling, a new street tree should be proposed.

n/a

31.

Building site coverage should not exceed 40% in order to provide sufficient site area for planting, growth and retention of vegetation. This may be varied if the proposal is in an accessible area and demonstrates that the vegetated character of the site and Precinct is protected and enhanced by retaining existing vegetation and providing sufficient area for the planting of additional trees and other vegetation.

Yes

Discussion The proposed development would result in the retention of all of the trees assessed as having the highest retention value. With the retention of 7 large trees on site, and the location of many large indigenous trees on adjoining land close to the boundary, few new opportunities are available to provide for the planting of new large trees. Some space is available in the south west and north east corners of the site and within the rear yard of Lot 6. In addition. This would result in the planting of three new trees, combined with the retention of 7 existing large trees, totals 10 large trees. This policy seeks to achieve a ratio of 1:400m2 for large to medium trees (a total of 21 trees), 10 large trees is considered acceptable as there is an opportunity to plant at least 5 medium trees and many opportunities exist for the planting of small trees (at least 7 through the site and many more along each side of the access shaft. As previously noted, there is no opportunity to plant a large tree within the frontage of the site given this is limited to an access shaft.

Objective Complies? To ensure that developments on or near ridgelines retain existing trees, sit below the tree n/a canopies, minimise excavation, and enable further tree planting to form a continuous canopy, so that the scenic quality is maintained and enhanced. Design Response 32. New buildings at or near ridgelines should be designed and sited so that cut and fill is minimised and the building sits below the height of trees along the ridgeline.

n/a

33.

New buildings at or near ridgelines should have muted colours and tones, and non reflective materials.

n/a

34.

Trees and vegetation that contribute to the landscape should be retained. New native or indigenous trees should be planted on or near the ridgeline to form a continuous canopy.

n/a

Discussion The site is not located near a ridgeline.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 233

Attachment 3

29.

4.2

separation should be provided between each dwelling to allow for the planting and future growth of small to medium trees and understorey vegetation.

Item: 4.2

Attachment 4: Planning Policy Assessment

4.2

Assessment against Planning Policy The proposal is for the Buildings and works for the construction of 10 double storey dwellings and removal of native vegetation. It incorporates an appropriate level of compliance with State and Local planning policies (including the Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy), and with ResCode. TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION

Attachment 4

TRANSITIONARY PROVISIONS Prior to the introduction of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone on 24 July 2014 the site was affected by the General Residential Zone. The transitionary provisions of the NRZ provide that the provisions of the GRZ with respect to building height and dwelling numbers apply where an application was received by Council prior to that date. The proposed construction of more than two dwellings is therefore permissible in this instance. RESPONSE TO POLICY FRAMEWORK The proposed development is consistent with State and Local Planning Policies seeking urban consolidation and housing diversity in appropriate locations. Both levels of policy also require an appropriate response to neighbourhood character and residential amenity which is discussed within the attached Clause 55 and Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy assessment. RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER POLICY ASSESSMENT (CLAUSE 22.02) The proposal meets the objectives of Council’s Neighbourhood Character Policy. A detailed assessment against the Policy is included below. A variation to the following design responses is proposed and considered acceptable, as detailed in the attachment:    

Recession of upper levels Planting of a large tree within the frontage of the site Car parking structures forward of the dwellings Tree planting ratio less than 1:400m2.

RESCODE ASSESSMENT (CLAUSE 55) An assessment against the provisions of Clause 55 (ResCode) of the Banyule Planning Scheme has been undertaken and is included below. The proposal complies with most of the objectives of the Clause. However, it is noted that conditions should be included on any approval granted to address areas of non-compliance including:  Standard B26 - It is considered that the entry for the dwelling on Lot 2 presents poorly to the internal accessway, resulting in a poor sense of address. This should be amended to locate the entry to this dwelling on the southern side of this dwelling.  Standard B30 - No external storage space has been proposed for the dwellings. Sufficient space would exist in the rear yard of each of the dwellings and therefore a condition should be included on any approval granted to ensure that 6m3 of external storage space is provided for each dwelling. ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE OVERLAY (CLAUSE 42.01) A planning permit is required under this overlay for the removal of 60 indigenous trees and buildings and works. The objectives of this overlay are:

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 234

 To protect and enhance the conservation values of sites of botanical, zoological or habitat significance.  To maintain the biological diversity of indigenous plants, animals and other organisms occurring within recognised sites of botanical, zoological or habitat significance.  To provide for the ecological sustainability of recognised sites of botanical, zoological or habitat significance.  To protect and enhance regional and strategic habitat links.  To address the threatening processes associated with widespread habitat loss and degradation that has occurred in North East Melbourne. A Flora and Fauna assessment conducted as part of the original subdivision of the land (dated November 2011), described the area that would accommodate the 10 dwellings as being relatively degraded as compared with the area that now forms the reserve to the south. This is due to a higher incidence of weed cover and consequent reduction in indigenous vegetation. However, it was rated as being of ‘medium’ conservation significance under the Native Vegetation Management Framework for its support for habitat of the Velvet Apple-berry (Billardiera scandens), a species listed as rare in Victoria. With regards to faunal species of significance, no species were identified as part of the assessment and it was considered unlikely that the study area would be of significance for fauna with regards to the EPBC Act although it was noted that the Swift Parrot and Grey-headed Flying Fox would occasionally forage in the area. With regards to the preferred habitat of these species, it is noted Eucalyptus melliodora (Yellow Box) is used by the Swift Parrot for foraging. It is noted that one Yellow Box is located on the subject site, which is proposed to be retained. A much more common tree species to occur on the site is the Eucalyptus polyanthemos (Red Box) which is also used by the Swift Parrot but less frequently. Many of the trees to be retained on site are Red Box. It is noted that over 50% of the site would remain uncovered and available for indigenous vegetation which will continue to make a significant contribution to the biological diversity within the locality and will ensure a habitat link remains through the site to connect with the surrounding habitat reserves, particularly the land to the south. The development location has been selected to ensure the most disturbed part of the site is utilised to accommodate the dwellings, being the area with the least presence of indigenous understorey vegetation. By contrast, it is noted that more intact understorey vegetation exists closer to the southern boundary where it is proposed to construct a public path for the length of the site. This would result in the removal of two clumps of vegetation adjacent to dwellings 7 and 10. Some of this vegetation is either within the footpath alignment itself or close to its boundary. The trees to be removed include some smaller trees with smaller Tree protection zones which may tolerate some works if they were to be retained. A condition of approval could require an investigation of each of the trees that are currently proposed for removal but may be able to be retained either with some minor changes to the alignment of the footpath or with tree sensitive construction techniques. The retention of some species along this alignment will enhance the ecological outcome for the site. The dwelling layout would provide sufficient spacing of development to enable opportunities to plant new trees throughout the site that will also, in time, make a valuable contribution to the ecological significance of the locality. It is also noted that the land being developed was created as part of a subdivision that formed the reserve to the south of the site. This land is a significant environmental asset that has seen the ongoing protection of a large area of intact remnant vegetation. The creation of this reserve and the ongoing protection of the vegetation within it ensures that the site, when considered as a whole, results in an acceptable environmental outcome. CAR PARKING (CLAUSE 52.06) The proposal has included 2 under cover parking spaces for each dwelling, satisfying the requirement of this clause for a two or more bedroom dwelling.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 235

4.2

Attachment 4: Planning Policy Assessment

Attachment 4

Item: 4.2

4.2

Item: 4.2

Attachment 4: Planning Policy Assessment

Three visitor parking spaces is also proposed which would exceed the statutory requirement of 1 space to each five dwellings. It is noted that the submitted site plan outlines six visitor spaces to be provided, however, three of these spaces were to be located along the western boundary under the canopy of protected trees. These are to be removed which can be requested as a condition of any approval granted. NATIVE VEGETATION (CLAUSE 52.17) The proposal includes the retention of 7 trees on site. 69 trees are proposed to be removed, 60 of which require a permit to be removed.

Attachment 4

The purpose of this clause is  To ensure permitted clearing of native vegetation results in no net loss in the contribution made by native vegetation to Victoria’s biodiversity. This is achieved through the following approach: o Avoid the removal of native vegetation that makes a significant contribution to Victoria’s biodiversity. o Minimise impacts on Victoria’s biodiversity from the removal of native vegetation. o Where native vegetation is permitted to be removed, ensure that an offset is provided in a manner that makes a contribution to Victoria’s biodiversity that is equivalent to the contribution made by the native vegetation to be removed.  To manage native vegetation to minimise land and water degradation.  To manage native vegetation near buildings to reduce the threat to life and property from  bushfire. The proposal is considered to satisfy the objectives of this policy in that the vegetation that makes the most significant biodiversity contribution would be retained. It is also noted that the vegetation cover on the site will continue to provide a habitat link with the reserve to the south of the site therefore minimising the impacts on Victoria’s biodiversity through the loss of vegetation. To ensure that the loss of indigenous vegetation is appropriately offset, an Offset Management Plan should be required as a condition of approval which must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and calculate an appropriate offset based on the Permitted clearing of native vegetation – Biodiversity assessment guidelines (Department of Environment and Primary Industries, September 2013). ESD The proposal has provided an appropriate response with regards to Ecologically Sustainable Design. The dwellings have been designed to achieve the maximum solar orientation to living spaces through the long axis of the dwellings running east-west. It is also noted that the dwellings do not provide windows to the west with the exception of some small windows on dwelling type B. Sufficient space would be available for the provision of a rain water tank for each dwelling. LIVABLE HOUSING GUIDELINES It is noted in the clause 55 assessment that with some minor changes, dwelling type B (dwellings 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9) could be manipulated to accommodate much of Council’s Livable Housing guidelines. This includes providing a 1.2m x 1.2 m level entry for these dwellings and increasing the hallway and doorway widths to 1m and 850mm respectively. It is noted that these dwelling each have a bedroom at the ground floor but the bathrooms and toilet do not provide a clear space of 1200mm forward of each of these facilities. It is considered that with some minor modifications to the dwelling layouts this could be accommodated, resulting in a development that achieves a very compliance with the livable housing guidelines. These changes could be requested as conditions of any approval granted.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 236

Item: 4.2

Attachment 4: Planning Policy Assessment

Environmental Planning referral I understand that the intent is to carry forward approved permit conditions that relate to Lot 6 (40 Liddesdale) from P992/2011279-2. These conditions are: (ii) Any fill utilised to achieve (f) (i) above where adjacent to tree 235 on lot 5 must be retained through a retaining wall utilising well drained medium; (iii) Provision of kerbing and Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) measures to minimise the amount of run-off/sheet water entering the municipal conservation reserve; (iv) Translocation of Orchids (Corybas diemencius, Microtis sp, Pterostylis sp. Thelymitra media,) Geranium sp 3 (pallidiflorum) and Billardiera scandens subsp. braceatha from lot 6 in the ‘lost’ area (zone 2) into zone 1 before any vegetation clearing occurs within that lot; (v) Relocation of any fauna from zone 2 on lot 6 by an appropriately qualified person before vegetation removal on that lot occurs, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority. (vi) No more than twelve (12) dwellings may be permitted. A memorandum of the Agreement is to be entered on title and the cost of the preparation and execution of the Agreement and entry of the memorandum on title is to be paid by the owner. I recommend that the applicant seek the advice of a suitably qualified ecologist in relation to the above conditions and that a condition be noted that a report be provided to Council and referred to my unit for comment and approval before works commence. This report should include: a review of the P992/2011279-2 conditions, an assessment of No Net Loss calculations under the Victorian State Government’s Permitted clearing of native vegetation – Biodiversity assessment guidelines any further advice with regard to meeting the objectives of ESO 3. ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 237

Attachment 4

Lot 1 – tree 929 would be impacted by the proposed cut for the garage and laundry. The garage should be relocated further from this tree to ensure impact is reduced to an acceptable level. Tree Protection Zone is required around tree 123 – located on neighbouring property to the west. Lot 2 – Tree 172 would be impacted by the proposed cut for the carport. The carport should be raised to reduce impact to this tree to an acceptable level. Tree 171 is shown to be retained on the tree retention plan but is not shown on the site plan. The site plan should specify this tree marked for retention. Lot 3 – Trees 918 and 916 are located on land to the north of the site. These require removal. Tree 909 has been assessed as having an acceptable intrusion into its TPZ, however it appears that greater works would be required in this TPZ than shown to get clearance from the windows on the northern elevation (Living room). The extent of additional works should be shown as an acceptable encroachment. Lot 5 – Tree 180 is marked for retention but would not survive the proposed impact and should therefore be removed. Lot 6 –Tree 819 has not been shown on the detailed site plan. This should be clarified. It may be an acceptable impact. Lot 9 – tree 792 Other trees: Tree 164 (on property to the west) would have fill placed within its TPZ to accommodate the road. An alternative technique should be employed to ensure the impact on this tree is acceptable. Tree protection conditions should be included.

4.2

Arborist referral

4.2

Item: 4.2

Attachment 4: Planning Policy Assessment

The engineering unit should also review submitted designs for the provision of WSUD that mitigates impact on the adjacent conservation reserve. Finally, I note that the proposed pedestrian path alignment seems to require the removal of a number of trees assessed in the arboriculture report. The ecologists report , focussing on ESO 3 values, may well provide a different assessment of these and other trees on the site. Engineering referral

Attachment 4

Flooding

Flooding Unlikely

Point of To existing Council pit within easement on southern boundary of property. On Discharge site detention required. Maximum permissible discharge to be based on CEXIST=0.35. Clause The development consists of 10 residential units with 3 or more bedrooms each. 52.06: As such two parking spaces are required for each residence. The development No. of also requires the provision of at least two visitor spaces. spaces The plans indicate a total of 23 parking spaces on site and so it is considered that the parking provided is satisfactory for this development. Clause 52.06: Design

Design standard 1 – Accessways The accessway is generally in accordance with the requirements of Design Standard 1 and will enable vehicles to exit the site in a forward direction. Design standard 2 – Car parking spaces The parking spaces are generally in accordance with the requirements of Design Standard 2 and will enable vehicles to enter and exit the parking spaces in an appropriate manner. Design standard 3: Gradients Accessway design gradients have not been specified in the proposal drawings. The natural terrain of the site is such that careful attention must be made during the detail design of the development in order to achieve Council’s requirements for accessway grades. Council’s requirements are as follows:  In accordance with AS2890.1 Clause 3.3, the gradient between the edge of the road and the property boundary shall be a maximum of 1:20 (5%), and for at least the first 6m into the development;  In accordance with Banyule Planning Scheme Clause 52.06-8, Ramps (except within 5 metres of the frontage) should have the maximum grades as outlined in the table below.

Type of Car Park

Public Car parks Private or residential car parks

Length of Ramp 20 metres or less Longer than 20 metres 20 metres or less Longer than 20 metres

Maximum Grade 1:5 (20%) 1:6 (16.7%) 1:4 (25%) 1:5 (20%)

 In accordance with As2890.1(2004) clause 2.4.6, the maximum gradient within a parking space shall be as follows: o 1 in 20 (5%) along the length of the parking space; and o 1 in 16 (6.25%) in any other direction within the parking space  In accordance with Banyule Planning Scheme Clause 52.06-8, where ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 238

Attachment 4: Planning Policy Assessment

the difference in grade between two sections of ramp or floor is greater than 1:8 (12.5 per cent) for a summit grade change, or greater than 1:6.7 (15 per cent) for a sag grade change, the ramp should include a transition section of at least 2 metres to prevent vehicles scaping or bottoming.

4.2

Item: 4.2

 In accordance with Banyule Planning Scheme Clause 52.06-8, grade changes of greater than 1:5.6 (18%) or less than 3 metres apart should be assessed for clearances.

Design standard 4: Mechanical parking N/A Design standard 5: Urban design Design of car parks should take into account their use as entry points into the site Design of new internal streets in developments is encouraged to maximise onstreet parking opportunities. Design standard 6: Safety In accordance with Banyule Planning Scheme Clause 52.06-8, car parking should be well lit and clearly signed. In accordance with Banyule Planning Scheme Clause 52.06-8, the design of car parks should maximise natural surveillance and pedestrian visibility from adjacent buildings. Design standard 7: Landscaping Landscaping and trees should be planted to provide shade and shelter, soften the appearance of ground level car parking spaces and aid in the clear identification of pedestrian paths Ground level car parking areas should include trees planted with flush grilles. Spacing of trees should be determined having regard to the expected size of the selected species at maturity Waste Collection

Development plans must ensure that accessways meet the requirements of Council’s waste services division for road-side bin collection within the development. The plans must also specify where each dwelling will place bins for collection. A minimum 2.4m of road frontage is required for bin collection from each dwelling.

Vehicle Crossings

‘New (or altered) crossings to comply with Council’s standards and specifications”

Easements According to Council records there is a 3.0m wide easement within the property situated east of the rear boundary of 42 to 50 Liddelsdale Grove. The width of this easement transitions from 3.0m to 7.5m as it crosses the proposed accessway into the development. The easement contains existing sewerage and drainage services which have not been depicted on the proposal drawings. ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 239

Attachment 4

The designers of the road network within the development must demonstrate that the above requirements are achieved for the transitions from the accessway into the individual parking spaces as well as for the accessway itself.

Item: 4.2

Attachment 4: Planning Policy Assessment

4.2

The location of these services and the easement boundaries must be shown in detail design plans. No alteration to existing topography within the existing stormwater drainage easement or stormwater overland flow path is permitted without approval of Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Engineering Services Department.

Attachment 4

Detail design plans must clearly show the cut and/or fill proposed over the easements that may be necessary to achieve the required accessway grades. This design must also ensure that minimum clearances to sewerage and drainage assets are maintained. Standard Permit Conditions

1.1 (c) (i), (ii), 6.1, 6.3, 6.4, 6.9 Please note the Engineering plans must show all protected and/or retained trees on the development site, on adjoining properties where tree canopies encroach the development site and along proposed outfall drainage and roadway alignments (where applicable) and every effort must be made to locate services away from the canopy drip line of trees and where unavoidable, details of hand work or trenchless installation must be provided.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 240

4.3

Attachment 1: Letter from Heritage Victoria including Assessment and Recommendation

Attachment 1

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 241

Attachment 1: Letter from Heritage Victoria including Assessment and Recommendation

Attachment 1

4.3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 242

4.3

Attachment 1: Letter from Heritage Victoria including Assessment and Recommendation

Attachment 1

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 243

Attachment 1: Letter from Heritage Victoria including Assessment and Recommendation

Attachment 1

4.3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 244

4.3

Attachment 1: Letter from Heritage Victoria including Assessment and Recommendation

Attachment 1

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 245

Attachment 1: Letter from Heritage Victoria including Assessment and Recommendation

Attachment 1

4.3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 246

4.3

Attachment 1: Letter from Heritage Victoria including Assessment and Recommendation

Attachment 1

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 247

Attachment 1: Letter from Heritage Victoria including Assessment and Recommendation

Attachment 1

4.3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 248

4.3

Attachment 1: Letter from Heritage Victoria including Assessment and Recommendation

Attachment 1

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 249

Attachment 1: Letter from Heritage Victoria including Assessment and Recommendation

Attachment 1

4.3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 250

4.3

Attachment 1: Letter from Heritage Victoria including Assessment and Recommendation

Attachment 1

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 251

Attachment 1: Letter from Heritage Victoria including Assessment and Recommendation

Attachment 1

4.3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 252

4.3

Attachment 1: Letter from Heritage Victoria including Assessment and Recommendation

Attachment 1

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 253

Attachment 1: Letter from Heritage Victoria including Assessment and Recommendation

Attachment 1

4.3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 254

4.3

Attachment 1: Letter from Heritage Victoria including Assessment and Recommendation

Attachment 1

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 255

Attachment 1: Letter from Heritage Victoria including Assessment and Recommendation

Attachment 1

4.3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 256

4.3

Attachment 1: Letter from Heritage Victoria including Assessment and Recommendation

Attachment 1

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 257

Attachment 1: Letter from Heritage Victoria including Assessment and Recommendation

Attachment 1

4.3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 258

4.3

Attachment 1: Letter from Heritage Victoria including Assessment and Recommendation

Attachment 1

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 259

Attachment 1: Letter from Heritage Victoria including Assessment and Recommendation

Attachment 1

4.3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 260

4.3

Attachment 1: Letter from Heritage Victoria including Assessment and Recommendation

Attachment 1

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 261

Attachment 1: Letter from Heritage Victoria including Assessment and Recommendation

Attachment 1

4.3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 262

4.3

Attachment 1: Letter from Heritage Victoria including Assessment and Recommendation

Attachment 1

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 263

Attachment 1: Letter from Heritage Victoria including Assessment and Recommendation

Attachment 1

4.3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 264

4.3

Attachment 1: Letter from Heritage Victoria including Assessment and Recommendation

Attachment 1

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 265

Attachment 1: Letter from Heritage Victoria including Assessment and Recommendation

Attachment 1

4.3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 266

4.3

Attachment 1: Letter from Heritage Victoria including Assessment and Recommendation

Attachment 1

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 267

Attachment 1: Letter from Heritage Victoria including Assessment and Recommendation

Attachment 1

4.3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 268

4.3

Attachment 1: Letter from Heritage Victoria including Assessment and Recommendation

Attachment 1

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 269

Attachment 1: Letter from Heritage Victoria including Assessment and Recommendation

Attachment 1

4.3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 270

4.3

Attachment 1: Letter from Heritage Victoria including Assessment and Recommendation

Attachment 1

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 271

4.7

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.7

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 273

Attachment 1

4.7

Item: 4.7

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 274

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

4.7

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.7

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 275

Attachment 1

4.7

Item: 4.7

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 276

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

4.7

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.7

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 277

Attachment 1

4.7

Item: 4.7

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 278

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

4.7

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.7

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 279

Attachment 1

4.7

Item: 4.7

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 280

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

4.7

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.7

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 281

Attachment 1

4.7

Item: 4.7

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 282

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

4.7

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.7

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 283

Attachment 1

4.7

Item: 4.7

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 284

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

4.7

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

Attachment 1

Item: 4.7

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 285

Attachment 1

4.7

Item: 4.7

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 286

Attachment 1: Advertised plans

4.7

Attachment 2: Modified plan 4 August 2014

Attachment 2

Item: 4.7

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 287

Item: 4.7

Attachment 3: Additional background information

RESTRICTIVE COVENANT Restrictive Covenant 0852245 is registered on title. This relates to the cost of any new building (must not cost less than £300). The proposal does not contravene this requirement. There are no Section 173 agreements registered on title.

4.7

P494/2013: ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION

POLICIES CONSIDERED Clause 11 12 15 16 21.04 21.05 21.06

These areas typically have the following characteristics: 

Within convenient walking distance to the business core of an Activity Centre.



Are within convenient walking distance to the highest priority sections of the Principal Public Transport Network where higher frequency and quality of public transport services in operation.

They will provide town house and other medium density living and some dispersed single dwellings. Some opportunities for higher density housing will also exist. These areas include strategic redevelopment sites that provide for medium density and a higher density housing component. Development must make a positive contribution to the desired future neighbourhood character, including opportunities for tree protection and planting. Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy – Garden Suburban Precinct 2 Safer Design Policy

22.02 22.03

CURRENT AMENDMENTS C73 Proposed Amendment C73 seeks to introduce Local Policy Clause 22.07 – Environmentally Efficient Design into the Banyule Planning Scheme. This policy applies to all residential and commercial development in the City of Banyule. The amendment commenced exhibition on 28 February 2013 and finished on 29 April 2013. An Advisory Committee and Panel considered the amendment in late 2013. The Advisory Committee and Panel Report was released on 7 April 2014 in support of the amendment.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 289

Attachment 3

Policy SPPF Settlement Environmental and Landscape Values (including sub clauses) Built Environment and Heritage (including sub clauses) Housing (including sub clauses) LPPF Land Use Natural Environment Built Environment (Accessible area)

Item: 4.7

Attachment 3: Additional background information

REFERRAL COMMENTS

Issue Flooding Point of discharge Clause 52.06: No. of spaces

Attachment 3

4.7

DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING Comments Flooding Unlikely Discharge to Council pit outside eastern corner of the property in Lower Plenty Road. Onsite detention is required. CEXIST = 0.35. See Council requirements. The proposal consists of 1 x one bedroom, 15 x two bedroom and 2 x three bedroom dwellings, which falls under the provision of Banyule Planning Scheme Clause 52. Table 52.06-5 requires:  One space to be provided for each one or two bedroom dwelling,  Two spaces to be provided for each three or more bedroom dwelling  One visitor space for every five dwellings (in developments of five or more dwellings) This generates the requirement for 20 resident, and 3 visitor spaces to be provided onsite. The plans indicate a total of 23 parking spaces are provided on site, which is considered satisfactory for this development. In accordance with Banyule Planning Scheme Clause 52, for residential developments of four storeys or more, bicycle parking must be provided at a rate of 1 to every 5 dwellings for residents, and 1 to every 10 dwellings for visitor and short-term use. This generates the requirement for four (4) residential and two (2) visitor parking spaces to be provided. The plans indicate an area for 35 bicycle parking spaces, which is considered acceptable for this requirement.

Clause 52.06: Design

It is recommended that the visitor bicycle parking be located outside the secure area at ground level, however this is not compulsory. Design standard 1 – Accessways The accessway is generally in accordance with the requirements of Design Standard 1 and will enable vehicles to exit the site in a forward direction. Design standard 2 – Car parking spaces The parking spaces are generally in accordance with the requirements of Design Standard 2 and will enable vehicles to enter and exit the parking spaces in an appropriate manner. Design standard 3 – Gradients The accessway gradients are generally in accordance with the requirements of Design Standard 3. Design standard 4 – Mechanical parking The mechanical parking provided is generally in accordance with the requirements of Design Standard 4, however it should be noted that the storage areas for these Dwellings should not encroach on the mechanical parking area. Design standard 5 – Urban design Design standard 6 – Safety In accordance with Banyule Planning Scheme Clause 52.06-8, car parking should be well lit and clearly signed. Design standard 7 – Landscaping

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 290

Vehicle Crossings Easements

Attachment 3: Additional background information

New vehicle crossing to comply with Council's standards and specifications. The existing redundant crossing to be removed with the nature strip and kerb and channel to be reinstated to Council's satisfaction. According to Council records there are no easements located on site.

4.7

Item: 4.7

DEVELOPMENT PLANNING ARBORIST

Only two trees within the site are proposed for retention, namely trees #22 and #23. These trees could be suitably retained with standard tree protection conditions. The remaining trees proposed for retention are located on adjoining property (trees #10, #13, #14, #24, #25, #26, and #32). Of these trees, only the development impact on trees #24 and #26 is substantial. In regards to Tree #26 (located on private property in the rear of 4 Mount Ida Avenue), the development impact can be suitably mitigated via the protection measures detailed in the supplementary impact letter and the design response as detailed on the submitted plans. The impact on Tree #24 (an oak in the Lower Plenty Road nature strip) may be acceptable but only subject to an exploratory dig that demonstrates either no roots present in the affected area (as presumed in the supplementary letter), or a degree of root mass the severance of which will not compromise the tree. Tree Removal The remaining 25 trees assessed are proposed for removal. Most of these are of low retention value being weeds or small trees the amenity of which could easily be replaced. Only two of the trees were greater than 7 metres in height at the time of inspection, and tree height is expected to have changed minimally in the interim. As such, the provision of a considered landscape plan with appropriate species and growing areas would suitably offset the loss of these trees. ESD CONSULTANT To Clarify With Applicant Suggested Improvements

The roof design would not appear to allow for the complete roof area to drain into the rainwater tanks. Also the sizing and location of the tanks would not appear that it can capture the majority of stormwater. Can the applicant confirm that all roof areas will drain into tanks or appropriate sizing? To improve the internal amenity for future occupants, the use of alternative screening devices in place of excessive reliance on highlight windows (and/or) obscure glazing of the upper level. At least all north facing windows should be fitted with alternative screening devices that maximise solar access and external views Due to internal hallways, good cross ventilation cannot be achieved for most apartments. To improve on indoor air quality, install dedicated extraction fans to all kitchens.

EXTERNAL AUTHORITIES VicRoads and PTV have advised that they have no objection to the proposal, subject to the inclusion of standard conditions on any permit issued.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 291

Attachment 3

Tree Retention

Item: 4.7

Attachment 4: Clause 55 Assessment

4.7

ASSESSMENT AGAINST CLAUSE 55 APPLICATION NO.: DEVELOPMENT ADDRESS.: PROPOSAL:

P494/2013 47 Lower Plenty Road ROSANNA Multi-dwelling development (18 dwellings), associated vegetation removal and alteration of access to a Road Zone, Category 1

Clause 55.02 (Neighbourhood Character and Infrastructure) Neighbourhood Character objectives 

Attachment 4



Residential policy objectives 



Complies

To encourage a range of dwelling sizes and types in developments of ten or more dwellings. Standard B3

Complies

Infrastructure objectives  

Refer to response in delegate report.

The proposal comprises a mix of unit types including 2 x three-bedroom units, 15 x two-bedroom units and 1 x onebedroom unit. Unit 1 is also provided at grade (lower ground) level.

Complies

To integrate the layout of development with the street. Standard B5

Complies

Integration with the street objective 

Discussion included within the attached neighbourhood character assessment. It is considered that the proposed design respects the existing and preferred neighbourhood character.

Dwelling diversity objective 

Complies

Clause 55.03 (Site Layout and Building Massing) Street setback objective 

To ensure that the setbacks of buildings from a street respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and make efficient use of the site. Standard B6

Complies Front two-storey component is setback a minimum of 9.04 metres from the property frontage. A porch encroaches within this setback but does not exceed 3.6 metres in height.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 292

Item: 4.7

Attachment 4: Clause 55 Assessment

To ensure that the height of buildings respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character. Standard B7

Complies No part of the buildings exceeds 10 metres above natural ground level. Overall, the height of the proposed built form is considered to be responsive to the site and surrounding area. Refer to attached neighbourhood character assessment. The lift overruns are shown on the plans as render portion on roof in west elevation, and the front lift overrun will be within the roof pitch. As such, no additional structures will protrude above the roof form as shown on the plans.

Site coverage objective 

To ensure that the site coverage respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and responds to the features of the site. Standard B8

Complies

To reduce the impact of increased stormwater run-off on the drainage system. To facilitate on-site stormwater infiltration. Standard B9

Complies

Variation

Permeability objectives  

Energy efficiency objectives  

Open space objective 

To integrate the layout of development with any public and communal open space provided in or adjacent to the development. Standard B11

Safety objective 

To ensure the layout of development provides for the safety and security of residents and property. Standard B12

Landscaping objectives    

Access objectives  

To ensure vehicle access to and from a development is safe, manageable and convenient. To ensure the number and design of vehicle crossovers respects the neighbourhood character. Standard B14

Site coverage is 47%

Permeable site coverage is 38%.

The orientation of the site is a constraint with units facing either north-east or south west. Notwithstanding, only 5 out of the 18 units (Units 4, 5 12 on ground floor and Units 8, 16) are not provided with north-east or north-west facing windows to living rooms. N/A

Complies Entry to the buildings is clearly identifiable and secure. Complies The development retains two fairly substantial trees at the front of the site. All other trees are proposed to be removed however these are either low retention value trees or listed environmental weeds. There are sufficient open areas throughout the site to accommodate new landscaping including at least two new large canopy trees (one in the front setback and one along the southern side of the development), four new medium canopy trees and at least twelve small canopy trees. Complies One crossover is provided. The 5.6 metre wide accessway does not exceed 33% of the frontage width (i.e. 18%).

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 293

Attachment 4



4.7

Building height objective

Item: 4.7

Attachment 4: Clause 55 Assessment

Parking location objectives 

4.7

 

Complies Parking is provided in a secure basement which is conveniently accessed. Two voids adjacent to Dwellings 4 and 12 provide opportunities for ventilation ducting to be run to the roof. Mechanical units to extract/ pump air from the basement can be attached to the ceiling of the garage where floor-toceiling height is greatest, then ducted to the voids, avoiding mechanical units externally on the roof. Further details of any ventilation systems would be requested by way of a permit condition.

Clause 55.04 (Amenity Impacts) Side and rear setbacks objective

Attachment 4



To ensure that the height and setback of a building from a boundary respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and limits the impact on the amenity of existing dwellings. Standard B17

Complies

N/A

To allow adequate daylight into existing habitable room windows. Standard B19

Complies

Walls on boundaries objective 

Daylight to existing windows objective 

North-facing windows objective 

To allow adequate solar access to existing northfacing habitable room windows. Standard B20

Overshadowing open space objective 

To ensure buildings do not significantly overshadow existing secluded private open space. Standard B21

Overlooking objective 

To limit views into existing secluded private open space and habitable room windows. Standard B22

All walls exceed the minimum setback requirements under this standard.

There are no walls on boundaries proposed.

All windows facing the subject site are provided with the required light courts. Complies There are no north facing habitable room windows within 3 metres of the boundary shared with the subject site. Complies The submitted shadow diagrams indicate that the proposed buildings cast shadows to Nos. 4 and 6 Mount Ida Avenue and to 45 Lower Plenty Road at 9am. By midday, these properties are free of any shadow cast by the buildings. In any event, the extent of shadowing 2 maintains at least 40m of secluded private open space. It is noted that the morning shadows cast by the proposal affect the decked area of the dwelling at No. 45 Lower Plenty Road. Given the location of this deck and its visibility from Lower Plenty Road, this space is not considered to be secluded. This dwelling has a large rear 2 yard, of which at least 40m would not be overshadowed. Complies All relevant windows have been screened up to 1.7 metres above FFL through provision of either timber screens or through the provision of fixed obscure glass up to 1.7 metres with clear glass above.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 294

Item: 4.7

Attachment 4: Clause 55 Assessment



To limit views into the secluded private open space and habitable room windows of dwellings and residential buildings within a development. Standard B23

Noise impacts objectives  

To contain noise sources in developments that may affect existing dwellings. To protect residents from external noise. Standard B24

Complies Internal views are limited by screening as described above. Complies

4.7

Internal views objective

The side setbacks of the buildings is such that any mechanical plant (i.e. air-conditioning units located on balconies) is not within close proximity of any bedrooms of immediately adjacent existing dwellings.

Clause 55.05 (On-site Amenity and Facilities) 

To encourage the consideration of the needs of people with limited mobility in the design of developments. Standard B25

Dwelling entry objective 

To provide each dwelling or residential building with its own sense of identity. Standard B26

Daylight to new windows objective 

To allow adequate daylight into new habitable room windows. Standard B27

Private open space objective 

To provide adequate private open space for the reasonable recreation and service needs of residents. Standard B28

Complies Pedestrian access to the front building is provided via a 1 in 100 grade pathway from Lower Plenty Road to a central lobby within the basement garage with associated lift and stair access. Pedestrian access to the rear building is provided via a pathway extending along the northern side of the buildings to a lobby with lift and stair access. Due to the slope of the site this pathway incorporates steps however it is noted that access to the rear building is also available from within the within the basement garage via lift or stairs (the grade within the basement is no steeper than 1 in 20). Complies A sense of address is provided through the front twostorey component being oriented to face Lower Plenty Road. Pedestrian access to the middle and rear three storey components is easily identifiable. Complies All units are provided within adequate windows to habitable rooms. No rooms are ‘borrowing’ light. Variation to Standard All units with the exception of Unit 3 are provided with the minimum amount of private open space required under the standard. 2

Unit 3 is provided with a courtyard of 35.49m which falls 2 short of the 40m required. Notwithstanding, the private 2 open space is fully secluded and exceeds 25m . All private open space is accessed from living rooms.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 295

Attachment 4

Accessibility objective

Item: 4.7

Attachment 4: Clause 55 Assessment

Solar access to open space objective

To allow solar access into the secluded private open space of new dwellings and residential buildings. Standard B29

4.7



Storage objective 

To provide adequate storage facilities for each dwelling. Standard B30

Complies Secluded private open space for Units 4, 5, 8, 9, 12 and 16 is generally provided on the south-western side of the proposed buildings where solar access may be compromised. All other units will have a north-east or north-west facing private open space. Overall, it is considered that the proposal provides good solar access to private open space. Complies Over-bonnet storage is provided for each unit.

Clause 55.06 (Detailed Design)

Attachment 4

Design detail objective 

To encourage design detail that respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character. Standard B31

Front fences objective 

To encourage front fence design that respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character. Standard B32

Common property objectives  



N/A A fence is not provided within 3 metres of the front boundary.

Complies

To ensure that site services can be installed and easily maintained. To ensure that site facilities are accessible, adequate and attractive. Standard B34

Complies

Site services objectives 

Complies

The proposal incorporates an area of bin storage, however the space provided is sufficient in area for approximately 18 bins. This is not sufficient to provide weekly Council garbage collection. The street frontage also is insufficient in width to allow the placement of two bins per dwelling on collection day. As a result, private waste collection is likely to be necessary in this instance. Whilst this places an additional cost implication on future residents it is considered to be acceptable, and frequently occurs in developments of this size.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 296

Attachment 5: Neighbourhood Character Policy Assessment

CLAUSE 22.02: RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER POLICY ASSESSMENT â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Garden Suburban 2 APPLICATION NO: P494/2013 DEVELOPMENT ADDRESS:

47 Lower Plenty Road ROSANNA

PROPOSAL:

Multi-dwelling development (18 units), associated vegetation removal and alteration of access to a Road Zone, Category 1

4.7

Item: 4.7

This precinct includes parts of the Heidelberg Specialised and Major Activity Centres are in this precinct. The detailed landscaping and vegetation outcomes for residential sites in these Activity Centres are guided by this policy. The preferred future built form character of residential sites in these Activity Centres is guided by the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 5, where applicable.

These areas will accommodate change in a manner that supports the garden suburban character of the precinct. All developments will contribute to an enhanced treed environment, including opportunities for tree protection and planting, whilst providing for town houses and other medium density dwellings, as well as some dispersed single dwellings. Canopy trees and understorey vegetation will continue to contribute to the character of the area, particularly in front setbacks to reinforce the character of the street, and along rear boundaries to soften the interface between dwellings. The site coverage may be greater for accessible areas as long as tree and vegetation protection is achieved. The treed and spacious feel of the streetscape character will be retained and enhanced by ensuring front setbacks are large enough to plant a large tree and other vegetation. Building heights may also be increased for these developments, with the higher components generally positioned to front onto the street, and recessed from the lower levels to reduce their visual prominence and provide space for tree canopies. Objective To ensure new buildings and extensions are sympathetic to the current building form and architectural style. Design Response 1. Incorporate the main themes, in correct proportions and scale from the 1950s and 1960s era as appropriate to the street, ie.: low pitched, hipped roof forms with a second or third hipped roof fronting the street; narrow, boxed eaves.

Complies? Yes

Yes

Second storey additions should reflect the architectural style and form of the existing building.

N/A

In accessible areas, upper levels should be positioned towards the street frontage and recessed from the lower level wall surfaces.

Period detailing is not encouraged, but if used should complement the architectural style and scale of the building.

Variation to Design Response N/A

N/A

Discussion The front two-storey component containing Units 1 and 2 which fronts Lower Plenty Road incorporates a low pitched roof with eaves and building forms of traditional scale, albeit with contemporary detail and materials. Unit 13 which is to the side of Units 1 and 2 has a flat roof however this is setback 14.04 metres from the front boundary and will sit comfortably within the building forms around it. The middle and rear three- storey components include skillion roof forms and a mix of materials (i.e. face brick, render and timber) which reference the surrounding area. The first floors are not recessed from the ground level walls below. Further discussion is provided below.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 297

Attachment 5

Accessible Areas

4.7

Item: 4.7

Attachment 5: Neighbourhood Character Policy Assessment

Objective To ensure that household services are not a visually prominent feature. Design Response 6. 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. 7.

In accessible areas, rooftop plant equipment should be screened and/or located to minimise their visual impact and integrate with the roof form.

Complies? Yes Yes

Yes

Discussion

Attachment 5

Domestic services are located where they would not be visible to the street, and no rooftop plant is required that would protrude above the roof line as shown on the plans.

Objective To maintain consistency of current front setbacks whilst enabling tree planting in front gardens. Design Response 8. Dwellings should be setback in line with the predominant front setback of dwellings along the street. 9.

10. For corner sites, the front setback of a dwelling facing the side street should be at a transition

Complies? Yes Yes N/A

N/A

between the predominant setback along the side street, and the side setback of the dwelling facing the front street. Discussion The proposed built form is setback generally in line with the prevailing setbacks along Lower Plenty Road. The proposed front setback supports the retention of two existing substantial trees together with a new large canopy tree. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Objective To ensure buildings and extensions do not dominate the streetscape or the building, and do not adversely affect the outlook and amenity of neighbouring dwellings.

Complies? Yes

Design Response 11. Second storey portions of buildings should be recessed from ground level wall surfaces, incorporated within roof spaces where possible and minimised in height. 12. Buildings at the rear of a site should be designed to follow the topography of the land and

respond sensitively to each interface. Second storeys (where appropriate) should be modest in size, have generous side and rear setbacks and be screened with vegetation. 13. In accessible areas, all upper levels should be positioned towards the street frontage and recessed

Variation to Design Responses

from ground level wall surfaces. 14. Developments should minimise the need for cut and fill throughout the site.

Discussion As stated above, the first floors are not recessed from the ground level walls below (it is also noted that Unit 13 also cantilevers out over the basement garage entrance). Rather, the upper and lower portions of the buildings are broken up through windows and balconies which provide articulation to the built form and through a mix of materials.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 298

Attachment 5: Neighbourhood Character Policy Assessment

Furthermore, walls are varied in their setbacks from side boundaries which provides some staggering of the built form and the extent of site cut means that views of any perceived sheer wall elements from the surrounding area is likely to be minimised, given that wall heights are generally between 4 and 6 metres (in one small section on the north elevation there is a wall which is approximately 7.2 metres high). The provision of a 5 metre break between the middle and rear three-storey components is such that a continuous built form along the length of the site is avoided. Consequently the rear component appears as 1 to 1.5 storeys when viewed from the surrounding area.

4.7

Item: 4.7

The setback of the built form from the side and rear boundaries also means that there is an opportunity to provide a significant number of new canopy tree plantings around the periphery of the site that will serve to soften the built form.

Objective To minimise loss of front garden space, and the dominance of vehicle access, vehicle storage facilities and built form as viewed from the street.

Complies? Yes

Design Response 15. Buildings should be sited to allow for the planting and growth of trees and shrubs.

Yes

16. Locate carports and garages behind the line of the dwelling.

Yes

17. Dedicated car parking spaces should not be provided between the front wall of a dwelling that

Yes

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 should be provided to discourage car parking in this location. 18. Encourage outcomes that consider the Banyule City Council Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy

2012. 19. Driveways should include curves and bends that provide sufficient room for landscaping at varying

heights. 20. Driveways should be finished in muted tones that soften their appearance and blend with

Variation to Design Response Variation to Design Response Yes

vegetation. Discussion As stated above, the setback of the built form from all boundaries means that there is an opportunity to provide a significant number of new canopy tree plantings around the periphery of the site that will serve to soften the built form. The proposed basement garage is located behind the line of the dwelling. No dedicated car parking spaces are provided between the buildings the front property boundary. The proposal is generally in accordance with the Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy as only one crossover is proposed. The policy requires that crossovers should be single-width (i.e. 3 metres), except in special circumstances. In this instance, a double width crossover is considered appropriate given that the rhythm of crossovers and nature strips along this section of Lower Plenty Road would not be substantially impacted. Given the width of the accessway it would be impractical to require that curves be incorporated. Notwithstanding, there is sufficient space either side of the driveway to incorporate landscaping of varying heights. The submitted schedule of external materials and finishes shows a muted tone for the proposed driveway, as is appropriate.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 299

Attachment 5

A substantial amount of cut at the rear of the site is proposed in order to facilitate the provision of a basement garage. This has resulted in the buildings generally limiting the overall height of the buildings which would appear as 1.5 to 2 storeys (even less for the rear component) when viewed from the surrounding area. The provision of a basement garage also substantially reduces the overall site coverage and means that there are greater opportunities for landscaping throughout the site.

4.7

Item: 4.7

Attachment 5: Neighbourhood Character Policy Assessment

Objective To maintain the openness of front boundary treatments the view of established front gardens and tree lines streets, and the presentation of dwellings to the street Design Response 21. 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. 22. Secluded private open space should be located behind the line of a dwelling that faces the street.

23. Provide for open style fences appropriate to the era of the dwelling.

Complies? Yes

Yes Variation to Design Response Yes

Discussion

Attachment 5

The proposal incorporates the retention of two existing substantial trees together with a new large canopy tree within the front setback. Secluded private open space for Unit 1 is provided on both the southern side of the dwelling and within the front setback. A 1.5 metre high timber slat fence encloses this space however it is well setback being 6 metres from the front property boundary. No front fence is proposed.

Objective To maintain and strengthen the garden dominated streetscape character and landscaped setting of the precinct. Design Response 24. Retain existing trees wherever possible. If this cannot be achieved, or a tree is considered appropriate for removal, the site should provide adequate space for offset planting of indigenous or native trees that will grow to a mature height similar to the mature height of the tree to be removed. 25. One (1) medium to large tree should be provided for every 400 sq.m of site area, with a

Complies? Yes

Yes

preference for large trees. This may include existing trees that are worthy of retention. At least one of the large trees should be provided in the front setback. 26. Buildings (including basements) should be a sufficient distance from at least one side or rear

Yes

property boundary to enable the planting and growth of medium to large trees. These setbacks should provide sufficient area for future growth of the mature canopy of trees, and understorey planting. 27. If more than one dwelling is proposed on a site outside an accessible area, sufficient separation

Yes

should be provided between each dwelling to allow for the planting and future growth of small to medium trees and understorey vegetation. 28. Tree species and planting locations should be carefully selected to avoid canopy or root conflicts

Yes

with overhead wires, easements and existing trees. 29. Building site coverage should not exceed 40% to enable sufficient pervious site area for planting,

Yes

growth and retention of vegetation. This may be varied if the proposal is in an accessible area and demonstrates that the vegetated character of the site and Precinct is protected and enhanced by retaining existing vegetation and providing sufficient area for the planting of additional trees and other vegetation. 30. If there is no street tree within the frontage of a dwelling, a new street tree should be proposed.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 300

Yes

Item: 4.7

Attachment 5: Neighbourhood Character Policy Assessment

Two trees are proposed to be retained at the site (Tree nos 23 and 24) and are located within the front setback. All other trees are proposed to be removed however these are either low retention value trees or listed environmental weeds.

4.7

Discussion

There are sufficient open areas throughout the site to accommodate new landscaping including at least two new large canopy trees (one in the front setback and one along the southern side of the development), four new medium canopy trees and at least twelve small canopy trees.

Within the break between the middle and rear building components, there is sufficient space to accommodate small canopy trees (within planter boxes). Site coverage is 47% which exceeds the preferred maximum of 40%. The policy does however state that this can be varied if the site is in an â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Accessibleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; area and demonstrates that that the vegetated character. A variation in this instance is considered acceptable given the significant number of new trees that can be provided on site. Two existing street trees at the front of the site are proposed to be retained.

Objective To ensure that developments on or near ridgelines retain existing trees, sit below the tree canopies, minimise excavation, and enable further tree planting to form a continuous canopy, so that the scenic quality is maintained and enhanced. Design Response 31. New buildings at or near ridgelines should be designed and sited so that cut and fill is minimised and the building sits below the height of trees along the ridgeline. 32. New buildings at or near ridgelines should have muted colours and tones, and non -reflective materials. 33. Trees and vegetation that contribute to the landscape should be retained. New native or indigenous trees should be planted on or near the ridgeline to form a continuous canopy.

Complies? N/A

N/A N/A N/A

Discussion The site is not on or near a ridgeline.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 301

Attachment 5

Overall, the setback of the built form from the side and rear boundaries also means that there is an opportunity to provide a significant number of new canopy tree plantings around the periphery of the site that will serve to soften the built form.

Request to Speak

For or Against

Summary of Key Themes:

Officer Comment:

Does NOT support the proposed lease on the following grounds:

Length of Tenure:  The lease term is too long; a five year with five year options should be the term. Public Access:  In times of increasing population it is essential that the community’s long term interests are always placed first.

Supports the proposed lease on the following grounds:

Level of Service:  Chelsworth Park is maintained to an extremely high standard and the new lease would allow this standard to continue. Public Access:  There are no issues with public access to the park; there is always space and access for family activities and passive recreation.

Value for Rate Payer:  The lease allows Council to distribute rate payer’s funds to other Council community projects or services. Does NOT support the proposed lease on the following grounds: Public Access:  The issue is access to pubic lands. The submitter noted that public access would be maintained. Governance:  Ongoing administration and compositions of the Chelsworth Park Tenant Group (Reference Group) Capital Works Improvements:  All park plans and developments should be displayed and communicated to the community.

Public Access:  Pedestrian access within the proposed lease is consistent with the existing lease.  The park will remain open to the public for leisure activities and community enjoyment outside of the existing license arrangements with community sporting clubs and casual bookings.  Ground allocations to be made available on the IGS website and signage at Chelsworth Park so the general public can report any groups using the park inappropriately. Governance:  Council officers will manage the proposed lease with the school. This process will include regular contract meetings between IGS and Council, contract reports and financial reports.  Maintenance, Horticulture and Storm Water Harvesting plant maintenance specifications are also included in the proposed lease.  All applications for allocations and casual bookings will continue to be administered and programmed by the lessee, Ivanhoe Grammar School, during the proposed lease with consultation regarding seasonal allocations with the Chelsworth Park Reference Group.  IGS will be required to follow Council‘s sporting reserves user guidelines in relation to fees and charges. Capital Works Improvements:  All development permits, plans and proposed upgrades to the park ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 303

5.1

Submitter No.

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary

Attachment 1

Item: 5.1

5.1

Submitter No. 4

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary Request to Speak

For or Against

Summary of Key Themes:

Does NOT support the proposed lease on the following grounds: Length of Tenure:  I fail to understand why the lease should be for 20-30 yrs. IGS is an elite school business, which doesn’t pay rates, and should NOT have absolute priority of use.

Attachment 1

Public Access:  I believe that Banyule Council needs to think very carefully about the needs of its ratepayers. With increased Population in Melbourne and Ivanhoe (set to double over the time of the Lease) we cannot afford to tie up such a resource for such a long period with no recourse to reduce the IGS Hours of Use when local people demand more active and passive recreation.

Officer Comment: infrastructure will need to follow statutory and responsible authority processes. Length of Tenure:  The proposed lease term is comparative to the current lease, which has been in place since 1994. Council has a right to grant a lease for up to 50 years under the Local Government Act.  The proposed lease term allows for a reasonable period for the tenant to improve community infrastructure within the park.  Given the substantial overall financial value and the substantial capital works improvement within the proposed lease, a 20 year proposed lease with a further 10 year option is considered appropriate. Public Access:  Pedestrian access within the proposed lease is consistent with the existing lease.  The park will remain open to the public for leisure activities and community enjoyment outside of the existing license arrangements with community sporting clubs and casual bookings.  Ground allocations to be made available on the IGS website and signage at Chelsworth Park so the general public can report any groups using the park inappropriately.

Questions raised by submitter:

Officer Response:

a) Why is the Lease not for 5 yrs. with re-negotiation at the end of this period? For example, at the end of such a period there should be a reassessment of unmet community demand and of site value.

a) The proposed lease term is comparative to the current lease, which has been in place since 1994. The term provides a reasonable period for the tenant to complete capital improvements and improve community infrastructure within the park. Supports lease in its entirety. No clarification required.

Supports the proposed lease on the following grounds: Level of Service:  Chelsworth Park is maintained to an extremely high standard and the new lease would allow this standard to continue.

Public Access:  There are no issues with public access to the park; there is always space and access for family activities and passive recreation. Does NOT support the proposed lease on the following grounds: Length of Tenure:  A 20/30 year lease is far too long. Surely Council is not naive enough to think that IGS won’t consider it their park after all that time and after they have added the entire proposed infrastructure to suit themselves. Public Access:  They shouldn’t have to enquire at IGS to see if they can walk their dog, teach the kids to ride, kick a footy, have a small picnic or just wonder through the park after a hard day at the office to clear their head. Rates and Financial Management:  Council’s current rating strategy and rate rises should be able to cover the operations of the park. Will the public get anything substantial out of this additional infrastructure?

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 304

Request to Speak

For or Against

Summary of Key Themes:

Officer Comment:  When considering all aspects of the proposed lease, including the rent, capital works, and savings to Council in relation to the maintenance and saving on interest in lieu of capital up front $1 Million, officers estimate the total value of the lease over the 30 year period to be $17,739,163.  All new works and improvements become Council assets at no cost to Council.  When Council consider the overall value of the proposed lease, the social, environmental and commercial outcomes of the proposal need to be considered. The decision is not based on a commercial consideration along. On balance Council officers believe the overall value to the community outlined in the proposed lease is fair and reasonable.

Questions raised by submitter:

Officer Response:

a) Council has undertaken a statutory process set out under the Local Government Act. Section 223 sets out the administrative procedure for Council to follow where a person is given a right to make a submission (including under section 190 of the Act in respect of a proposed lease by Council). Under section 223, Council must publish a public notice containing details of the proposal, a person may make a submission in respect of the proposal and, if the person wishes to be heard in support of the submission, Council is to provide the person with the opportunity to attend a meeting of Council or a committee of Council. Length of Tenure:  The proposed lease term is comparative to the current lease, which has been in place since 1994. Council has a right to grant a lease for up to 50 years under the Local Government Act.  The proposed lease term allows for a reasonable period for the tenant to improve community infrastructure within the park.  Given the substantial overall financial value and the substantial capital works improvement within the proposed lease, a 20 year proposed lease with a further 10 year option is considered appropriate.

Have Council taken into account the silent majority that use the park for passive use?

Does NOT support the proposed lease on the following grounds: Length of Tenure: 

The length of the lease is far too long.

Rates and Financial Management:  First and foremost CP is park that is a valuable asset for the use of all the ratepayers and residents of Banyule. IGS is exempt from paying rates.  During the time of the lease there is no provision for revaluation of the site value. Indexation at 4% pa in the last 10 years of the lease seems ludicrous.  $50,000.00 per year is very cheap for a site as valuable as CP.  The proposed lease to IGS has not been presented to the local community with a proper business plan. All levels of government are expected to provide a business plan for the use of such valuable assets as CP. Level of Service:  I have heard that BCC has stated that they would be unable to maintain CP to the same standard that it is currently maintained by IGS. I am saying why our local council should strive to maintain this facility in a state over and above the other recreational facilities in BCC. If IGS wants a higher standard than like most other private schools they should have their own facilities. IGS has a campus at Mernda and should develop their needs at this campus. Then like other Private schools "bus” their students to their own playing fields.  Revenue raised from appropriate rental fees would easily pay the wages of 2 staff to maintain the facilities. This would provide additional employment opportunities.  I also object to any further development and or upgrade of facilities in CP over and above what is currently available and provided to other sporting facilities in BCC without consultation. Consultation:  Despite the issues raised at a public meeting at the beginning of this year, Feb 14, the lease of CP has been presented without addressing the input and concerns of the local residents. This could beg the question "What is the real relationship between IGS and BCC?"

5.1

Submitter No.

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary

Attachment 1

Item: 5.1

Attachment 1

5.1

Submitter No.

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary Request to Speak

For or Against

Summary of Key Themes:

Does NOT support the proposed lease on the following grounds: Length of Tenure:  That a 20 year lease with a 10 year extension is inappropriate for a valued asset of this type particularly as it was given to the public for use by the public. A thirty year lease provides a form of ownership of the park to the school. Public Access:  The public has always had free access to three tennis courts in the park and the lease includes a plan to give exclusive control of redeveloped courts to the school with limited access to community clubs or groups but no access by informal groups, families and individuals. This reverses a promise made to the community by council staff and shows how the school will start to control a public asset. The school has first tried to acquire CP tennis courts, then locked these concrete courts and then removed the nets claiming it had always done so. Such actions have lost our trust in how they will manage assets in the park.  The lease implies that at times when the school uses the park all other uses will be excluded. Currently this is a public park. Walking, running or sports activities on ovals and areas not being used by the school or other clubs should be permitted at all times. Governance:  The school is to be given control of park bookings though it is not trusted by the community because of its past conduct in relation to facilities in the park. The lease fails to clarify the hours and terms for which the school has full access to the park or to show how the booking process will be transparent. We think it is critical that a set of defined hours of school use be set out and all other times should be available for other schools and clubs.  Effective control of a public asset is being handed to a commercial institution with only limited protection for general use by the public, use by other public bodies, other formal and informal sporting clubs and state schools.  That the mechanisms and measures by which the council monitors the effective maintenance of the park are not clear in the lease so that the school cannot be held accountable for effective maintenance  The negotiations and discussion have occurred “In Camera” for the last two years and that the public has not been informed of the exact nature of agreements. Rates and Financial Management:  The commercial terms represent poor value for money for the community, have been misrepresented to the community (via other documents) using an inflated view of value and have under estimated the value of the asset to the school which has major expansion plans and no alternatives, The lease places value on investments which are solely in the schools interest or of value to their related entities but have no value to the community because they can’t access them e.g. new tennis courts are then placed under the control of the school. Effectively this means that the school gets to build its assets on public land.  The lease valuation places a significant value on maintenance but fails to recognize that most of these are not incremental costs to the school. They would have to maintain playing fields of their own if they had them.  The calculations used to value the lease and produce a business case have used inconstant and inappropriate calculation methods such as valuing maintenance at over $280,000 a year and failing to deal with inflation in various calculations.  The commercial terms included continued payment of rentals by other clubs to the school but the council has provided no transparency of the value of the rents to the school or the amount of money the school has made from such terms over the last twenty years. Many of these rentals come from related entities of the school in any case.  The main payment made by the school is the contribution to the water harvesting scheme but the school receives water from this scheme and this return is not valued in the lease  Financial arrangement for the recent water harvesting project, payment for which has formed part of these negotiations with the school. It’s not clear who has contributed what and the value placed on related water assets.  The lease is based on an inappropriate “premises” legal template (like a shop or building) that fails to

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 306

Officer Comment: for Council to consider regarding specific items were presented to Council in May for further consideration. Length of Tenure:  The proposed lease term is comparative to the current lease, which has been in place since 1994. Council has a right to grant a lease for up to 50 years under the Local Government Act.  The proposed lease term allows for a reasonable period for the tenant to improve community infrastructure within the park.  Given the substantial overall financial value and the substantial capital works improvement within the proposed lease, a 20 year proposed lease with a further 10 year option is considered appropriate. Public Access:  Pedestrian access within the proposed lease is consistent with the existing lease. The proposed lease includes restricting vehicle access between midnight and sunrise to improve community safety and asset protection.  Chelsworth Park currently caters for passive unstructured recreation (such as dog walking) and structured organised activities (community sport).  Any increase in use will be considered by the Reference Group who will advise the Council in relation to the management of the Premises.  The tennis courts will be available for hire by community groups and sporting clubs. They will not be available for free public use at all times. Council are unaware of any other tennis courts (with nets installed) which are open and available free of charge for public use. All Council owned tennis courts are leased to third parties who control the access and manage the asset on behalf of Council.  The park will remain open to the public for leisure activities and community enjoyment outside of the existing license arrangements with community sporting clubs and casual bookings.  Ground allocations to be made available on the IGS website and signage at Chelsworth Park so the general public can report any groups using the park inappropriately. Governance:  Council officers will manage the proposed lease with the school. This process will include regular contract meetings between IGS and Council, contract reports and financial reports.  Maintenance, Horticulture and Storm Water Harvesting plant maintenance specifications are also included in the proposed lease.  All applications for allocations and casual bookings will continue to be administered and programmed by the lessee, Ivanhoe Grammar School, during the proposed lease with consultation regarding seasonal allocations with the Chelsworth Park Reference Group.  IGS will be required to follow Council‘s sporting reserves user guidelines in relation to fees and charges. Rates and Financial Management:  When considering all aspects of the proposed lease, including the rent, capital works, and savings to Council in relation to the maintenance and saving on interest in lieu of capital up front $1 Million, officers estimate the total value of the lease over the 30 year period to be $17,739,163.  All new works and improvements become Council assets at no cost to Council.  When Council consider the overall value of the proposed lease, the social, environmental and commercial outcomes of the proposal need to be considered. The decision is not based on a commercial consideration along. On balance Council officers believe the overall value to the community outlined in the proposed lease is fair and reasonable.

Request to Speak

For or Against

Summary of Key Themes: recognize that this is and should remain a public park (and therefore limits council access as an example)  The lease fails to recognize the interests of other schools (6) and clubs that are regular users of the park and they are not mentioned in the lease and their rights and traditional use of the ovals are not mentioned. The council officers have informed us that they have sent fact sheets to other schools but never asked them of their needs or of their history of negotiations with IGS. Had the council consulted schools like Ivanhoe Girls Grammar and East Ivanhoe primary, we think a different picture would have emerged as to how IGS had managed the park and protected its “pseudo” asset  Throughout the discussions, the five sporting clubs that sub lease the park are treated by the council as though they are ‘community clubs” when three of the five have a formal connection with the school as they are clubs for old boys of the school

Officer Comment:

Capital Works Improvements:  All development permits, plans and proposed upgrades to the park infrastructure will need to follow statutory and responsible authority processes.

Capital Works Improvements:  Plans have been mentioned for further developments of sports facilities (a new tennis court and resurfacing of existing courts) within the park for which there is limited community support given that the school will then control these assets. This plan is required by the school for its sports program but doesn’t represent public demand. The plan includes a public half court as some form of compensation but the community doesn’t want this and there are two other half courts within a kilometre of that proposed (Ivanhoe Park and near Eaglemont tennis club).  The lease includes plans for installation of watering systems in the park from which the school will be the main beneficiary

Attachment 1

Submitter No.

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary

The submitter noted no objection to the Ivanhoe Grammar School continuing to maintain Chelsworth Park or the schools continued use. The submitter similarly notes the following:  Understands community saves a lot of money by having IGS maintain the park  This Lease is a much better lease because IGS will pay for various improvements.  The council and staff have done a good job in negotiating a better deal and consulted the community in the process.  The lease balances use by the school and the interests of various community clubs.  The community is protected by the consultative committee put in place. Questions and alternatives raised by submitter: The submitter offered an alternative proposal to the lease with the key elements including: A) The schools use of the park is limited to a defined set of hours that enable it to complete its sports program without having control of the park. These hours should be formally set out in the lease B) The school receives at most a five year arrangement (not necessarily a lease) with a potential five year extension for good behaviour C) The financial terms represent a reasonable commercial return to the community regardless of any prior committed contribution to the water harvesting project and that the lease and benefits case are calculated on sound commercial principles. D) That bookings are controlled by the council and the tennis courts remain available and usable for public use at all times other than those required by the school (which should be no more than 26 hours a week) and the school is mandated to provide nets to the community as a key part of the lease E) That any change in buildings or lay out of the park are prohibited by planning constraints and some form of overlay including the building of additional tennis courts which only suit the school. The community has never asked for a fourth court or a half court F) That internal upgrades of the buildings are completed under separate arrangements to which the associated clubs make a contribution G) That all types of park user are catered for in any arrangement rather than just the school and sporting

5.1

Item: 5.1

Officer Response: a) Officers acknowledge this schedule was in the previous lease and Officers recommend that a schedule outlining allocated usage is included in the proposed lease. b) Council negotiated the term to include the contribution of funding for the SWHP. The proposed lease term is comparative to the current lease. Council has a right to grant a lease for up to 50 years under the Local Government Act. c) When considering all aspects of the proposed lease, including the rent, capital works, and savings to Council in relation to the maintenance and saving on interest in lieu of capital up front $1 Million, officers estimate the total value of the lease over the 30 year period to be $17,739,163. This is a significant improvement on the previous 20 year lease and incorporates all new works and improvements becoming Council assets at no cost to Council at the conclusion of the lease. d) The previous lease incorporated IGS administering the bookings all grounds with no issues to date. No Tennis public courts in Banyule are open free of charge or without a booking process. e) All development permits, plans and proposed upgrades to the park infrastructure will need to follow statutory and responsible authority processes. f) IGS have committed to upgrades as specified in the Capital works upgrade list in the proposed lease.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 307

Item: 5.1 Request to Speak

For or Against

Attachment 1

5.1

Submitter No.

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary Summary of Key Themes:

Officer Comment:

clubs and all current regular users including all nearby schools are consulted and their needs are formally addressed in the lease

g) Any Banyule school or community sporting club can apply to use Chelsworth Park. If these schools or groups are not being met due to unreasonable responses, Council have the power to override the tenant’s decision as part of this lease.

H) That the school’s continued maintenance of the park is given limited commercial value as the school would need to maintain any playing fields that it owned. However the council should define a clear set of measurable indicators to ensure that the school delivers effective maintenance of the council and public asset I) That no additional sporting facilities, storage or spectator areas are added to the park without prior consultation and agreement by a group of passive park users all of whom should have no connections to the school or associated clubs

i) The lease includes detailed list of planned capital works and improvement to the park. All development permits, plans and proposed upgrades to the park infrastructure will need to follow statutory and responsible authority processes.

J) That all sports facilities within the park remain available and usable by the public at all times when not explicitly booked by the school, a sporting club or other casual users according to an agreed and published schedule.

j) All ovals will remain open to the public for leisure activities and community enjoyment outside of the existing license arrangements with community sporting clubs and casual bookings. The concrete tennis courts will be available for hire for group bookings and sporting clubs.

K) That informal use of the park for typical “park activities” such as dog walking, casual sport, running, small children’s parties and picnics should be explicitly stated as some of the prime purpose of the park and be specifically permitted within the arrangements at all times and merely excluded from ovals and facilities being used for formal sports. For example it is quite possible to walk dogs even at times when formal sports matches are occurring. Equally, it is rare that all areas are used simultaneously.

k) All ovals will remain open to the public for leisure activities and community enjoyment outside of the existing license arrangements with community sporting clubs and casual bookings.

L) That other nearby sporting clubs are consulted regarding their needs and these needs and hours are made explicit in any future commercial arrangement. 9

h) The proposed lease includes a detailed maintenance and horticulture specification.

Does NOT support the proposed lease on the following grounds: Public Access:  We have so many people living in apartments and a proposed retirement village just streets form Chelsworth Park. Governance:  The lease provides contract management and audit processes, but is robust and does not include specific penalty  All Club fees and bookings for the Park to go through Ivanhoe Grammar.!!!...they will be able to sub lease and keep a proportion of the fees charged.... Nothing in it for Banyule City Council and of course 'helping' the school meet the Lease payments! They will be able to hold fund raising events in 'our' pavilions when the public will not be welcome. Rates and Financial Management:  I oppose Chelsworth Park being traded for the price of two year 12 school fees per year.

l) Chelsworth Park has consistently been used as an overflow venue for other Council sporting clubs. The park is used as an overflow venue when other grounds are being serviced or unable to be used. This arrangement will continue under the proposed lease. Public Access:  Pedestrian access within the proposed lease is consistent with the existing lease. The proposed lease includes restricting vehicle access between midnight and sunrise to improve community safety and asset protection.  Chelsworth Park currently caters for passive unstructured recreation (such as dog walking) and structured organised activities (community sport).  Any increase in use will be considered by the Reference Group who will advise the Council in relation to the management of the Premises.  The tennis courts will be available for hire by community groups and sporting clubs. They will not be available for free public use at all times. Council are unaware of any other tennis courts (with nets installed) which are open and available free of charge for public use. All Council owned tennis courts are leased to third parties who control the access and manage the asset on behalf of Council.  The park will remain open to the public for leisure activities and community enjoyment outside of the existing license arrangements with community sporting clubs and casual bookings.  Ground allocations to be made available on the IGS website and signage at Chelsworth Park so the general public can report any groups using the park inappropriately. Governance:  Council officers will manage the proposed lease with the school. This process will include regular contract meetings between IGS and Council, contract reports and financial reports.  Maintenance, Horticulture and Storm Water Harvesting plant maintenance specifications are also included in the proposed lease.  All applications for allocations and casual bookings will continue to be administered and programmed by the lessee, Ivanhoe Grammar School, during the proposed lease with consultation regarding seasonal allocations with the Chelsworth Park Reference Group.  IGS will be required to follow Council‘s sporting reserves user guidelines in relation to fees and charges.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 308

Request to Speak

For or Against

Summary of Key Themes:

Officer Comment:

Questions raised by submitter: a) Will the pavilions be available for public bookings? Will Banyule City Council have any control in such situations? 10

Does NOT support the proposed lease on the following grounds: Public Access: 

Other private schools have had to purchase land to accommodate their playing fields.

Rates and Financial Management:  If a lease is to be undertaken by Council without the backing of the community, Council should settle for nothing less than a proper Commercial Lease with a lesser term (True Value of the Property). Don’t sell the residents of Banyule short.

Does NOT support the proposed lease on the following grounds: Rates and Financial Management:

Officer Response: a) The lease allows provision for subleasing for casual bookings for grounds and sporting pavilions outside of the scheduled times allocated to tenant sporting clubs.

Public Access:  Pedestrian access within the proposed lease is consistent with the existing lease. The proposed lease includes restricting vehicle access between midnight and sunrise to improve community safety and asset protection.  Chelsworth Park currently caters for passive unstructured recreation (such as dog walking) and structured organised activities (community sport).  Any increase in use will be considered by the Reference Group who will advise the Council in relation to the management of the Premises.  The tennis courts will be available for hire by community groups and sporting clubs. They will not be available for free public use at all times. Council are unaware of any other tennis courts (with nets installed) which are open and available free of charge for public use. All Council owned tennis courts are leased to third parties who control the access and manage the asset on behalf of Council.  The park will remain open to the public for leisure activities and community enjoyment outside of the existing license arrangements with community sporting clubs and casual bookings.  Ground allocations to be made available on the IGS website and signage at Chelsworth Park so the general public can report any groups using the park inappropriately. Rates and Financial Management:  When considering all aspects of the proposed lease, including the rent, capital works, and savings to Council in relation to the maintenance and saving on interest in lieu of capital up front $1 Million, officers estimate the total value of the lease over the 30 year period to be $17,739,163.  All new works and improvements become Council assets at no cost to Council.  When Council consider the overall value of the proposed lease, the social, environmental and commercial outcomes of the proposal need to be considered. The decision is not based on a commercial consideration along. On balance Council officers believe the overall value to the community outlined in the proposed lease is fair and reasonable. Rates and Financial Management:  When considering all aspects of the proposed lease, including the rent, capital works, and savings to Council in relation to the maintenance and saving on ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 309

5.1

Submitter No.

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary

Attachment 1

Item: 5.1

Item: 5.1 Request to Speak

For or Against

5.1

Submitter No.

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary Summary of Key Themes:

Officer Comment:

 The IGS had land which, I understand, they sold as they would rather use the Ivanhoe rate payers’ land. They have already had the Park for a peppercorn rent. Please do not tell me that they look after the park for Council. We pay rates for council to look after our assets!

interest in lieu of capital up front $1 Million, officers estimate the total value of the lease over the 30 year period to be $17,739,163.  All new works and improvements become Council assets at no cost to Council.  When Council consider the overall value of the proposed lease, the social, environmental and commercial outcomes of the proposal need to be considered. The decision is not based on a commercial consideration along. On balance Council officers believe the overall value to the community outlined in the proposed lease is fair and reasonable.

Governance:  If the IGS wishes to use the park, control of the arrangement should be in the control of council. The IGS should not be permitted to re lease the Park for income that goes to the school and not to the council.

Attachment 1

Capital Works Improvements:  After 20 years, the IGS now want to put up buildings fence off some parts of the grounds. Already the school thinks it has ownership of the Park. I remember 20 years ago when the Ivanhoe Grammar School wanted to fence off the Park and there was such an outcry, fencing did not go ahead. We want NO FENCE$S, NO FENCES, NO FENCES at all not even parts of fences because we know where that leads to!!!!!!!

Does NOT support the proposed lease on the following grounds: Length of Tenure:  In addition, the terms of the lease do not seem sufficient in that it is of excessive duration and of unclear benefit (financial and otherwise) as to why this is in the interest of the general public and local rate payers. Governance:  I do not believe that it is in the interest of the general public and rate paying local community that the control of this important public amenity be given to a private school, especially for such a long lease period. In particular, access to use the grounds (bookings, payment etc.) should be prioritised for the public, including public school students, and controlled by Council rather than IGS.

Supports the proposed lease on the following grounds: Level of Service:  Chelsworth Park is maintained to an extremely high standard and the new lease would allow this standard to continue. Public Access:  There are No issues with public access to the park, there is always space and access for family activities and passive recreation.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 310

Governance:  Council officers will manage the proposed lease with the school. This process will include regular contract meetings between IGS and Council, contract reports and financial reports.  Maintenance, Horticulture and Storm Water Harvesting plant maintenance specifications are also included in the proposed lease.  All applications for allocations and casual bookings will continue to be administered and programmed by the lessee, Ivanhoe Grammar School, during the proposed lease with consultation regarding seasonal allocations with the Chelsworth Park Reference Group.  IGS will be required to follow Council‘s sporting reserves user guidelines in relation to fees and charges. Capital Works Improvements:  All development permits, plans and proposed upgrades to the park infrastructure will need to follow statutory and responsible authority processes. Length of Tenure:  The proposed lease term is comparative to the current lease, which has been in place since 1994. Council has a right to grant a lease for up to 50 years under the Local Government Act.  The proposed lease term allows for a reasonable period for the tenant to improve community infrastructure within the park.  Given the substantial overall financial value and the substantial capital works improvement within the proposed lease, a 20 year proposed lease with a further 10 year option is considered appropriate. Governance:  Council officers will manage the proposed lease with the school. This process will include regular contract meetings between IGS and Council, contract reports and financial reports.  Maintenance, Horticulture and Storm Water Harvesting plant maintenance specifications are also included in the proposed lease.  All applications for allocations and casual bookings will continue to be administered and programmed by the lessee, Ivanhoe Grammar School, during the proposed lease with consultation regarding seasonal allocations with the Chelsworth Park Reference Group.  IGS will be required to follow Council‘s sporting reserves user guidelines in relation to fees and charges. Supports lease in its entirety. No clarification required.

Item: 5.1

Request to Speak

For or Against

Summary of Key Themes:

Officer Comment:

Supports the proposed lease on the following grounds:

Supports lease in its entirety. No clarification required.

5.1

Submitter No.

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary

Level of Service:  Chelsworth Park is maintained to an extremely high standard and the new lease would allow this standard to continue.

Value for Rate Payer:  The lease allows Council to distribute rate payer’s funds to other Council community projects or services. Supports the proposed lease on the following grounds:

Supports lease in its entirety. No clarification required.

Level of Service:  Chelsworth Park is maintained to an extremely high standard and the new lease would allow this standard to continue. Supports the proposed lease on the following grounds:

Supports lease in its entirety. No clarification required.

Level of Service:  Chelsworth Park is maintained to an extremely high standard and the new lease would allow this standard to continue.

Public Access:  There are No issues with public access to the park, there is always space and access for family activities and passive recreation. Supports the proposed lease on the following grounds:

Level of Service:  Chelsworth Park is maintained to an extremely high standard and the new lease would allow this standard to continue. Public Access:  There are No issues with public access to the park, there is always space and access for family activities and passive recreation. Value for Rate Payer:  The lease allows Council to distribute rate payer’s funds to other Council community projects or services. Does NOT support the proposed lease on the following grounds: Rates and Financial Management:  There is no evidence that the Ivanhoe Grammar School is paying commercial rates for the privileges it is going to continue to have. Governance:  There is no evidence that the governance proposed is robust enough to ensure that the School respects the rights (such as they are) of others, over the life of such a long lease.  There is not enough capacity for Banyule to review how well the School is behaving and demand remediation. Level of Service  There is no evidence that Banyule has seriously considered other options for the maintenance of the park precinct.

Supports lease in its entirety. No clarification required.

Attachment 1

Public Access:  There are No issues with public access to the park, there is always space and access for family activities and passive recreation.

Item: 5.1 Submitter No.

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary Request to Speak

For or Against

Summary of Key Themes:

5.1

Chelsworth Park Reference Group.  IGS will be required to follow Council‘s sporting reserves user guidelines in relation to fees and charges.

Does NOT support the proposed lease on the following grounds: Length of Tenure:  A 20+10 lease for CP is not in the best interests of the community  The lease should only be offered for a maximum of One (1) yr. as all interaction with IGS have shown them to be misleading, vague and ambiguous when asked for information.

Attachment 1

Officer Comment:

Rates and Financial Management:  the valuation of the lease is for land only and does not include the buildings  the valuation for the land and buildings is grossly underestimated  On current lease rates if the land was valued at $3.3m (which is severely undervalued) rental would be in the vicinity of $165 - 220000 pas not $50000. My house in Heidelberg has just been valued at around $800,000 by council. To suggest that Chelsworth Park and its facilities are valued at $3.3 is absurd.  The cost of maintaining the grounds cannot be calculated to anywhere near $281000pa. This implies four full time staff with a minimum of $40000pa available for operational costs equipment etc. Taking holidays etc. into consideration your proposal is that almost $1000 per week is allocated just too operational costs. This is simply too ridiculous to even propose and the use of depreciation schedules is misleading. The phrase '…to current standards.’ is not relevant as the majority of the residents do not need the area to be kept ‘…to current standards.’ that meet Independent Pri What the tenant does with the land is not our concern (e.g. the capital improvements which none of the public will be able to use anyway) IF the lease goes ahead which the vast majority of residents do not want to go ahead. If there is a lease it should be at commercial value and there should be a tender process first. The proposed ‘savings’ presented by council is misleading to the residents of the area.  A $600000 10yr rent payment in 20 yrs. time is ludicrously too cheap. Firstly as it is only a third of what it is worth now, i.e. current rental value let alone in 20yrs. this again is simply nowhere near commercial value and the community is not getting a return on their investment i.e. the residents land. To present the option that we are saving $281000 by allowing the IGS to look after it for us is not correct as explained above.  As with all community leases i and a lot of the residents, would like to see the lease go to tender first, and formally request a reason why this along with a properly executed business case was not completed initially. Public Access:  When IGS was given access to CP land the tennis courts were to be built for public use and available to the public at all times the school was not using them. There never has been a casual booking facility in place that has been used; this was a condition of the agreement to allow the IGS to build courts. Governance:  Subleasing of council recreation facilities is not allowed under your bylaws therefor ALL monies paid by any clubs should be returned to council. If they are not this further decreases the cost of the lease to IGS which makes a mockery of the proposed rental value. What this means is that the IGS has actually made money for using the residents facilities over the lifetime of the last agreement and with the proposed savings on water costs will actually end up cash positive before the lease finishes.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 312

Level of Service  Council’s current Parks and Gardens Department currently do not have the capacity to meet the current level of service being delivered by IGS at Chelsworth Park. This would require extra resources from Council at an indicative cost of $281,000 P/A. Length of Tenure:  The proposed lease term is comparative to the current lease, which has been in place since 1994. Council has a right to grant a lease for up to 50 years under the Local Government Act.  The proposed lease term allows for a reasonable period for the tenant to improve community infrastructure within the park.  Given the substantial overall financial value and the substantial capital works improvement within the proposed lease, a 20 year proposed lease with a further 10 year option is considered appropriate. Rates and Financial Management:  When considering all aspects of the proposed lease, including the rent, capital works, and savings to Council in relation to the maintenance and saving on interest in lieu of capital up front $1 Million, officers estimate the total value of the lease over the 30 year period to be $17,739,163.  All new works and improvements become Council assets at no cost to Council.  When Council consider the overall value of the proposed lease, the social, environmental and commercial outcomes of the proposal need to be considered. The decision is not based on a commercial consideration along. On balance Council officers believe the overall value to the community outlined in the proposed lease is fair and reasonable.  The valuation was completed by Council’s City Valuer in May 2014 and reissued on 1 July 2014 2014. The following provisions in the Banyule Planning Scheme affect Chelsworth Park, and restrict the development potential of the land:  The land is in the Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ) which is for public recreation, open space, conservation, and limited commercial uses where appropriate.  Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO) which applies to areas affected by the 1 in 100 year flood. Flood risk associated with the development must be assessed by Council and Melbourne Water. Public Access:  The tennis courts will be available for hire by community groups and sporting clubs. They will not be available for free public use at all times. Council are unaware of any other tennis courts (with nets installed) which are open and available free of charge for public use. All Council owned tennis courts are leased to third parties who control the access and manage the asset on behalf of Council. Governance:  All applications for allocations and casual bookings will continue to be administered and programmed by the lessee, Ivanhoe Grammar School, during the proposed lease with consultation regarding seasonal allocations with the Chelsworth Park Reference Group.  50% all annual fees directed to a reserve fund managed by Council for future development of open space within the park.  The Chelsworth Park Reference Group will make recommendations to Council in relation to how the funds within the reserve fund should be allocated.

Submitter No.

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary Request to Speak

For or Against

Summary of Key Themes:

Officer Comment:

Supports the proposed lease on the following grounds:

 IGS will be required to follow Council‘s sporting reserves user guidelines in relation to fees and charges. Supports lease in its entirety. No clarification required.

Level of Service:  Chelsworth Park is maintained to an extremely high standard and the new lease would allow this standard to continue. Supports the proposed lease on the following grounds:

Supports lease in its entirety. No clarification required.

5.1

Item: 5.1

Value for Rate Payer:  The lease allows Council to distribute rate payer’s funds to other Council community projects or services. Does NOT support the proposed lease on the following grounds: Governance:  In the past year Ivanhoe Grammar School have left their mark in signs which thankfully have been taken down except for the one asking for bookings. I find the wording in the 'booking signs' to be too officious considering it is not their park.  I would prefer the bookings to be done by Council but if it is more efficient to be done by IGS then all money should be accounted for which hasn't be done in the previous lease arrangement. Length of Tenure:  Change is more rapid than it has ever been before so a 30 year lease is not viable. We can't imagine society in 30 years' time therefore a 5x5x5x5 lease is more appropriate with financial lease arrangements left open. IGS in my opinion are getting too good a deal.

Does NOT support the proposed lease on the following grounds: Public Access:  Concerned about the potential loss of amenity for the Banyule community of Chelsworth Park  While the Council's website assures residents that "The Park will remain open to the public for leisure activities and community enjoyment outside of the existing licence arrangements with community sporting clubs and casual bookings", the Lease itself provides no such certainty. The Lease limits the public's freedom to enjoy the park to when the playing ovals have not been allocated (Special Condition 1.1.2). There is no definition of, or restrictions on, the times the playing ovals will be able to be allocated.  Accordingly the community's ability to enjoy the park may be significantly reduced from what is currently enjoyed. I believe that the ovals are not currently allocated on Sundays, early mornings or evening and I notice a significant cross-section of the local community enjoying the park at these times. However the Lease does not protect the continuation of this status quo. I implore the Council to re-consider this oversight, and ensure the Lease incorporates clear limitations on when the playing ovals are able to be allocated, before committing to this lease.

Governance:  Council officers will manage the proposed lease with the school. This process will include regular contract meetings between IGS and Council, contract reports and financial reports.  Maintenance, Horticulture and Storm Water Harvesting plant maintenance specifications are also included in the proposed lease.  All applications for allocations and casual bookings will continue to be administered and programmed by the lessee, Ivanhoe Grammar School, during the proposed lease with consultation regarding seasonal allocations with the Chelsworth Park Reference Group.  50% all annual fees directed to a reserve fund managed by Council for future development of open space within the park.  The Chelsworth Park Reference Group will make recommendations to Council in relation to how the funds within the reserve fund should be allocated.  IGS will be required to follow Council‘s sporting reserves user guidelines in relation to fees and charges. Length of Tenure:  The proposed lease term is comparative to the current lease, which has been in place since 1994. Council has a right to grant a lease for up to 50 years under the Local Government Act.  The proposed lease term allows for a reasonable period for the tenant to improve community infrastructure within the park.  Given the substantial overall financial value and the substantial capital works improvement within the proposed lease, a 20 year proposed lease with a further 10 year option is considered appropriate. Public Access:  Pedestrian access within the proposed lease is consistent with the existing lease. The proposed lease includes restricting vehicle access between midnight and sunrise to improve community safety and asset protection.  Chelsworth Park currently caters for passive unstructured recreation (such as dog walking) and structured organised activities (community sport).  Any increase in use will be considered by the Reference Group who will advise the Council in relation to the management of the Premises.  The park will remain open to the public for leisure activities and community enjoyment outside of the existing license arrangements with community sporting clubs and casual bookings.  Ground allocations to be made available on the IGS website and signage at Chelsworth Park so the general public can report any groups using the park inappropriately.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 313

Attachment 1

Level of Service:  Chelsworth Park is maintained to an extremely high standard and the new lease would allow this standard to continue.

Item: 5.1 Submitter No.

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary Request to Speak

For or Against

5.1

Length of Tenure:  I am also concerned about the proposed length of the Lease. Thirty years is an exceptional time to tie up this public resource. The inevitable increase in population in the Banyule area over this term will no doubt be accompanied by an increase in demand for open space and leisure amenities as provided by these facilities. I believe a shorter Lease such as fifteen years in the form of an initial 5-year term with options for two additional five-year terms would strike an appropriate balance between the commercial considerations and need for certainty of IGS and the interests of the broader Banyule community. 24

Attachment 1

Summary of Key Themes:

Yes

Does NOT support the proposed lease on the following grounds: Consultation:  At the previous community meeting, held in February 2014, many residents voiced their concern with the proposed lease. Of the concerns raised, many of these have not yet been fully addressed in the information fact sheets produced by Council. It appears that Council is not really concerned with the community issues, given that the proposed lease has now been advertised, without any amendment to many of these major issues raised by the community.  Many issues were raised during the community meeting and the Council has produced several fact sheets, with information intending to address these issues. I was fortunate enough to recently receive a copy of a response to many of the issues raised at the community meeting in February. The document contained a much deeper analysis of the major concerns, but this was the first I had seen of this document, five months after the meeting, and as far as I know, this document has not been distributed to the community. Again this is an example of the poor communication that is being displayed. In reviewing this document, I have issues with information provided  The concept to have 50% of the generated income from “other user” fees, returned to Council for use as determined by the Chelsworth Park Reference Group is a positive initiative from the previous lease, but the estimated amount has not been detailed or taken into account in any of the calculations provided by Council. Would these funds not offset some of the claimed maintenance cost savings provided? What is the estimated amount of these savings? Again this is another oversight and example of the poor evaluation undertaken for the proposed lease. And why is only 50% of the fee directed back to the program? Given that this lease is providing The School with significant savings from purchasing and managing their own sport facility complex, should 100% of the fees collected not be directed to this initiative? Rates and Financial Management:  The document consistently refers to the “site value” (SV) and not the “Capital Improved Value” (CIV) of the land. I believe this to be inappropriate, given that Council chooses to use CIV for all resident rate calculations. Why would Council want to use a much lower figure for basing the rental charge and ultimate benefit provided to the community? Within the Ivanhoe area, rental yields have averaged around 2.5%, (RP data 10 year residential yields). The land has been valued by Council at a Capital Improved Value of$4,349,000 (point 14 of the document), and at a yield of 2.5%, this would deliver a rental return of $108,725 per annum. This fee alone, (without the 4% indexing), would return to the community approximately$3.3m over the proposed 30 years. Well in excess of currently proposed rental fee.  One of the major community concerns is that the rental costs are not being increased from the previous lease provided to The School. Council has purported that the rental fee has increased due to “one off” contribution payments, but the proposed lease still stipulates that the annual rental fee is $1 (ex GST) for the 20 year term. I believe the information provided to the community has been misleading and that any approved lease should have an appropriate “market rate” rental fee, rather than relying on “one off” payments as an offset. Not one of the fact sheets produced by Council mentioned this fact; rather building the rational to reflect the offset payment. This provides a poor reflection of the community land leasing policy within Banyule.  The document then details a 10 year option, with a rental payment of $50,000 PA, indexed at 4%. Again, this fee is inappropriate. This fee equates to 46% of the rental fee that could be charged at today’s rates and is not enforceable. Under Clause 3.3, the tenant has the option of not accepting the 10 year extension, and remaining on the property, at the current lease rate of $1 PA, until Council goes through the eviction process required.  In point 6 of the document, it is detailed that the maintenance costs of the park are estimated at $281,000. This includes labour costs of $126,000 for the allocation of two full time staff; (Detailed in point

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 314

Officer Comment: Length of Tenure:  The proposed lease term is comparative to the current lease, which has been in place since 1994. Council has a right to grant a lease for up to 50 years under the Local Government Act.  The proposed lease term allows for a reasonable period for the tenant to improve community infrastructure within the park.  Given the substantial overall financial value and the substantial capital works improvement within the proposed lease, a 20 year proposed lease with a further 10 year option is considered appropriate. Consultation:  Council endorsed a Community Meeting held on the 19 February 2014 and 40 people attended. Meeting minutes and updates regarding the development of the proposed lease were distributed to meeting attendees in May 2014.  The key issues raised at the Community Meeting held on the 19 February and the then negotiated position officers had reached with IGS and further options for Council to consider regarding specific items were presented to Council in August for further consideration.  50% all annual fees directed to a reserve fund managed by Council for future development of open space within the park.  The Chelsworth Park Reference Group will make recommendations to Council in relation to how the funds within the reserve fund should be allocated.  IGS will be required to follow Council‘s sporting reserves user guidelines in relation to fees and charges.

Request to Speak

For or Against

Summary of Key Themes:

Officer Comment:

18). However, point 6 states that in Banyule, we have five full time staff managing the other 48 parks within the municipality. This equates to 9.6 parks per staff member. I request that Council provide justification as to how such an increase in staff hours is justified especially given that the two full time employees, currently employed, are able to work at The School at any time. If two more staff were employed in the Council maintenance team, would this not help the overall position of park maintenance?  Council rates are calculated on an annual basis and are adjusted, (consistently up), each year, yet in point 15, no projected asset values have been calculated. The entire lease is calculated on current values and few adjusted asset provisions, (other than a 4% rental increase in the 10 year option), have been included. The value of this land will have significantly increased in value over a 30 year term, especially given the historical data that land values generally doubles every 7 to 10 years.  This could value the land between $6.6m and $9.9m at the end of the 20 year fixed term, with little ability for the community to financially benefit from the increased value for the subsequent 10 years of the lease. Again, this is an example of the School gaining a significant benefit and the community losing out. For the remuneration proposed, this lease should be “in line” with standard commercial terms of no more than 5 to 6 years before a review and new lease is negotiated.  Council, as detailed in other Council reports, spent $2.1m on maintaining sports grounds and infrastructure 2013-2014. This equates to an average of approximately $45,000 per sports ground. Based on the quoted figure of $281,000 to maintain Chelsworth Park, assuming the average allocation was provided to Chelsworth Park this would leave a shortfall of $236,000 PA. In the estimated annual cost, a provision of $26,000 has been made for “utilities”, but “utilities” are generally the responsibility of the tenant. Thus, removing this cost, the remaining balance is approximately $210,000. Council has estimated the use of the Storm Water Harvesting (SWH) water to provide a saving of approximately $200,000 PA, a similar amount to the remaining balance. If the tenant were charged the average rental yield of 2.5% on the CIV, a return of $108,725 PA would be obtained. If the SWH water were charged at the quoted rates to the users, this would provide a total annual return to the community of $308,725, which would provide a surplus of $27,725, after maintenance, for re-investment into the park or

5.1

Submitter No.

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary

Length of Tenure:  The Council has taken a long term view in respect to the lease, which is not a common position in commercial leasing arrangements. The position is being taken by a Council that will change many times in the proposed 30 years, as will the community that it is directed to represent. Is it appropriate to commit to such a long term when many of the current day issues and requirements will change during this period? How confident are  Council that the terms of this lease will still provide benefits to the community in 20 or30 years’ time? The document did not address the long term risks and benefits, other than a brief mention of risks at the end of the document, but I feel the long term risks have not been fully evaluated. Council should have a leasing policy for public land under its duty to provide good governance and represent the community is the best way possible.

Public Access:  In point 3 of the document the issue of public access is addressed. It is acknowledged that the previous lease did not address this issue and that the new lease will provide some definition of public access requirements. However, Council is portraying that public access will not be restricted and that “The Park will remain open to the public for leisure activities and community enjoyment outside of the existing license arrangements with community sporting clubs and casual bookings.” Again, this statement is misleading. The lease clearly states that the current hard surface tennis courts and the new netball courts will not be available for public use and will be fenced off, restricting public access through this area. Again, this has not been properly communicated to the community other than a brief mention in the first produced fact sheet. Why is this fact being left out of the community communications? Clause 8 of the lease stipulates that the Tennis Courts are for dedicated use by the tenant and outside of these hours, the courts are to be available for community groups and sporting clubs. The courts are not available for general public hire. These courts are on public land, owned by the public and the lease is now restricting the use of the public land. It also provides The School with provisions to generate revenue from the hire of public land. Why is Council not able to capture this income and invest it back into the park, as proposed with the Annual fees? How is this provision a benefit to the community at large?  Council has stated that “Irvine Road” will have gates installed to restrict access between sunset and sun rise and improve public safety; however, I am not aware of any safety issues that have occurred in this

Attachment 1

Item: 5.1

Attachment 1

5.1

Submitter No.

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary Request to Speak

For or Against

Summary of Key Themes:

Officer Comment:

area. in

 Ground allocations to be made available on the IGS website and signage at Chelsworth Park so the general public can report any groups using the park inappropriately.

Capital Works Improvements:  The Capital works referred to in point 7 and defined in Annex A and C are an improvement on the previous lease, but have not been sufficiently evaluated to ensure that they are able to be integrated into the current community amenity and conditions. It is not sufficient to allow the lease to refer to the works requiring Council approval, as this does not provide the local community with sufficient input to ensure that OUR local area is protected in amenity and traffic conditions. The lease, while strictly placing time frame and reporting requirements on the tenant, does not adequately place restrictions on the tenant to ensure that any capital works are compliant within strict amenity guidelines. A full analysis of all proposed works should first be undertaken and then community agreed guidelines clearly stipulated in the lease. This includes traffic and amenity evaluations of the proposed additional car parks to be located on “The Boulevard”, and of the proposed fences and electronic scoreboard. The lease should contain provisions that any Council approvals will only be provided after sufficient community consultation and agreement has been obtained, since they are being built on public land.

Capital Works Improvements:  All development permits, plans and proposed upgrades to the park infrastructure will need to follow statutory and responsible authority processes.

The lease contains a clause (13.1) pertaining to the “permitted use” by the tenant, but the “permitted use” is not clearly defined in any clauses of the lease. This is a significant oversight and should be amended to clearly define what uses the tenant may use the sports grounds and infrastructures for. Having carefully reviewed the proposed lease, it is clear that it provides significantly more benefit to The School than it does to the community. It provides The School with numerous savings and contains provisions for The School to then leave the community short, once the 20 year term is completed. By this stage, the capital improvements will probably require significant reinvestment and the benefit to the community, if the lease option is not accepted, is minimal. Meanwhile, The School has secured an asset for 20 years. It will have major control of The Land and the cost is minimal in commercial terms and significantly cheaper than the costs involved to maintain their own sporting complex. At the same time, our community is gaining minimal benefit and is losing out on potential gains, if the lease was properly constructed to capture commercially viable Terms. I feel the Council has failed to demonstrate that the proposed lease provides any significant benefits to the community it represents. This is further demonstrated by the lack of accurate information disseminated and the lack of proper process used to advertise the proposed lease and extension date. The advertising of the proposed lease was communicated to me by email on 8 August 2014. The email detailed the Council’s intent to advertise the proposed lease and where the lease would be available for viewing. This included the Banyule Council web site. However, if you go to the Banyule Council web site there is little direction to how the public can access the advertised lease. There are several areas within the menus available on the web site, but not one of them has a reference to the advertised lease. This would appear to indicate that Council does not want the community to know about the lease or to have an input into the proposed lease process. I believe that this is very poor practice by Council and could be shown that Council is not engaging with the resident’s that it represents and that fair and proper process is being implemented. Furthermore, the lease was advertised, (in a minimal way), detailing that submissions were to be received by Council by 9 September 2014. This was communicated in the letter sent to “interested parties”. I recently went to the web site to view some of the relevant information and noticed that this date has now been extended till 19 September 2014. When were Council intending to advise the community of this fact? As at today, the day before the previous closure, I have received no communication detailing this extension. Questions raised by Submitter:

Officer Response:

a) The concept to have 50% of the generated income from “other user” fees, returned to Council for use as determined by the Chelsworth Park Reference Group is a positive initiative from the previous lease, but the estimated amount has not been detailed or taken into account in any of the calculations provided by Council. Would these funds not offset some of the claimed maintenance cost savings provided? b) What is the estimated amount of these savings? c) And why is only 50% of the fee directed back to the program? d) Given that this lease is providing The School with significant savings from purchasing and managing their own sport facility complex, should 100% of the fees collected not be directed to this initiative?

a) Council considers the 50% of fees allocated from seasonal and casual allocations a reasonable return given the value of the lease. The reporting responsibilities for IGS required by Council will provide Council with a detailed database of all booking revenue. b) Total fees taken for sporting clubs during the 2012/13 financial year by the Ivanhoe Grammar School was $21,000, therefore in this situation $10,500 would be spent on park improvements. c) 50% was viewed as a reasonable figure given the value of the lease.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 316

Request to Speak

For or Against

Summary of Key Themes:

Officer Comment:

e) The document consistently refers to the “site value” (SV) and not the “Capital Improved Value” (CIV) of the land. I believe this to be inappropriate, given that Council chooses to use CIV for all resident rate calculations. Why would Council want to use a much lower figure for basing the rental charge and ultimate benefit provided to the community? f) This equates to 9.6 parks per staff member. I request that Council provide justification as to how such an increase in staff hours is justified especially given that the two full time employees, currently employed, are able to work at The School at any time. If two more staff were employed in the Council maintenance team, would this not help the overall position of park maintenance? g) Is it appropriate to commit to such a long term when many of the current day issues and requirements will change during this period? h) “The Park will remain open to the public for leisure activities and community enjoyment outside of the existing license arrangements with community sporting clubs and casual bookings.” Again, this statement is misleading. The lease clearly states that the current hard surface tennis courts and the new netball courts will not be available for public use and will be fenced off, restricting public access through this area. Again, this has not been properly communicated to the community other than a brief mention in the first produced fact sheet. Why is this fact being left out of the community communications? i) As part of the process, not once has Council detailed how submissions are to be received by Council or the person to whom they should be directed. Again this is another example of the poor process being implemented by Council in this matter. Does NOT support the proposed lease on the following grounds:

d) 50% was viewed as a reasonable figure given the value of the lease. e) The land is based on site value due to the asset having no commercial market due to land being zoned Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ) which is for public recreation, open space, conservation, and limited commercial uses where appropriate. f) The Manager of Councils Parks and Gardens department provided the financial details relating to the resourcing of Chelsworth Park being undertaken by Council. g) The proposed lease term is comparative to the current lease, which has been in place since 1994. h) Details surrounding the restricted access to the concrete tennis courts have ben included in previous FAQ and information sheets, Council reports and publications. The tennis courts will be available for hire by community groups and sporting clubs. They will not be available for free public use at all times. Council are unaware of any other tennis courts (with nets installed) which are open and available free of charge for public use. All Council owned tennis courts are leased to third parties who control the access and manage the asset on behalf of Council. i) The details outlining the submission process were clearly defined in the advertising in the local leader and on Council website. Length of Tenure:  The proposed lease term is comparative to the current lease, which has been in place since 1994. Council has a right to grant a lease for up to 50 years under the Local Government Act.  The proposed lease term allows for a reasonable period for the tenant to improve community infrastructure within the park.  Given the substantial overall financial value and the substantial capital works improvement within the proposed lease, a 20 year proposed lease with a further 10 year option is considered appropriate.

Length of Tenure:  I am writing to express my dissatisfaction with the proposal to lease Chelsworth Park to Ivanhoe Grammar School for the next thirty years. Public Access:  I strongly oppose the appropriation of public parkland for the use of private organizations. At a time when parkland is becoming ever more precious, the idea of locking public recreational facilities away for the use of an already wealthy and increasingly intrusive private school for such a long period is abhorrent.  The proposed construction of electronic gates and built infrastructure is a form of possession and exclusion by stealth. This is public land, and must remain.

Does NOT support the proposed lease on the following grounds: Length of Tenure:  Now the council is prepared to give IGS another 20-30 year lease of Chelsworth Park so that the school can present to its prospective clients that it has magnificent playing fields in its prospectus. Rates and Financial Management:  For an organisation, which doesn't pay rates, to be given such a deal appears to me to be over generous. It is ironic that the rate payers of Banyule will have limited access to that section of the Wilson

Public Access:  Pedestrian access within the proposed lease is consistent with the existing lease. The proposed lease includes restricting vehicle access between midnight and sunrise to improve community safety and asset protection.  Chelsworth Park currently caters for passive unstructured recreation (such as dog walking) and structured organised activities (community sport).  Any increase in use will be considered by the Reference Group who will advise the Council in relation to the management of the Premises  The tennis courts will be available for hire by community groups and sporting clubs. They will not be available for free public use at all times. Council are unaware of any other tennis courts (with nets installed) which are open and available free of charge for public use. All Council owned tennis courts are leased to third parties who control the access and manage the asset on behalf of Council.  The park will remain open to the public for leisure activities and community enjoyment outside of the existing license arrangements with community sporting clubs and casual bookings.  Ground allocations to be made available on the IGS website and signage at Chelsworth Park so the general public can report any groups using the park inappropriately. Length of Tenure:  The proposed lease term is comparative to the current lease, which has been in place since 1994. Council has a right to grant a lease for up to 50 years under the Local Government Act.  The proposed lease term allows for a reasonable period for the tenant to improve community infrastructure within the park.  Given the substantial overall financial value and the substantial capital works improvement within the proposed lease, a 20 year proposed lease with a further 10 year option is considered appropriate. ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 317

5.1

Submitter No.

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary

Attachment 1

Item: 5.1

Item: 5.1 Submitter No.

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary Request to Speak

For or Against

Summary of Key Themes:

5.1

Reserve/ Chelsworth park area. Surely the $2326 that I pay in rates gives me more rights to accessing that land. Public Access:  There also appears to be a very subtle move by IGS to take over the tennis courts so that once again the public who initially paid for these are forced out. I believe that the payment to council will be $50,000 in the last 10 years of the lease.

Attachment 1

Governance:  For an organisation to be able to tie up such a large public space and to then be able to dictate when other organisations can use it, then the rate payers of Banyule should be entitled to greater compensation. For this privilege the school should be paying far more than is currently being muted.  IGS will of course argue that they maintain the playing fields! This is true but that is so the school can run it’s inter school AGS schedule there. As an elite school they would have that cost anyway no matter where their grounds were.

Supports the proposed lease on the following grounds:

Officer Comment:

Rates and Financial Management:  When considering all aspects of the proposed lease, including the rent, capital works, and savings to Council in relation to the maintenance and saving on interest in lieu of capital up front $1 Million, officers estimate the total value of the lease over the 30 year period to be $17,739,163.  All new works and improvements become Council assets at no cost to Council.  When Council consider the overall value of the proposed lease, the social, environmental and commercial outcomes of the proposal need to be considered. The decision is not based on a commercial consideration along. On balance Council officers believe the overall value to the community outlined in the proposed lease is fair and reasonable. Public Access:  The Chelsworth Park Tennis Club is not included in the proposed lease.  The concrete tennis courts will be available for hire by community groups and sporting clubs. They will not be available for free public use at all times. Council are unaware of any other tennis courts (with nets installed) which are open and available free of charge for public use. All Council owned tennis courts are leased to third parties who control the access and manage the asset on behalf of Council.  The park will remain open to the public for leisure activities and community enjoyment outside of the existing license arrangements with community sporting clubs and casual bookings.  Ground allocations to be made available on the IGS website and signage at Chelsworth Park so the general public can report any groups using the park inappropriately. Governance:  Council officers will manage the proposed lease with the school. This process will include regular contract meetings between IGS and Council, contract reports and financial reports.  Maintenance, Horticulture and Storm Water Harvesting plant maintenance specifications are also included in the proposed lease.  All applications for allocations and casual bookings will continue to be administered and programmed by the lessee, Ivanhoe Grammar School, during the proposed lease with consultation regarding seasonal allocations with the Chelsworth Park Reference Group.  50% all annual fees directed to a reserve fund managed by Council for future development of open space within the park.  The Chelsworth Park Reference Group will make recommendations to Council in relation to how the funds within the reserve fund should be allocated.  IGS will be required to follow Council‘s sporting reserves user guidelines in relation to fees and charges.

Commend Council officers in achieving a favourable outcome. The proposed financial arrangement between Council and IGS seems fair and reasonable and is a positive result for residents and ratepayer or Contract Management:  Sound control measures for managing IGS obligations under the lease The submitter has included the following suggested amendments for the proposed lease: a) Bank Guarantee or security deposit should be required from IGS b) A market rent review clause should be included in the lease to apply prior to the commencement of the 10 year option period (if exercised). This will ensure that IGS will pay a fair and reasonable rent from ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 318

a) Councils CFO has considered a bank guarantee or security deposit, and deemed it not necessary due to the tenants standing as an educational institution and capital upfront payments.

Request to Speak

For or Against

Summary of Key Themes:

Officer Comment:

2035. c) Inconsistency in relation to the premises plan (annexure D)

b) In the circumstance that the final ten year lease option is activated, the proposed lease indicates a 4% fixed indexed increase per year. c) The intention of the leased area was not to alter the current leased area. Officers recommend an amendment be made to the final lease plan (Annexure D). Public Access:

Does NOT support the proposed lease on the following grounds: Public Access:  

There is no reference to a commitment to maintaining the off lead conditions regarding dog walking. Wants the Council to include in the lease that the park is an off lead park for the term of the lease.

Supports the proposed lease on the following grounds: Level of Service:  Chelsworth Park is maintained to an extremely high standard and the new lease would allow this standard to continue.

 Pedestrian access within the proposed lease is consistent with the existing lease.  Chelsworth Park currently caters for passive unstructured recreation (such as dog walking) and structured organised activities (community sport).  Council has no intention of changing Chelsworth parks current conditions regarding dog walking.  Any changes requested during the term of the lease would require Council approval.  The park will remain open to the public for leisure activities and community enjoyment outside of the existing license arrangements with community sporting clubs and casual bookings.  Ground allocations to be made available on the IGS website and signage at Chelsworth Park so the general public can report any groups using the park inappropriately. Council has strengthened clauses relating to the unauthorised use. This provision will be greatly enhanced by the adoption of the reviewed “Local Law No. 1 –

General Local Law”.

Public Access:  Current park user. One issue of concern is unauthorised use of Chelsworth Park.

Value for Rate Payer:  Win/ Win for rate paying residents. Supports the proposed lease on the following grounds:

Level of Service:  Chelsworth Park is maintained to an extremely high standard and the new lease would allow this standard to continue. Supports the proposed lease on the following grounds: I support the leasing of Chelsworth Park to IGS but not without changes to the current lease Proposal: Length of Tenure: 1. Leasing term with a further term: Proposal of a 10+10+10n structured lease. 2. Land - the drainage reserves are identified and clearer maintenance instructions are included. 3. Environmental Matters - The lease should include stronger reference to weed control.

Supports lease in its entirety. No clarification required.

Supports the proposed lease on the following grounds:

 Officers consider the Maintenance, Horticulture and Storm Water Harvesting plant maintenance specifications a sufficient for the performance of the lease.  All Maintenance and Horticulture maintenance will be at IGS’s cost. Supports lease in its entirety. No clarification required.

Level of Service:  Chelsworth Park is maintained to an extremely high standard and the new lease would allow this standard to continue. ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 319

5.1

Submitter No.

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary

Attachment 1

Item: 5.1

Item: 5.1 Request to Speak

For or Against

Summary of Key Themes:

Officer Comment:

Public Access:  There are no issues with public access to the park; there is always space and access for family activities and passive recreation. Value for Rate Payer:  The lease commercially makes business sense. Supports the proposed lease on the following grounds:

Supports lease in its entirety. No clarification required.

Level of Service:  Chelsworth Park is maintained to an extremely high standard and the new lease would allow this standard to continue.  Level of service higher than many other ovals in Banyule Supports the proposed lease on the following grounds:

Supports lease in its entirety. No clarification required.

Stakeholder Balance:  The proposed lease provides a good balance between sporting club, school and community use with no group disadvantaged. Level of Service:  Club will benefit from the change rooms being upgraded. The club has access to the best ovals in the area. Supports the proposed lease on the following grounds:

Governance:

5.1

Submitter No.

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary

Attachment 1

Yes

Level of Service:  Chelsworth Park is maintained to an extremely high standard and the new lease would allow this standard to continue. Public Access:  User groups have met as a working group and have raised their concerns. Clubs happy with the access they receive

 The role of the Reference Group is clearly outlined in the proposed lease.  Council will conduct an Expression of Interest process to identify potential interested community representatives and will asses potential candidates against pre-determined selection criteria.

Stakeholder Consultation:  Council and the school have been clear and transparent throughout lease discussions. The sporting clubs have remained a key stakeholder and have felt listened too throughout the process.

Yes

Community Reference Group:  Query the role of the two community reference group members, the process involved in their appointment and the role the group plays. Supports the proposed lease on the following grounds:

Supports lease in its entirety. No clarification required.

Level of Service:  Chelsworth Park is maintained to an extremely high standard and the new lease would allow this standard to continue. Public Access:  The public retains access to the park

Value for Rate Payer:  Great financial value to Council - $1m to storm water harvesting and improved assets Supports the proposed lease on the following grounds:

Supports lease in its entirety. No clarification required.

Public Access:  I often use the park with a multitude of other community people

Level of Service:  Chelsworth Park is maintained to an extremely high standard – the best public space in Banyule. Supports the proposed lease on the following grounds: Level of Service:

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 320

Supports lease in its entirety. No clarification required..

Request to Speak

For or Against

Summary of Key Themes:

Officer Comment:

 Chelsworth Park is maintained to an extremely high standard – Banyule’s premier and best maintained public open space. Supports the proposed lease on the following grounds:

Supports lease in its entirety. No clarification required.

Level of Service:  The ovals are clearly the best in the Banyule area. Value for Rate Payer:  It is a great financial value to the Council and rate payers to not have to maintain the area, have a contribution paid towards the storm water harvesting project and to have the assets improved at Chelsworth Park. Public Access:  The public retain access to the park and it is looked after better than all the other parks and the Council get money for it. Supports the proposed lease on the following grounds:

Supports lease in its entirety. No clarification required.

Level of Service:  The ovals are clearly the best in the Banyule area. Value for Rate Payer:  It is a great financial value to the Council and rate payers to not have to maintain the area, have a contribution paid towards the storm water harvesting project and to have the assets improved at Chelsworth Park. Public Access:  The public retain access to the park and it is looked after better than all the other parks and the Council get money for it. ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 321

5.1

Submitter No.

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary

Attachment 1

Item: 5.1

Item: 5.1 Submitter No.

Request to Speak

For or Against

Summary of Key Themes:

Officer Comment:

Supports the proposed lease on the following grounds:

Supports lease in its entirety. No clarification required.

5.1

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary

Attachment 1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 322

Request to Speak

For or Against

Summary of Key Themes:

Officer Comment:

Supports lease in its entirety. No clarification required.

5.1

Submitter No.

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary

Level of Service:  The ovals are clearly the best in the Banyule area. ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 323

Attachment 1

Item: 5.1

Item: 5.1 Request to Speak

For or Against

Summary of Key Themes:

Officer Comment:

Value for Rate Payer:  It is a great financial value to the Council and rate payers to not have to maintain the area, have a contribution paid towards the storm water harvesting project and to have the assets improved at Chelsworth Park. Public Access:  The public retain access to the park and it is looked after better than all the other parks and the Council get money for it. Supports the proposed lease on the following grounds:

Supports lease in its entirety. No clarification required.

Level of Service:  The ovals are clearly the best in the Banyule area. Value for Rate Payer:  It is a great financial value to the Council and rate payers to not have to maintain the area, have a contribution paid towards the storm water harvesting project and to have the assets improved at Chelsworth Park. Public Access:  The public retain access to the park and it is looked after better than all the other parks and the Council get money for it. Does NOT support the proposed lease on the following grounds:

5.1

Submitter No.

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary

Attachment 1

Length of Tenure:  It appears a “fait accompli" that a Lease WILL be signed by Banyule City Council the owner of the property, with the tenant Ivanhoe Grammar School.  It seems the Council made no attempt to seek alternate tenants and simply negotiated a new 20 years plus another 10 years. That makes 50 years (possibly more) that a public asset, the ratepayer’s property has not been managed or controlled by the Council. Rates and Financial Management:  The Council is keen to point out it is a Council asset and is owned by them. How then can the Council justify handing over total control to IGS for another 30 years especially given rent of " $1 per annum plus GST fixed for the TERM and payable if demanded" is in the new lease? Is this an oversight?  Surely with such a valuable asset and IGS needing the grounds and facilities because they have overbuilt their Ivanhoe site and sold their Mernda land and intend to increase student numbers by 25 percent the Council can negotiate a better deal for the ratepayers both in monetary terms and use. Public Access:  IGS controls and organizes who uses the grounds and facilities and when. Annexure A under Special Conditions 1.2 names the Present Users, 4 of the 6 users are affiliated with Ivanhoe Grammar School. Annexure A 1.3 States "it is the intention of the parties to ensure that the Present Users use and enjoyment of the premises is maintained throughout the term." Who is looking after the ratepayer’s rights and the Present Non Users rights and enjoyment? When do these people get an opportunity to use Chelsworth ?Ivanhoe Grammar School who pays no rates and has many students who don't live in Banyule so their parents do not pay rates either is getting preference over the local residents. Hardly a fair or equitable situation.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 324

Length of Tenure:  The proposed lease term is comparative to the current lease, which has been in place since 1994. Council has a right to grant a lease for up to 50 years under the Local Government Act.  The proposed lease term allows for a reasonable period for the tenant to improve community infrastructure within the park.  Given the substantial overall financial value and the substantial capital works improvement within the proposed lease, a 20 year proposed lease with a further 10 year option is considered appropriate. Rates and Financial Management:  When considering all aspects of the proposed lease, including the rent, capital works, and savings to Council in relation to the maintenance and saving on interest in lieu of capital up front $1 Million, officers estimate the total value of the lease over the 30 year period to be $17,739,163.  All new works and improvements become Council assets at no cost to Council.  When Council consider the overall value of the proposed lease, the social, environmental and commercial outcomes of the proposal need to be considered. The decision is not based on a commercial consideration along. On balance Council officers believe the overall value to the community outlined in the proposed lease is fair and reasonable. Public Access:  Pedestrian access within the proposed lease is consistent with the existing lease. The proposed lease includes restricting vehicle access between midnight and sunrise to improve community safety and asset protection.  Chelsworth Park currently caters for passive unstructured recreation (such

Request to Speak

For or Against

Summary of Key Themes:

Officer Comment: as dog walking) and structured organised activities (community sport).  Any increase in use will be considered by the Reference Group who will advise the Council in relation to the management of the Premises.  The park will remain open to the public for leisure activities and community enjoyment outside of the existing license arrangements with community sporting clubs and casual bookings.  Ground allocations to be made available on the IGS website and signage at Chelsworth Park so the general public can report any groups using the park inappropriately.

Questions raised by submitter: a) The Council is keen to point out it is a Council asset and is owned by them. How then can the Council justify handing over total control to IGS for another 30 years especially given rent of " $1 per annum plus GST fixed for the TERM and payable if demanded" is in the new lease? Is this an oversight? b) Annexure A 1.3 States "it is the intention of the parties to ensure that the Present Users use and enjoyment of the premises is maintained throughout the term." Who is looking after the ratepayer’s rights and the Present Non Users rights and enjoyment? When do these people get an opportunity to use Chelsworth? 57

Does NOT support the proposed lease on the following grounds: Rates and Financial Management:  This is public land and should not be placed in the hands of a private organisation to use for their benefit at the expense of ratepayers;  An even more concern aspect is the proposal to allow IGS to control monies as part of the lease. Council have demonstrated at the recent public meeting you have little idea what is going on in regard to IGS and financial contributions to various elements. I believe this is a serious breach of you fiduciary duties to ratepayers. Capital Works Improvements:  There are numerous elements of the proposed lease that are unclear at best. For example the installation of fences is alluded to the exact location is not specified, similarly electronic gates are mentioned as well. Length of Tenure:  The lease term of 30 years is simply outrageous

Does NOT support the proposed lease on the following grounds: Capital Works Improvements:

I object to: 1. Extra fences 2. Extra gates 3. Extra hard tennis court(s?) 4. Extra tennis pavilion 5. Extra car parking in the Boulevard 6. Extra bridge Does NOT support the proposed lease on the following grounds: Length of Tenure:  As a ratepayer and resident in this City I'm concerned about what looks to me as shortsightedness applied to the suggested long-term lease (20-30 years).

5.1

Submitter No.

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary

Officer Response: a) Chelsworth Park and all infrastructures within the park are owned by Council. When considering all aspects of the proposed lease, including the rent, capital works, and savings to Council in relation to the maintenance and saving on interest in lieu of capital up front $1 Million, officers estimate the total value of the lease over the 30 year period to be $17,739,163. b) Any increase in use will be considered by the Reference Group who will advise the Council in relation to the management of the Premises. Rates and Financial Management:  When considering all aspects of the proposed lease, including the rent, capital works, and savings to Council in relation to the maintenance and saving on interest in lieu of capital up front $1 Million, officers estimate the total value of the lease over the 30 year period to be $17,739,163.  All new works and improvements become Council assets at no cost to Council.  When Council consider the overall value of the proposed lease, the social, environmental and commercial outcomes of the proposal need to be considered. The decision is not based on a commercial consideration along. On balance Council officers believe the overall value to the community outlined in the proposed lease is fair and reasonable. Capital Works Improvements:  All development permits, plans and proposed upgrades to the park infrastructure will need to follow statutory and responsible authority processes. Length of Tenure:  The proposed lease term is comparative to the current lease, which has been in place since 1994. Council has a right to grant a lease for up to 50 years under the Local Government Act.  The proposed lease term allows for a reasonable period for the tenant to improve community infrastructure within the park.  Given the substantial overall financial value and the substantial capital works improvement within the proposed lease, a 20 year proposed lease with a further 10 year option is considered appropriate. Capital Works Improvements:  All development permits, plans and proposed upgrades to the park infrastructure will need to follow statutory and responsible authority processes.

Attachment 1

Item: 5.1

Item: 5.1 Request to Speak

For or Against

5.1

Submitter No.

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary Summary of Key Themes:

Officer Comment:

 The population of Banyule is expected to increase (double?) over the proposed lease period. This will mean that most of that increase will be housed in apartment blocks creating a much greater need for open public space. With this expectation it seems unwise to lease a substantial public park to the Grammar School under terms which severely limits its use by the rest of the Banyule community, be it individuals, other schools or interest groups.

improve community infrastructure within the park.  Given the substantial overall financial value and the substantial capital works improvement within the proposed lease, a 20 year proposed lease with a further 10 year option is considered appropriate.

Attachment 1

Rates and Financial Management:  It seems to me that if Council managed the Park, the $1,000,000 lease payment + the upkeep costs would be a very small sum to forego compared to the rates collected from all the new residents coming to live in Banyule over the next 20-30 years. They will all appreciate access to Chelsworth Park and the Council's foresight in providing that facility. Council management would also facilitate a greater ability to meet the community's needs as they arise.

Yes

Does NOT support the proposed lease on the following grounds: Length of Tenure:  The proposed 25 % growth of the Ivanhoe Grammar School (IGS) student numbers and the State Government Planning Policy that actively encourages higher density residential dwellings and up to 5 story commercial buildings within the suburb of Ivanhoe will result in a significant increase in the population of Ivanhoe. The proposed lease does not allow Banyule City Council (BCC) to review the length of the lease during the lease period. IGS has the right to extend the lease by a further 10 years; however BCC does not have the option not to renew, or to lease to IGS on different terms as a consequence of changed circumstances.  It is my request that BCC consider a lease of shorter duration, e.g. 7 years with options, and subject to a review by BCC that would determine if, in all the circumstances, it is still appropriate to lease to Chelsworth Park (CP) to IGS. A 20+10 year lease is just too long. Rates and Financial Management:  Business Case for lease not made: In the Lease document the value of CP is based on land value only. It does not include all Improvements made to the site over the years. The Capital Improved Value of $4.35M should have been used.  Lease not commercial rates: A 2.5% yield on $3.3M is $82,500 whilst a 2.5% yield on $4.35M is $108,750. For the first 20 years of the lease there is no rent review or adjustment for CPI. The total value of the lease to BCC is expressed in the dollar value today, not in the future.  $50,000 in 2033 will be worth a fraction of what $50.00 is worth in 2014. The $50,000 annual rent from 2034 onwards is adjusted annually by 4% and is greater than the $1.00 annual rent for the first 20 years. It will still be well below commercial rental rates of the day. This is not in the interests of BCC ratepayers. The only beneficiary of this financial arrangement is IGS.  Storm Water Harvesting Project (SWHP) harvested water not valued. The lease provides for IGS to use up to 10ML of water per year from the SWHP. The value of this water is in 2014 dollars $27,000. IGS is not required to pay for this water so in effect their $50,000 per year contribution to SWHP is really $50,000 – $27,000 = $23,000  SWHP contribution by IGS not in proportion to their water benefit. The total cost of the 3 SWHP, of which CP is the biggest and most expensive, is $7,076,800. Estimated water harvested from CP is 80ML per year. IGS allocation is 10ML ie 1/8th of the total yet IGS contribution to the cost of the SWHP is $1,000,000 whilst Ivanhoe Golf Course pays $1,540,000 and received a water allocation of 70ML per year. It does not make any Business sense for IGS to contribute such a large sum of money to the SWHS without some other “inducements” being offered to it by BCC.  CP maintenance costs not accurately calculated: Despite repeated requests to do so BCC has failed to provide details of maintenance costs for Ivanhoe Park for comparison with CP. The calculations for the published estimated annual maintenance cost of $281,000 per year for CP are not provided. We are told that the Labour component of the estimated cost is 2 full time staff. I find it unbelievable that 2 full time staff are required to maintain CP whilst 5 staff are able to maintain the other 48 grounds in Banyule! Given the

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 326

Capital Works Improvements:

Request to Speak

For or Against

Summary of Key Themes:

Officer Comment:

above I have no confidence in the published maintenance cost savings to BCC over the life of the proposed lease of $12,336659 which is used to justify the value, in part, of the lease to BCC and therefore to the wider community.  I request that BCC provide full and accurate details of the cost of maintaining all 48 grounds in Banyule so to enable the community to assess the real value to BCC of IGS maintaining CP.

 All development permits, plans and proposed upgrades to the park infrastructure will need to follow statutory and responsible authority processes.

Capital Works Improvements:  Proposed Gate on Irvine road to stop after-hours access: The case for restricted access to Irvine Road by a gate on a time lock has not been made public. Neither has the need for Irvine Road to be closed to the public. This proposal will result in a change in public access to CP, something which I was assured by my ward councillor would not happen. Public Access:  The Seasonal Allocations of Current Users not included in the Lease document, the current lease identified both the users and their allocated hours of use, (Second and Fourth Schedules).The proposed lease whilst defining the Present Users in Annexure A- special condition 1.2, it does not specify the allocations of those Present Users, rather the lease states "The Council shall be responsible for determining the ground allocations for each summer and winter season in consultation with the Tenant." (Annexure Aspecial condition 1.3).  Without knowing what hours the Present Users are allocated, how will Present Non-Users and Casual users know that their access to Chelsworth Park has not been reduced now, or in the future?  The provisions of Annexure A - special conditions 1.3 to 1.10 provide for variations to hours of use Allocations during the life of the proposed lease. Given undertakings by the Ward Councillor that there would be no change in the level of the public's access to Chelsworth Park, how can this are achieved if the above special conditions allow for changes (increases) in the Tenant's or other Present Users allocations?  The current lease was open and transparent regarding hours of use allocations, this lease is not. I request that the proposed lease have a Schedule included in the document, similar to the Fourth Schedule in the current Lease, which outlines then Tenant's and other Present Users seasonal allocations. Questions raised by submitter:

a) Request that BCC provide full and accurate details of the cost of maintaining all 48 grounds in Banyule so to enable the community to assess the real value to BCC of IGS maintaining CP. Does NOT support the proposed lease on the following grounds:

Officer Response: a) Council’s total Parks and Gardens management expenditure budget for the 2014/15 financial year is $11.6 million.

Firstly, I would like to commend you in particular for all the hard work you have done hosting information sessions, arranging and hearing submissions from local residents as well as negotiating on the finer points with IGS regarding the proposed lease. I know that this has not been an easy task for you and your team. I have a couple of major concerns regarding the proposed lease which have been expressed quite vociferously in past by a number of residents, but have not been addressed at all. Length of Tenure:

Length of Tenure:

 Any lease, which commits the current Council, its employees, and all the residents of Banyule to a twenty (20) year term followed by a further ten (10) year term does the Council and its ratepayers a great disservice.  The decision that is taken now will affect the following five to six sitting Councils as well as the next generation of residents living in Banyule (assuming a 20 year lease only). This is manifestly unfair and unconscionable and locks in successive Councils to a decision that has been poorly thought out, to a decision where a no proper business case has been made and to a decision that bestows all the benefits to IGS.  What a great recruiting tool for the Board of Directors of IGS to have a showcase sporting venue/facility which belongs to the residents and rate payers of Banyule masquerading as its own?  In the meantime, the residents are all the poorer for it. As the density of housing increases around Ivanhoe over the next twenty years and the need to more passive recreation space across all times of the

 The proposed lease term is comparative to the current lease, which has been in place since 1994. Council has a right to grant a lease for up to 50 years under the Local Government Act.  The proposed lease term allows for a reasonable period for the tenant to improve community infrastructure within the park.  Given the substantial overall financial value and the substantial capital works improvement within the proposed lease, a 20 year proposed lease with a further 10 year option is considered appropriate.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 327

5.1

Submitter No.

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary

Attachment 1

Item: 5.1

5.1

Submitter No.

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary Request to Speak

For or Against

Summary of Key Themes:

Officer Comment:

day increases, the community will find that it is effectively locked out of this space for the next twenty years.  The benefit bestowed upon IGS will therefore increase while the amenity of the public will decrease. This is poor public policy from a Council with short-term financial imperatives.  What I would like to see is a short term rolling lease, no longer than five years in tenure exercisable at Council’s discretion and not at IGS’s. Thus, should circumstances change in five (5) years’ time, and then successive Councils are not bound by a decision for the next twenty years.  Although IGS may not like this arrangement, in all reality they have little option but to accept it. The lure of using Chelsworth Park and having its students walk to the sporting venues (in lieu of bussing its students to other facilities) will be too great to pass up on.

Attachment 1

Rates and Financial Management: Financial Contribution over the Twenty Years

Rates and Financial Management:

 No rational business assessment has been made to determine what the appropriate level of rental should be over the twenty-year lease.  My understanding is that the previous Mayor Cr Phillips came up with the figure of $50,000 p.a. with no cost benefit analysis conducted.  This fits in nicely with IGS’s request for a twenty-year lease and its $1.0M contribution to the water harvesting facility. Quite simple really, amortise the IGS contribution over the proposed tenure of the lease to come up with $50,000 p.a. No business case needed, no need to consult with the Council’s Finance Department, no need to really test anyone’s intellectual capacity to determine whether this is the best outcome for the rate payers…Let’s keep things simple.

 When considering all aspects of the proposed lease, including the rent, capital works, and savings to Council in relation to the maintenance and saving on interest in lieu of capital up front $1 Million, officers estimate the total value of the lease over the 30 year period to be $17,739,163.  All new works and improvements become Council assets at no cost to Council.  When Council consider the overall value of the proposed lease, the social, environmental and commercial outcomes of the proposal need to be considered. The decision is not based on a commercial consideration along. On balance Council officers believe the overall value to the community outlined in the proposed lease is fair and reasonable.  The valuation was completed by Council’s City Valuer in May 2014 and reissued on 1 July 2014 2014. The following provisions in the Banyule Planning Scheme affect Chelsworth Park, and restrict the development potential of the land:  The land is in the Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ) which is for public recreation, open space, conservation, and limited commercial uses where appropriate.  Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO) which applies to areas affected by the 1 in 100 year flood. Flood risk associated with the development must be assessed by Council and Melbourne Water.

Capital Works Improvements: Councils FAQ’s also document a number of Capital Expenditures IGS will commit to over the term of the Lease. Residents and passive users of Chelsworth Park do not require these expenditures and upgrades. IGS is the only party which will benefit from these and its three Old Grammarian teams which use the park. Sorry to sound facetious, but this is the only intellectual rigor that was initially applied to determine the rental figure. All the additional input and work has been done to simply justify this decision. This is an abrogation of all responsibility and due care. Surely, Council’s bargaining power is greater than that IGS? Any additional income that may be paid after the initial twenty-year lease should be purely for information only and should not be used in determining whether the Lease provides benefits to the Council. The option is purely at the discretion of IGS. They can choose not to exercise it. Any rudimentary application of Accounting Standards will dictate that the final ten years rental cannot be used in any cost benefit calculation given that the option as at the discretion of the Lessee. Most residents understand and appreciate the fact that the Lease negotiations are a fait accompli…A commitment to grant a new lease to IGS was given years ago when the water harvesting discussions began. Although the community has been consulted, none of its serious concerns have been adequately been addressed. These information sessions, the adverting of the Lease and all the public submissions are conducted purely for compliance with the relevant sections of the Local Government Act. This is poor public policy by a Council who committed to a new lease three years prior and who is now retrospectively ensuring that it is complying with any relevant act. Rather than determining what IGS would need to spend to acquire land for its sporting facilities, what it would cost to maintain this new sporting facility, what it would cost the school to bus students to its sporting facilities and then determining what it is prepared to pay to have all these benefits right next door to its School, Council is valuing the lease based on what cost savings Council could achieve if a third party maintained Chelsworth Park. There a numerous other lesser points which I can raise Alison, but they do pale into insignificance ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 328

Capital Works Improvements:  All development permits, plans and proposed upgrades to the park infrastructure will need to follow statutory and responsible authority processes.

Submitter No.

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary Request to Speak

For or Against

Summary of Key Themes:

Officer Comment:

As a resident and a rate payer, I would have expected my Council to have the best interests of its resident first and foremost in its mind when negotiating on any rental of rate payers land or any transfer of land to a third party. Sadly in this instance, all I can see is a politically expedient decision made years ago in return for a payment of $1.0M to fund part of a water harvesting facility. Does NOT support the proposed lease on the following grounds:.

The proposed IGS lease area overlaps the most recent scout hall lease area, including parts of the scout lease area that are important for the functioning of the scout group. In particular:  The proposed IGS lease boundary takes in most of the grass area beside the main entrance of the hall. This area is critical to the delivery of scout programs to our youth members including activities such as tent pitching, games, construction (the spars are stored adjacent under the hall) and camp fires (using a fire drum on a stand to protect the grass.)  The proposed IGS lease area takes the gateway which provides vehicle access to the scout hall. Vehicle access is required for loading and unloading camp equipment, maintenance activities for the hall and equipment, and for storing trailers beside and under the hall.  The proposed IGS lease areas takes parts of the Scout group lease area where the scout group has been planting native vegetation and installed bollards to protect the hall infrastructure and keep vehicles off the grass, all with assistance from Banyule Council.  Any change to the landscaping around the existing gateway and adjacent grass areas can cause severe flooding under the hall, and the scout group needs to be able to manage that area to avoid financial loss and disruption resulting from flooding.  The various hall stormwater drains extends to a pit that is within the area of the scout lease covered by the proposed IGS lease. The responsibility for maintenance of this area will be an issue if IGS is granted a lease over this portion of the land. Does NOT support the proposed lease on the following grounds: Length of Tenure:  The Length of the lease over thirty years gives IGS, defacto freehold use of the grounds to the exclusion or limitation of residents in some cases;  The control over some facilities including tennis courts allows IGS to control usage of these facilities which are part of the park and public land; Rates and Financial Management:  Council and ratepayers have invested considerable capital in infrastructure in this park including the water harvesting project, which should require a greater contribution by IGS to this capital expenditure and upkeep; Consultation:  Greater input and consultation with, the community should occur before any long term lease of Council, publicly owned assets such as this significant parkland and recreational reserve is entered into.  Council owned public land should not be used for commercial purposes rather for the benefit of the public and ratepayers, especially when that land is held by Council for the public and recreational benefit of the wider community.

5.1

compared to the two major points I object to with respect to the proposed lease; namely the tenure of the lease and the rental during the first twenty years.

The intention of the proposed lease was not to alter the leased area to the scouts. Officers recommend an amendment be made to the final lease plan (Annexure D) incorporating to maintain the original lease plan area for the Scouts Victoria.

Length of Tenure:  The proposed lease term is comparative to the current lease, which has been in place since 1994. Council has a right to grant a lease for up to 50 years under the Local Government Act.  The proposed lease term allows for a reasonable period for the tenant to improve community infrastructure within the park.  Given the substantial overall financial value and the substantial capital works improvement within the proposed lease, a 20 year proposed lease with a further 10 year option is considered appropriate. Rates and Financial Management:  When considering all aspects of the proposed lease, including the rent, capital works, and savings to Council in relation to the maintenance and saving on interest in lieu of capital up front $1 Million, officers estimate the total value of the lease over the 30 year period to be $17,739,163.  All new works and improvements become Council assets at no cost to Council.  When Council consider the overall value of the proposed lease, the social, environmental and commercial outcomes of the proposal need to be considered. The decision is not based on a commercial consideration along. On balance Council officers believe the overall value to the community outlined in the proposed lease is fair and reasonable. Consultation:  Council endorsed a Community Meeting held on the 19 February 2014 and 40 people attended. Meeting minutes and updates regarding the development of the proposed lease were distributed to meeting attendees in May 2014.  The key issues raised at the Community Meeting held on the 19 February and the then negotiated position officers had reached with IGS and further options for Council to consider regarding specific items were presented to Council in May ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 329

Attachment 1

Item: 5.1

Item: 5.1 Request to Speak

For or Against

Summary of Key Themes:

5.1

Submitter No.

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary

Does NOT support the proposed lease on the following grounds:

Attachment 1

Rates and Financial Management:  The 20 year lease plus 10 year extension period is proposed by Council in the absence of: i) a fully documented business case; and ii) a benchmarked return against a range of similar Parks and Recreation assets.  A proper assessment of the benefit or otherwise to the community of the lease is precluded by the inter-mingling of Storm Water Harvesting Project financing with the terms of the Chelsworth Park lease. A peppercorn rental of $1 per annum for the lease of Chelsworth Park or a contribution of $1 million by Ivanhoe Grammar School (IGS) to the Storm Water Harvesting Project in lieu of Park rental for the next 20 years indicates to the community that the terms of this lease have evolved out of another initiative and have not been designed with the community’s interests in the Park, either from the perspective of access or asset return, as the priority.  The starting point for the lease should be a fair value rental, which may then be offset to take account of contributions and concessions for other projects of community value.  As lessee of Chelsworth Park, IGS would be responsible for the cost of watering the grounds and is therefore not only a contributor to the Water Harvesting project but also a beneficiary of the water project. The Council is allowing IGS to count their contribution to the SWH project as rent, while for the same expenditure IGS also enjoy a cost saving to their annual water bill for maintaining the Park. Banyule City Council Director - Corporate Services estimates that the SWH project represents indicative savings to IGS of $42,000 in 2014-15 and $65,000 in 2019-20 as lessee of the Park. This is a most unusual arrangement and no adjustment appears to have been made.  Council has selectively applied the time value of money, to recognize the benefit to Council from receiving $1million in the early years of the lease but fails to recognise that a dollar earned or saved in 20 or 30 years’ time is not worth a dollar today.  The Present Value of the proposed annual rental of $50,000 in 2035 (the first year of the ten year extension) is worth only $22,800 in today’s terms (using a 4% indexation rate). The Present Value of that rental implies a yield on the current capital improved value of the Chelsworth Park of 0.5%.  Council appears focused on moving expenses off their books rather than simultaneously addressing their responsibilities when negotiating with a private entity to achieve a benchmark return on behalf of ratepayers. Public Access:  It appears no attempt has been made to assess the value of Chelsworth Park access to IGS. Whether on freehold or leased land, IGS would be liable for their sports ground maintenance, capital improvements and administration.  The availability of Chelsworth Park for their school sporting activities represents a very attractive asset to the IGS business. This has not been recognised by Council in their negotiation of the lease terms, to the detriment of ratepayer interests.  Schedule of Facilities – available hours and hours of use by user: The lease should contain: i) a schedule identifying each of the sports grounds, buildings and other facilities which are subject of the lease; and ii) itemise the maximum number of hours each of the above is available for use, per season or per year.  The allocation of use/access by each user (IGS and the other users) should be recorded and published on a regular basis, quarterly or annually. This will ensure trends and changes in access, as a proportion of total usable facility time, is publicly available.  Social equity review: Existing users should not be considered as the universe of all potential users. An open, public review of use and access should be conducted every 3 – 5 years to examine demographic ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 330

Officer Comment: for further consideration.  50% all annual fees directed to a reserve fund managed by Council for future development of open space within the park.  The Chelsworth Park Reference Group will make recommendations to Council in relation to how the funds within the reserve fund should be allocated.  IGS will be required to follow Council‘s sporting reserves user guidelines in relation to fees and charges. Rates and Financial Management:  When considering all aspects of the proposed lease, including the rent, capital works, and savings to Council in relation to the maintenance and saving on interest in lieu of capital up front $1 Million, officers estimate the total value of the lease over the 30 year period to be $17,739,163.  All new works and improvements become Council assets at no cost to Council.  When Council consider the overall value of the proposed lease, the social, environmental and commercial outcomes of the proposal need to be considered. The decision is not based on a commercial consideration along. On balance Council officers believe the overall value to the community outlined in the proposed lease is fair and reasonable.  The valuation was completed by Council’s City Valuer in May 2014 and reissued on 1 July 2014 2014. The following provisions in the Banyule Planning Scheme affect Chelsworth Park, and restrict the development potential of the land:  The land is in the Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ) which is for public recreation, open space, conservation, and limited commercial uses where appropriate.  Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO) which applies to areas affected by the 1 in 100 year flood. Flood risk associated with the development must be assessed by Council and Melbourne Water.

Request to Speak

For or Against

Summary of Key Themes: changes in the municipality, survey other potential users including primary and secondary schools, community and sports organisations to ensure the interests of potential new user groups, whether regular or occasional, and passive users are assessed and addressed.  Park User Reference Group: The lease should include the criteria for selection of representatives of the community to this user group.  Fences / Gates – Pedestrian Access: Do fences and gates referred to in the lease relate to restriction of vehicular access only or also to restriction of pedestrian access? A clear statement in the lease that pedestrian access will not be impeded by fences and gates is requested.  Chelsworth Park Signage: The lease should require all signage within the Park and its buildings to prominently notify that Chelsworth Park is owned by Banyule City Council and leased to Ivanhoe Grammar School, as lessee IGS is responsible for (enumerate their relevant duties) and include the appropriate points of contact for the Council and IGS. Length of Tenure:  Rental review: There should be provision in the lease for the periodic review of the annual rental during the life of the lease. This would allow for the lease to transition over time to a rental that is supported by a full business case and asset benchmarking. These standards are already required of local government authorities elsewhere and will be required of Victorian Councils within the life of this lease. Committing the community to a 30 year arrangement, that does not meet the highest management standards and without provision for review, would not reflect well on Council.  Starting Rental for 10 lease extension period: At a minimum, the starting annual rental for the 10 year lease extension period should be set at $50,000 in today’s value and compounded to 2035 (i.e. $109,500 in 2035, using a 4% indexation rate).  Each year thereafter, during the extension, the compounded value for the previous year would be indexed again to determine the annual rental for that year. Environmental Matters: The lease should include requirements for: i) replacement planting of trees indigenous to the local environs; and ii) assessment of impact on, and protection of, wildlife in the management and operation of the Park. Questions raised by Submitter: a) Fences / Gates – Pedestrian Access: Do fences and gates referred to in the lease relate to restriction of vehicular access only or also to restriction of pedestrian access?

Officer Comment:

5.1

Submitter No.

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary

Environmental Matters:  Maintenance, Horticulture and Storm Water Harvesting plant maintenance specifications are also included in the proposed lease.  All Maintenance and Horticulture maintenance will be at IGS’s cost.

Officer Response: a) Any reference to fences in the proposed lease relates to the replacement of existing fences on sporting ovals. The capital works identified Irvine rd. gate is to restrict vehicle access after specified hours to improve community safety and security of assets within the park.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 331

Attachment 1

Item: 5.1

Attachment 1

5.1

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary

Yes

Does NOT support the proposed lease on the following grounds: Consultation:  The in camera Meeting 2012 In 2012 Council approved lengthy and detailed negotiations for this Lease with a 30 year period (20 plus 10 years); and a fixed dollar return ($1million dollars within 3 years of the approval of a Lease); - without consulting with the community. I object to Council making such long term planning and financial decisions about such a heavily used public asset in this way, without community engagement. Certain council officers have been placed in an invidious position of having to negotiate the Lease with Ivanhoe Grammar School, before the general public became aware of the move. Consequently, on discovering that negotiations are underway, some in general public were to “smell a rat” and become very wary of Councils motivations on this project, and wary of the Council officers themselves. The members of the Fairy Hills Ivanhoe Residents Group, formed mid-2013, found out about the decision to negotiate a 30 year Lease, indirectly, through members of the Chelsworth Park Tennis Club (CPTC) who had been called by the CPTC executive to a meeting to discuss the issue of the Club Losing its Lease to Ivanhoe Grammar School. No doubt though, other members of the community who are sports club representatives and some Ivanhoe Grammar School staff knew about the negotiation of the project earlier, but the bulk of passive users of the Park would have been completely unaware of this proposal until they inadvertently found out, through the public grapevine The potential loss of the Chelsworth Park Tennis Club’s longstanding Lease with Council - to Ivanhoe Grammar School, horrified these members of the community, who saw the idea as most unfair. (CPTC has existed virtually since Chelsworth Park land was acquired as a park in the late 1920s) They also thought the idea of a 30 year Lease with priority to IGS very unfair. With Community campaigning and CPTC resistance to the idea, Council fortunately decided to drop this idea in late in 2013, and allow CPTC to retain their Lease but this occurred after at least 12 months of negotiations / meetings with CPTC and IGS had already taken place The Fairy Hills Ivanhoe Group feel indebted to the current Mayor CR Langdon in that he was uncomfortable about the change of Lessee as well, and he helped the community make contact with council officers and better understand what was afoot. This was when we discovered that IGS were to get a 30 year Lease and council had already made a decision about this and were very determined to do this. Community members who believe in democracy and who understand that the vigilance that goes necessarily goes with it, is a responsibility for of all of us, have felt most upset with Council deciding these matters of principle at an camera meeting. These meetings are meant to be about discussing actual tenders and NOT the idea (or Principle) of having a tender – I would have thought?

Consultation:  Council endorsed a Community Meeting held on the 19 February 2014 and 40 people attended. Meeting minutes and updates regarding the development of the proposed lease were distributed to meeting attendees in May 2014.  The key issues raised at the Community Meeting held on the 19 February and the then negotiated position officers had reached with IGS and further options for Council to consider regarding specific items were presented to Council in August for further consideration.  50% all annual fees directed to a reserve fund managed by Council for future development of open space within the park.  The Chelsworth Park Reference Group will make recommendations to Council in relation to how the funds within the reserve fund should be allocated.  IGS will be required to follow Council‘s sporting reserves user guidelines in relation to fees and charges.

Public Access: The principle here is – Should a private business run and operate a Council resource (park) that is used by the community for both active and passive recreation, in an era when across Melbourne there is development pressure on open space, where the Governments of the day rely on housing as a main driver of the economy, and so are pushing an even greater population into Melbourne, and where Melbourne is predicted to grow by almost 100% over the time of the Lease.? IE Shouldn’t Council be more mindful in these circumstances that over such a long projected period of Lease, the community will need more access to parks such as Chelsworth and that tying it up in the hands of a private school and business, - which will want to maximise its control of the park - is not really in the interests of the community of future citizens.  Parks are primarily and over-ridingly for public health (and this one is already well used for that already ) - not for use by a private business  Chelsworth Park is already heavily used for passive recreation. Significantly, it is used by large numbers of dog walkers. It is a large open space excellent for off lead activity.  Thus the park also provides for both the dogs (and their owners) better mental health.  Council should be more mindful for the public health of our future population in twenty years’ time, rather than for making a quick return now on Chelsworth Park by renting it and its recycled water supply to Ivanhoe Grammar.  Over the projected period of Lease, the community will need more access to parks such as ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 332

Chelsworth and tying it up for junks of time, including after school hours during the week and on Saturdays in the hands of a private school, which is intending to expand - is not really in the interests of the current or future community of citizens.  There will be an Increase to current times of IGS use -– despite Councils claims of no change to Public Access  Chelsworth Park will not be exclusively used by this private business, (IGS) under the lease, but they will control casual bookings and collect fees, and their employees will meet regularly with all users and have discussions of various types with them  It would appear that the schools needs more time than they currently have at Chelsworth Park, and this will grow over the 30 years of the Lease.  Council Officers and Councillors have consistently claimed there will be no change to community access under the Lease –This appears to be quite wrong! The community seems to have has been misled about the IGS USE remaining the same.  Gate Keepers to bookings - may have an interest in discouraging other casual users due to general disinterest and/ or time consumption by staff in completing bookings  With the proposed Lease making IGS, the keepers of a resource that should be shared equitably amongst the general population, while the schools needs grow; How will they resist the opportunity to decide conflicts of use in their own favour? – rather than on what is fair for all?  Casual Bookings are not referred to the Tenancy committee, and are only to be permitted by IGS. IGS can easily discourage casual bookings by local primary schools for example – for Athletics Days and festivals by saying it disrupts their program too much to make these days available. Length of Tenure:  Length of the Lease  How will Council provide adequate open space for an already stressed population in twenty to thirty years?  In twenty to thirty years, Melbourne’s population is predicted to double under current and recent past, Government Policy, which we reasonably expect to continue. Council is irresponsible if it does not allow for this growth in demand from the general population, by maintaining control over the balance of users for this Park. Rates and Financial Management:  Peppercorn Rental - Schedule to the Lease – Item 9A – Rent (page 1 of the Schedule) The rental is $1 per annum i.e. a “peppercorn rental “- as previously There is no explanation from Council as to why this should be the case?  Council should be charging greater rent for this valuable property – instead of a payment for the recycled water used on the property:  The value of the actual water and the consistency of guaranteed supply of the water should be charged as rent In addition to: rent for enjoyment of the grounds  rent for the enjoyment of the buildings  rent for the enjoyment of the car parks – within and adjacent  The value of the grass mowing, marking out of grounds and dressing of turf is almost irrelevant as the school would need to do most of this for its own purposes anyway – This constitutes a small payment to Council ( and the community ) on behalf of the school, and while providing good value to the community is in no way an adequate payment for the value of the land and buildings and other assets used – particularly as the school has first option of use of those facilities at any particular time within this Lease. The Schedule in the Lease deletes Market Rent Review Dates, CPI Adjustment Rates, % Rent Increases, Bank Guarantees and Security Deposits without explanation  Council should be including all of the above as part of the lease  At year 21 - This is particularly the case - as the value of the rental fee at year 21 is only $50,000 not adjusted for change in value of $50,000 over 20 years ( The payment for the first 20 years equates to $50,000 per year and yet this is continued later, as if there has been no decrease in the value of money

 IGS will be required to follow Council‘s sporting reserves user guidelines in relation to fees and charges.  Pedestrian access within the proposed lease is consistent with the existing lease.  Any changes requested during the term of the lease would require Council approval.  The tennis courts will be available for hire by community groups and sporting clubs. They will not be available for free public use at all times. Council are unaware of any other tennis courts (with nets installed) which are open and available free of charge for public use. All Council owned tennis courts are leased to third parties who control the access and manage the asset on behalf of Council.  Council has no intention of changing Chelsworth parks current conditions regarding dog walking.

Length of Tenure:  The proposed lease term is comparative to the current lease, which has been in place since 1994. Council has a right to grant a lease for up to 50 years under the Local Government Act.  The proposed lease term allows for a reasonable period for the tenant to improve community infrastructure within the park.  Given the substantial overall financial value and the substantial capital works improvement within the proposed lease, a 20 year proposed lease with a further 10 year option is considered appropriate. Rates and Financial Management:  When considering all aspects of the proposed lease, including the rent, capital works, and savings to Council in relation to the maintenance and saving on interest in lieu of capital up front $1 Million, officers estimate the total value of the lease over the 30 year period to be $17,739,163.  All new works and improvements become Council assets at no cost to Council.  When Council consider the overall value of the proposed lease, the social, environmental and commercial outcomes of the proposal need to be considered. The decision is not based on a commercial consideration along. On balance Council officers believe the overall value to the community outlined in the proposed lease is fair and reasonable.  The valuation was completed by Council’s City Valuer in May 2014 and reissued on 1 July 2014 2014. The following provisions in the Banyule Planning Scheme affect Chelsworth Park, and restrict the development potential of the land:  The land is in the Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ) which is for public recreation, open space, conservation, and limited commercial uses where appropriate.  Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO) which applies to areas affected by the 1 in 100 year flood. Flood risk associated with the development must be assessed by Council and Melbourne Water.  Any signage must be approved by Council. Council has the ability under terms of the lease to have any signage deemed not fir for purpose removed.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 333

5.1

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary

Attachment 1

Item: 5.1

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary

5.1

over that time and no increase in the value of the land or buildings over that time  The 4 % compounding adjustment in the rent after year 21 is inappropriate as well , not reflecting the true value of money compared to asset values at that time  Signs and Promotional Material - Schedule to the Lease – Item 14.5 – (page 11 of the Schedule) Clauses 14-5.1 and 14.5.2 generally allow Council to permit IGS signage at Chelsworth Park.

Attachment 1

Environmental Matters:  Environmental Matters - Schedule to the Lease – Item 14.17 – (page 13 of the Schedule) This list seems very skimpy and does not do justice to the proximity of wetlands and the Yarra and the heritage nature of the site. I would like to see much more specific explanation of the protections required for native and heritage plants and animals in this clause. Examples of greater Protection needed: Protection of billabongs and water courses from fertilizers and pesticides – this was very much emphasised in previous leases and advocated for by the community prior to those leases being signed  Protection of heritage trees – these include both indigenous and exotic species - Examples of exotics planted in early days include willows, Italian Lombardy poplars, grey poplars and oaks that I know of, these continue to give Chelsworth its place in our suburbs ( and Melbourne’s ) history. For example the site was once the nursery for James Arthur a Scottish landscape gardener who arrived in 1839, and leased the land shortly after; He was selected by Governor Latrobe to be the very first manager at the Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne in 1846 (about which Governor Latrobe, Victorias first Governor, was particularly passionate. (Nearby areas also contain plant remnants from his later Nursery at Alphington, which originally extended to Darebin Parklands, There is much important history about this area that is yet to be published but readily available on land titles and in other material  Enhance Vegetation? - The IGS has a view of “enhancing” that mainly leads to loss of heritage trees and their replacement with flowers and dramatic effect shrub and landscape plantings. I feel it would be best if this word “enhancing” was deleted from the clause protecting vegetation. If any enhancing is to be dome it needs to be carefully considered by experts in the natural environment and in retaining heritage landscapes. Often these are local environment groups who are passionate about the science involved. WE have several very qualified groups in the local area, studying local flora and fauna and knowing what is required in terms of habitat, rather than what is required for decorative “enhancement”. I hope Councils environment staff can do some extra work on this wording in the Lease? – and that Council retains final say on any new plantings in consultation with local environment groups  Emergency Entry - Schedule to the Lease – Item 20.4 – (page 18 of the Schedule) This clause requires that Council have emergency entry at any time; but should also include that emergency services such as police, fire brigade and ambulances also have entry at any time, as this is a public place with general public access NOT private property  In this case, there is an argument of safety - to NOT have gates shut at any time OR at least for them to be easily accessed by these services at ANY time where there is an emergency of any sort  Firefighting, in particular, is important near to the Yarra River to protect houses abutting the Yarra escarpment. The Yarra corridor is substantial in width here, and northern incoming winds causing “spotting” could pose a risk in extreme weather conditions  As the cycling and walking tracks go past Chelsworth here emergency ambulance access should also be provided to get help as close to these tracks as possible – even at night, should someone need help.  Amendments to the rights of Present Users? – Annexure - A ( page 25 ) Item 1.3 I find that this clause is unclear and have sought explanation from Council before I submit on it - I think this clause could be very important and enable Council to allow new groups of local organisations access to the park ( Which I think is an important power which Council should retain ) – but I can’t be sure how this might operate.? The clause uses the wording that it is the parties “intention” to “ensure” that the Present Users ( including IGS ) - “use and enjoyment of the premises” is “maintained throughout the Term”, - but also says that Council will be responsible for allocating times over winter and summer seasons for all allocations “in consultation “ with IGS. It is not clear whether the Council may have overriding concerns which mean this “intention” is not delivered in some way to some of the Present Users, including IGS ? IE That Council may have the power (under a very legalistic interpretation of the Lease?) - to allow greater passive user, casual user, and / or local club user access in the future - if Council finds itself in such particular circumstances. ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 334

Item: 5.1

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary

Governance:

 Council officers will manage the proposed lease with the school. This process will include regular contract meetings between IGS and Council, contract reports and financial reports.  Maintenance, Horticulture and Storm Water Harvesting plant maintenance specifications are also included in the proposed lease.  All applications for allocations and casual bookings will continue to be administered and programmed by the lessee, Ivanhoe Grammar School, during the proposed lease with consultation regarding seasonal allocations with the Chelsworth Park Reference Group.  50% all annual fees directed to a reserve fund managed by Council for future development of open space within the park.  The Chelsworth Park Reference Group will make recommendations to Council in relation to how the funds within the reserve fund should be allocated.  IGS will be required to follow Council‘s sporting reserves user guidelines in relation to fees and charges.

 Community representatives on. and operation rules of, the Reference Group - Annexure - A ( pages 25 - 26 ) Items 1.4 – 1.7  1.4 - It is unclear whether this group must be formed in the first year of the lease operating – although it does say it will operate on a quarterly basis – This may be AFTER it gets going; – Could this be clarified in the lease please ? If the Council does NOT set up the Committee straight away - I imagine it could go without appointment for many years? My comment here requires a legal answer please - NOT a GUESS by a Council OFFICER based on an assumed or stated INTENTION in the lease.  It also says in the lease that the Council will have meetings with this group “quarterly” or as “it may prescribe from time to time” Does this mean that the Council can call meetings more than quarterly or does it have absolute discretion in calling meetings? - Perhaps it may not need to have any meetings at all, if it so determines? If so, this would appear to make a mockery of having added the clause about quarterly meetings?  There also seems to be some conflict with this plan for quarterly meetings for the Council and Community Reps and IGS ie the Reference Group - when compared to Annexure B Reporting Structures and Key Performance Indicators ( KPIs) page34 and the requirement here also for in one place quarterly meetings, and in another monthly meetings At this place in the Lease - Quarterly Meetings are required between Councils Officer in charge and Ivanhoe Grammars Business Manager and its Venue Manager, (with other employees of either Council OR IGS also able to attend ) to review the maintenance schedules and KPIs The Reference Group only reviews annual reports to Council by the tenant and yet quarterly or monthly reports are actually generated and the Council Officer is familiar with these. The School meet with Council once per quarter (at least) to discuss KPIs and other maintenance issues and once per quarter with the Reference Group to basically discuss the same (BUT with less information provided) It appears that the Reference Group is not intended to be apprised of all the facts in its deliberations – There are two scales of information operating. How seriously Council takes either will be debateable if neither really knows what the other is doing – It seems like information to the Reference Group will be filtered by Councils Officer- rather than all the facts being on the table. One must ask how seriously will such a group be taken if they have little knowledge to operate on? And if the officer is running short of time will he chose to NOT have Ref Group Meetings so he CAN fit in the more important IGS / Council ONLY meetings There is a flaw here in the Plan for community engagement and given the flexibility discussed above to possible just have Reference Meetings as required - IT seems likely the community engagement meetings will drop off and become insignificant. AS Council has been at pains throughout his process to insist that a Reference Group will give the oversight ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 335

5.1

Governance:

Attachment 1

 Determination by Council on matters brought to the attention of the Reference Group – Annexure - A ( page 25 ) Item 1.5 Council can make determinations on matters put to it by the Reference Group – It is not clear whether the Reference Group must all agree that the matters need determining? or whether even one member can raise an issue ? IE If there is disagreement on the Reference Group can Council make a determination? It appears in Item 1.7 that Council does not have to make decisions that the Reference Group agree with, but can it make decisions without the Reference Group first all agreeing a decision must be made ? - It would not appear so. Again this would have importance if Council for some good reason, was wishing to deprive one or some of the Present Users of its / their allocation. The current community would argue that the ability of Council to be able to provide facilities to the broader community should over-ride its commitments under this Lease to Present Users. IE If the population increases and passive recreation access is seen as inadequate, Council should be able to, with prompting from the Community Reps on the Reference Group alter the allocations to a more appropriate balance to enable this greater community Passive Use. It is important for the community to understand these aspects of the Lease in deciding whether they would urge Council to approve or NOT approve this Lease. I find that this clause is unclear and have sought explanation from Council before I submit on it - I think this clause could be very important and enable Council to allow new groups of local organisations access to the park – but I can’t be sure how this might operate – So far the response from Council has been inadequate to decide what is available to Council - under this clause – Further submissions to follow as I receive more information from Councils Lawyers - OR if this is not made available - please respond to this matter in the officers report to Council - if no other option is available.?

Item: 5.1

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary

Attachment 1

5.1

the community desires for what happens at Chelsworth Park – This very loose wording around when meetings will be held and what will be discussed ( including annual NOT quarterly reports) NEEDS to BE ADDRESSED  Reporting of Finances by the Tenant to Council and by Council to the community - Annexure - A ( page 26 ) Item 1.8 This Clause ensures a report from the Tenant describing monies from fees collected from sub-tenants over the last financial year is reported to Council each year at the end of the financial year; and that 50% of those monies go into a Council Fund for improving Chelsworth Park. This clause is to be applauded. However - how will these reports be given to the community? – The community who also should understand how it’s Park is being managed, and whether its fees are being collected properly? This is not mentioned.  Such financial reports should be openly available to the whole community. Publishing of the fees collected should go on the IGS website along with the Seasonal Grounds Allocations each season. Such transparency would assure the community the fees are actually being collected and would make them aware of how much is in the Council Fund and what amounts could subsidize particular community suggestions for the (If this Lease proceeds) This reporting on the IGS website - would also make the beneficiary of the Lease take care with their honesty re fees collection, and would add a valuable check / balance for Council in ensuring everything is reported accurately. It would go well towards giving the community confidence in the Council management of the fees collected, as well as to the honesty Lessee. It must be remembered that IGS did not manage its own accounting very well over the life of the last lease. The fees owed to Chelsworth Park Tennis Club for use of its Courts were not paid promptly and were in dispute for many months to years, and fees collected from other clubs using Chelsworth were not reported to Council over many years - Even though they were required under the previous Lease to be reported.  Councils Report back to IGS - of how they have used the 50% of fees collected – for Chelsworth Projects, should also be reported to the public and the public invited to comment on potential use of the fees. IE The community must maintain an interest in its property that is not beyond reach, just because a lease is in place.  While this is part of the Lease arrangements - if the Lease goes ahead, I do not approve of this arrangement in full. The Council should not have to keep “ developing” and “improving” the open space areas within the Lease This is described in the Maintenance Schedule for IGS to do and Council should not replace the IGS commitments under Annexure F (pages48- 55) Horticulture and Technical Services and is very comprehensive.  Council should be interested in NOT developing the land i.e. keeping it as much as possible in its natural state.  Reporting of Finances by the Tenant to Council and by Council to the community - Annexure - A ( page 26 ) Item 1.8.2 Dedicated Fund for Development and Improvement of Chelsworth Park  I would like this part ( Special Conditions 1.8.2 ) of the Lease wording ( if the Lease goes ahead ) changed to emphasise that the Park should be kept as open and clear an area as possible - with the character it has now – IE - of a large floodplain of the Yarra, containing billabongs and native vegetation, ..... an area that is reminding us as much as possible, of bye-gone days ....- of aboriginal tribes roaming the area, .... and of early settlement as a pastoral property; - and later, as a Plant Nursery for Scottish immigrant James Arthur, (arr 1839) - first manager of the Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne = 1846 )  It may also be necessary to refer to these matters in another Special Condition added to the Lease to make matters perfectly clear  In the future MORE heritage investigation needs to be completed on this incredibly significant parcel of land. There is still more to be officially documented, that that has not been so currently  There must be continued accumulation of knowledge about the river system that Chelsworth is part of, of the role the billabongs play in habitat for native species, of the role of feral animals such as foxes and cats in predating or displacing riverine and riparian species; and of the ways we can improve the resilience of the Yarra Corridors biotic environment during drought and as development pressures continue to encroach.  We do need to monitor how potential increased public use of Chelsworth, will affect the environmentally significant values of the floodplain environment and the river. There seems to be less input into this Lease than into others of clauses designed to protect the Natural environment –The clauses around the use of chemicals are really only standard for any workplace and I would think, that even stricter ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 336

Item: 5.1

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary

Attachment 1

5.1

and more detailed provisions should apply above those already recommended – As there would be considerable delay in adding these and finding people appropriate to comment on these – There should be added to the Lease - wording that targets even better environmental practices as these come to hand in the future –These could be added on recommendation by Council staff – OR by other Authorities with governance over the area - BUT we also need to add into the Lease - the possibility that local residents or ratepayers or scientists interested in the Chelsworth or local Yarra environs - may also through their work in studying this environment (as several groups currently do ), have even greater insight into protections or improvements that may be required and make very clear provisions for encouraging and valuing such specialised input  This research must NOT be limited to Wilsons Reserve and other less open parts of the river flats ; Chelsworth, being extensive in area – and having its own habitat values for native species;  Chelsworth Park - Being a major public gateway into experiencing our natural environment at this point on the Yarra – has an educational as well as experiential role to offer – Council should make provision in the Lease, if it would be required to permit such actions, - the ability to add signage or features that better enable the public at large to experience or understand these environmental values There should be a proviso though that such signage or additional features should not conflict with the low key and undeveloped nature of Chelsworth that we currently enjoy .  It should be made clear in the Lease’s Special Conditions section that the 50% of funds collected and given to Council CAN be used for heritage studies, environmental studies, educational activities at the Park , environmental monitoring such as Water Watch Programs (and similar ventures); and for environmental works approve by a scientific person specially qualified to approve such works.IE that all monies do not need to be spent on “development “ In fact, I personally - would prefer that NO funds were spent on development at all - Other than the heritage and environmental matters I write about. NO doubt others would argue for other priorities BUT at least we need to say in the Lease and certainly we need to emphasise in an explanatory fashion; that several types, of less usually expected , works or “development” spending are possible . IE Those works directed at heritage and the environment, and the educational aspects of both.  Chelsworth Park Booking System - Annexure - A ( page 26 ) Item 1.9 I do not agree with IGS running the booking system for Casual Users for Chelsworth Park – Council should have a Central Booking system agency for all its Parks  So that local schools (free entry), and not for profit organisations, can have access on occasions to Councils Parks. There should be time set aside at all Parks of these types of occasional activities as this :  Adds to community cohesion  Provide for special activities that Council policies would endorse – including Council run activities  Allows local Government Schools ( which the whole community can access freely ), to have economically provided for, and easily accessible, areas for special events such as athletics days and sports carnivals and festivals Many of the local Government Primary Schools are very overcrowded due to State Govt policy beyond Councils, and the local school communities’ control. Council owes a responsibility to ratepayers to provide an adequate make-up of space - if it can, for these schools. Other parts of Melbourne entitled to NEW schools ARE allocated extra space for school sports facilities BUT inner urban schools are suffering massively from past Government mistakes in closing schools and disposing of their land while the same Governments encourage higher density living in these same areas making for a shortfall in open space as the inner urban population grows. .It is essential they have priority of access to our sports grounds. Under the existing Lease - local primary schools have not always been able to have access to special events days under the current booking system –They usually can only access one day per year and if that day is rained out it has been virtually impossible to find another day suitable at the appropriate time of the year. Certain activities such as Athletics Carnivals have to take place in particular times of the Year because of the timing of Regional and State Level competition and the structure of age groups. Council should NOT be providing IGS with the option of dominating the school-hours yearly calendar to an extent that local free entry schools are NOT prioritised for use. Council must either make it clear in the Lease that this prioritisation for local schools - will occur – for the times of year that these carnivals operate; OR completely change its concept of IGS controlling the BOOKING SYSTEM Banyule currently has enough open space to largely satisfy the current primary schools needs for occasional open space – IF COUNCIL were not prioritising IGS use over theirs - but what if another Secondary College or another Primary School - was to be built here due to population growth in the future? – Where would we find enough land for their sporting facilities? Having almost any use of Chelsworth Park ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 337

Attachment 1

5.1

Item: 5.1

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary allocated to IGS in the future may NOT be a good idea. Governments, in various parts of the world, - including Melbourne, retrofit public facilities such as libraries and schools into high density suburbs by building them within existing buildings or repurposing current facilities ( public or private ) – This option though means that land for sports is not available and the local community sports fields have to be used. This could happen in Ivanhoe, certainly within southern Banyule. The City of Yarra will be expanding its population at the old Paper Mills site soon adding many more local households; and reasonably local secondary schools (in Kew and Balwyn) are already very large and have unreliable bus links that often leave local students missing a bus and being late for school (The buses don’t stop when they are full and successive Govt’s have refused to increase services) Local families deserve a local secondary school, and certainly enough primary schools with enough locally available space for recreation. A huge chunk of the currently available recreation space is about to be lost for the next 30 years. Is this wise? Eventually these schools may be supplied, and then we will have even greater need for school-day use of facilities such as Chelsworth Park.  Council should be thinking of providing more daytime activities for older ratepayers in local parks Part of being healthy is being aerobically fit and having good mental health especially as one ages. Governments of all types are becoming conscious of the health (and subsequent economic benefits too) of active recreation for older people in the community. Chelsworth, along with other local parks could be more needed for this type of activity in the future. For the elderly who can’t walk long distances due to feet problems – some outdoor exercise on soft surfaces - such as Tai Chi can be useful for staying flexible and preventing further deterioration. As more people retire and are healthier, school–hours day time sports such as soccer and cricket and even yet to be invented sports could become popular. It seems Council thinks that these school-hour times are not needed for the community now OR into the future - but they could be. Any Lease with IGS of Chelsworth Park needs to be flexible enough to allow Council to provide for these types of activities for age groups - we might not think of now - into the future. Having IGS control Bookings when these types of activities are requested by the public or envisioned by Council - seems the wrong way to go about ensuring Council has a free hand to introduce such beneficial programs into its Parks. What we are doing by signing this Lease is saying these activities benefiting the aged and retired and /or health challenged in our community are LESS important than a local EXPENSIVE and non-open entry private school having access to playing grounds. NO amount of money – Water Harvesting donations or otherwise, is going to find substitute local Parks for these activities in the future. We need to hang on to the ability to access our Parks and stay flexible with our community health programs  Chelsworth Park Bookings to be on IGS website and signage advertising this to be on park billboards - Annexure - A ( page 26 and 27 ) Item 1.10 This idea (- from the community) of the fixtures for use - being on a website - is a very important part of thinking on this Lease and should be commended; however if Council managed the Bookings – this information would be on Councils website. In any case, this type of information on bookings and fixtures for all Councils parks should be on Councils website to maximise community access to these facilities. I expect to see Council follow this idea through with the same details about Parks on its own website. Council could advertise special events, fitness classes and school and sports fixtures in all parks this way ensuring that time set aside for particular activities is well advertised and that all sections of the community are able to find out how to participate in such activities. Of course, if Council does this there will be no need to IGS to do this  Unauthorised activity within Chelsworth Park- Annexure - A ( page 26 and 27 ) Item 1.11 It is proposed to have electronic gates to (apparently via Councils thinking?) - prevent unauthorised use. In this clause extra measures are set out that assist in protecting the property. Improvements to this clause would be to:  Add a provision which says no cash may be kept on the premises overnight ;  Add a provision which allows the school ( or any member of the public ) to contact the police if any vandalism, or break in, or wilful damage is being observed (without the need to contact Council )  Allow for signage on the buildings - to indicate that no cash is kept overnight  Limit the number of fundraising activities which operate consistently at the venues -IE limit the operation of coin in the slot machines and perhaps ban them completely  Limit the evening or after hours events which allow for cash to change hands to those expressly written into the Lease, and with procedures outlined for who is responsible for managing and securing money off the premises after each the event.  Allow for CTV cameras to be positioned to cover all building entrances This would be very helpful in

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 338

Item: 5.1

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary

5.1

prosecuting illegal activity such as break ins, vandalism or assaults.  Cameras could also be posted on the car park – as a potential source of illegal activity, including involving drugs, after sunset and before sunrise.  These cameras could be infra-red and triggered by movement or continuously running, reserved to be investigated after any illegal activity is discovered, and / or monitored by a specialist firm paid for by either IGS (- if the Lease is signed ) or by accumulated fees acquired by Council for fundraising activities at the venues. I have recently observed how useful these cameras can be in giving police or businesses very definitive advice on crime or mismanagement  Electronic gates, - which may in some ways diminish community access to the park, would not be needed – if the Park had bollards around the ovals between the car park and ovals; and CTV cameras in use; as well as the several other suggestions above.

Attachment 1

 Beautification activities within Chelsworth Park- Annexure - A ( page 27 ) Item 1.12 IGS should NOT have a free hand to do any beautification activities within Chelsworth Park (1.12.2) The park is a low key natural environment and should be kept that way. It has PCRZ and PRZ zoning and a heritage overlay and is a gateway to a treasure trove of environmental rarities, (original Billabongs ) and natural wonders along the Yarra. IGS has demonstrated a penchant for elaborate and beautiful landscape gardening at its nearby Ridgeway Campus but at the same time has put established vegetation at risk with these landscape changes and even killed and damaged some heritage trees for which it was fined by Council ; And damaged and removed others – for which it was not fined ( as these things are expensive and time consuming to prove with much expert opinion being required if the matter goes to Court ) IGS must not be allowed to alter the ambience of Chelsworth Park by “beautification” or any other pleasant sounding process. This is a special place – needing special governance and adherence to strict guidelines and approvals, for what can take place; especially that which affects that ambience or any natural values.  IGS Setting of RENTAL for casual use of Chelsworth Park - Annexure - A ( page 27 and 28) Item 1.13  I am concerned about this provision in that IGS could within this provision consistently charge slightly higher fees for all Casual Users - when compared to Councils other Parks – as the provision is for the fees to be generally the same as Councils other fees, and allows I think for the Park being perhaps at a slightly higher standard of turf drainage than other Parks and therefore charging more. There are not many comparable Parks in Banyule from which to judge these fees for the Chelsworth Turf and so IGS could be charging fees that discourage use by nearby schools and other casual users requiring dry ground for their activities and so limiting use of the grounds by charging excessive rents As the number of comparable grounds is limited and the number in this particular area is limited -This provision tends to exclude certain users who cannot afford the fee ( Local Government schools perhaps ) Council should instead, allocate to each free entry school a provision of time for Chelsworth Park – say two days per year at current community pressure for use but perhaps expanding to more days if Council feels the need arises Fees for the Park should be the exactly the same as for other Parks for a comparable use and the right for refusal only employed when no other Parks - which have the required facilities, are available within the local area ( For a local primary school use or community group use )  Certain Community Groups should also have a guarantee of 1 day of use at a local Park for each year at no cost. Groups organising events which Councils considers valuable to the community broadly and fitting in with espoused Council Policies should have this guarantee of free but limited use.  No business groups should have access to Council Parks – as this removes possible organised access to the local community and removes passive recreation access  Using a benchmark delineating the whole municipal district is NOT be encouraged. This measure encourages unnecessary travel for local groups and this should be discouraged for reasons of equity , sustainability, and community cohesion  Where the non profit groups wishing to hire the grounds are NOT local - YES the provision of a benchmark that covers a wide area of comparison is to be encouraged. Indeed a an extra premium should be applied when this group is NOT a group registered within the municipality and Council should have the Power to veto this BOOKING  This must apply to the umbrella organisations that govern local sports teams - including IGS teams. Only local teams, which have a home ground of Chelsworth Park should have scheduled and occasional bookings of the Park. Other Teams in other municipalities must find their own grounds within their own or other Council areas. Chelsworth, like any other local Park, - should be made as available as possible to the local community. This means that the local Parks are NOT for sale - to outside groups with large pockets ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 339

Item: 5.1

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary

Attachment 1

5.1

THIS MUST ALSO APPLY TO CHELSWORTH.  I would like some legal opinion on the lease as to whether the current lease allows for this exclusion in ( f) to occur Capital Works Improvements:  Capital Works and Improvements - Annexure - A ( page 28 ) ( as listed later in Annexure C ) Item 2.7 Planning Permits The wording appears satisfactory, except that I would like included:  All Planning permit applications will be advertised at all entrances to the Park for no less than 4 weeks and in the local paper and on Councils website and in its publications  The community may have input into Councils consideration of the Permit Applications and Council will consider these comments in its determination  Objections to such applications for permits are possible in the normal way and so residents also have a recourse to action through normal planning mechanisms of the day that operate ( such as VCAT )  The community can ask questions of Council about the applications for permits that enable a clear understanding of what is involved and Council will require that information of the Applicant if it is not already to hand and can be explained. It is important that the community has control of what happens in its parks – There should be an extra opportunity to seek information and comment when the Park is in the hands of a different body other than Council, who is requesting approval. Vigilance, by the community can assist inexperienced NEW council officers in their work; especially on this community where residents stay in their homes many decades - and so have much more experience than Council sometimes on what has gone before or what is happening currently  Capital Works and Improvements - Annexure - A ( page 28 ) ( as listed later in Annexure C ) Item 2.8 Second Term There is meant to be no applications for works in a second term ( 10 years after the initial 20 years ), and so this wording appears reasonable; BUT I am concerned that there MAY be application for works in the second Term by IGS OR Council may change its mind at that point and may actually DESIRE this ( OR the Community may desire it ) The second Term should NOT be guaranteed to IGS at all and new provisions for any future Lease after 20 years need to be drawn up at the time Including :  A reassessment of the value of the land and other assets at that time  A reassessment of rental due under the lease  A reassessment of any works which need to be attended to –including RENEWAL of ANY PART of the Water Harvesting SYSTEM (Large parts of which, including tanks, will need to be replaced at some time within the second Term); Renewal or replacement of the synthetic Tennis courts surfaces (New materials may be more desirable) OR any other part of the Premises which requires rebuilding as opposed to maintenance.  A reassessment of community Priorities for Chelsworth and its environs at that time In addition, I would argue that the original term should only be 5 years with options for continuing the arrangement, reassessed at that time - based on:  community needs,  the value of the Land and its facilities,  drought or climate change and its effect on the Park and the amount of use it can sustain  the real value of the rental ( $1 per year currently ) as a return for the value of the property ( added to the amounts due from the Water Harvesting Project )  whether IGS has made good on all matters it undertook to complete or comply with in the previous 5 years Council should allow IGS to maintain the grounds only and NOT complete major capital works OR pay instalments of the Water Harvesting Project while it considers its options each 5 years Council should repay Water Harvesting Fees if IGS loses its Lease at any time due to extra community demand (Commensurate with the amount of use it has enjoyed from the project ) The NEW Lease after a completed 20 year Term MUST goes out to Public Advertising and a through Consultation Process occur before any new Lease with IGS is signed. One year should be allowed for this and the public must have accurate answers to all questions it asks about such a proposed Lease before any Lease can be signed. All legal Questions will also be answered before the submission period starts.  Capital Works and Improvements - Annexure - A ( page 30 ) ( as listed later in Annexure C ) Item 3 ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 340

Capital Works Improvements:  All development permits, plans and proposed upgrades to the park infrastructure will need to follow statutory and responsible authority processes.

Item: 5.1

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary

Attachment 1

5.1

5 yearly Asset Renewal Reports This wording would be suitable in a 5 yearly Lease renewal as proposed in the previous paragraph  4. Inundation, contamination and Hazardous Materials - Annexure - A ( page 31 ) Item 4.1 .2 – Questions Could Council explain whether the storage of Hazardous Materials, is above Flood limits OR outside of the Flood overlay area OR both? I would add initial provisions that for all materials classified as Hazardous Materials OR as Dangerous Goods  any amount over 1 litre capacity or 1 KG weight be NOT stored at Chelsworth Park for any more than one day ( in daylight hours) and with IGS staff in attendance. (The school can store materials on its own site outside of these times)  Up to date MSDS sheets ( these are renewable every 5 years after the date of issue ) are stored with the materials at IGS and copies transferred with the materials to Chelsworth  The copies of these MSDS sheets are also stored on a website that allows Council and / or Council and IGS contractors to view their contents - at any time while they are involved with IGS projects or overview  A suitably qualified person prepares Risk Assessments for each desired use of these chemicals/ materials ( and for their storage conditions) and the staff using these chemicals and all others with access to them is in serviced in their use before that use takes place.  IGS offers in service for the uses these materials to Council staff using or monitoring the premises; and for any contractors doing the same where they may be exposed by accident or deliberately to those materials and does not permit any untrained persons to handle the materials without direct person to person supervision  No unqualified or untrained staff use these chemicals or materials - without their written consent to their use and acknowledgment that they have read the appropriate MSDS and Risk Assessments  Hazardous or Dangerous goods of a household nature also require MSDS to be provided and Risk Assessments prepared and must be available to those using these materials on the Premises - They also must not be stored in quantities over I kg of I litre capacity on the premises - and must be in a locked cupboard which prevents access by children  NON Hazardous Materials stored and used on the premises must also have in date MSDS sheets stored with them and have labels on them with the risks clearly displayed IF there are any ( Many material classified as NON Hazardous actually do contain serious risks in certain situations and this is identified in their MSDS  For those familiar with the GHS system of Hazardous materials identification read MSDS as SDS and apply the Term having a Warning Label to replace the Term Hazardous  5. Liquor Licence - Annexure - A ( page 31 and 32) These are good provisions in the Lease - however It may be that Council as part of a Healthy Community Policy - provides extra conditions on the holding of Liquor permits in the future for example:  Limiting amounts of alcohol per head which can be served  Limiting the number of functions a year which can serve alcohol  Limiting the days of the week and hours of day in which alcohol can be served  Limiting the types of events at which alcohol can be served ( eg NO alcohol at children’s events or events where children are present ) Council should retain the ease of being able to add such clauses, by forewarning the Tenant in the wording of the Lease  7. Roads and toilets - Annexure - A ( page 32 and 33) There is no need for an electronic gate in Irvine Rd or anywhere else this will restrict public access for use and enjoyment ( - including at night ) and be an inconvenience to emergency vehicles and local and state authorities I consider it is a legal ploy by IGS to attain a sense of ownership and perhaps in fact some actual element of ownership or right under the law Questions raised by submitter: a) The principle here is – Should a private business run and operate a Council resource (park) that is used by the community for both active and passive recreation, in an era when across Melbourne there is development pressure on open space, where the Governments of the day rely on housing as a main driver of the economy, and so are pushing an even greater population into Melbourne, and where Melbourne is predicted to grow by almost 100% over the time of the Lease.? ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 341

5.1

Item: 5.1

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary

b) With the proposed Lease making IGS, the keepers of a resource that should be shared equitably amongst the general population, while the schools needs grow; How will they resist the opportunity to decide conflicts of use in their own favour? – rather than on what is fair for all? c) Casual Bookings are not referred to the Tenancy committee, and are only to be permitted by IGS. IGS can easily discourage casual bookings by local primary schools for example – for Athletics Days and festivals by saying it disrupts their program too much to make these days available. Casual Users have NO rights under the Lease. In fact, it may disrupt IGS’s staff’s attention to their duties too much to allow too many casual bookings? d) How will Council provide adequate open space for an already stressed population in twenty to thirty years?

Attachment 1

e) Within the name of the Lease: The property is described as 18 Irvine Road; but the road is planned within the Lease to be discontinued – So what will happen legally to the description of the Lease in its Introduction Section? This could be a problem? f) a. b.

Peppercorn Rental - Schedule to the Lease – Item 9A – Rent (page 1 of the Schedule) The rental is $1 per annum i.e. a “peppercorn rental “- as previously There is no explanation from Council as to why this should be the case?

g) Enhance Vegetation? - The IGS has a view of “enhancing” that mainly leads to loss of heritage trees and their replacement with flowers and dramatic effect shrub and landscape plantings. I feel it would be best if this word “enhancing” was deleted from the clause protecting vegetation. If any enhancing is to be dome it needs to be carefully considered by experts in the natural environment and in retaining heritage landscapes. Often these are local environment groups who are passionate about the science involved. WE have several very qualified groups in the local area, studying local flora and fauna and knowing what is required in terms of habitat, rather than what is required for decorative “enhancement”. I hope Councils environment staff can do some extra work on this wording in the Lease? – and that Council retains final say on any new plantings in consultation with local environment groups h) Amendments to the rights of Present Users? – Annexure - A ( page 25 ) Item 1.3 a. I find that this clause is unclear and have sought explanation from Council before I submit on it - I think this clause could be very important and enable Council to allow new groups of local organisations access to the park ( Which I think is an important power which Council should retain ) – but I can’t be sure how this might operate.? The clause uses the wording that it is the parties “intention” to “ensure” that the Present Users ( including IGS ) - “use and enjoyment of the premises” is “maintained throughout the Term”, - but also says that Council will be responsible for allocating times over winter and summer seasons for all allocations “in consultation “ with IGS. It is not clear whether the Council may have overriding concerns which mean this “intention” is not delivered in some way to some of the Present Users, including IGS ? b. So far the response from Council has been inadequate to decide what is available to Council - under this clause – Further submissions to follow as I receive more information from Councils Lawyers - OR if this is not made available - please respond to this matter in the officer’s report to Council - if no other option is available? i) Council can make determinations on matters put to it by the Reference Group – It is not clear whether the Reference Group must all agree that the matters need determining? Or whether even one member can raise an issue? IE If there is disagreement on the Reference Group can Council make a determination? It appears in Item 1.7 that Council does not have to make decisions that the Reference Group agree with, but can it make decisions without the Reference Group first all agreeing a decision must be made ? I find that this clause is unclear and have sought explanation from Council before I submit on it - I think this clause could be very important and enable Council to allow new groups of local organisations access to the park – but I can’t be sure how this might operate – So far the response from Council has been inadequate to decide what is available to Council - under this clause – Further submissions to follow as I receive more information from Councils Lawyers - OR if this is not made available - please respond to this matter in the officers report to Council - if no other option is available.? Community representatives on. and operation rules of, the Reference Group - Annexure - A ( pages 25 ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 342

Officers Response: a) When Council consider the overall value of the proposed lease, the social, environmental and commercial outcomes of the proposal need to be considered. The decision is not based on a commercial consideration along. On balance Council officers believe the overall value to the community outlined in the proposed lease is fair and reasonable. b) The Reference Group will meet on a quarterly basis and will have the opportunity to make suggestions to the Council in relation to new seasonal allocations or changes to existing seasonal allocations. c) IGS must establish and maintain a booking system for the use of the sports grounds and other facilities at the Premises. Officers acknowledge there is currently no opportunity to track the number of casual booking enquiries and the number of actual casual booking. IGS must provide a quarterly report on the performance and operations of the Park including a quarterly KPI report incorporating the number of teams and permanent tenants. Officers recommend that the KPI reporting requirement be adjusted to include the number of casual booking enquiries and the number of actual casual booking. d) Council is currently reviewing the Open Space Strategy which will identify the demand for Open Space into the future and also identify strategies for Council to consider meeting this identified demand. e) There is no proposal to discontinue Irvine Road with the proposed lease. There is a proposal to prevent vehicles access from Irvine Road between 12 midnight and sunrise. This will not impact the address of the property. f) When considering all aspects of the proposed lease, including the rent, capital works, and savings to Council in relation to the maintenance and saving on interest in lieu of capital up front $1 Million, officers estimate the total value of the lease over the 30 year period to be $17,739,163. g) The Horticulture & Technical Services specification was prepared by Council Park area. A suitably qualified contractor will undertake an audit of the grounds every 5 years and recommend improvements. h) The present users are defined and the document acknowledges that it may be necessary to make amendments to the rights of the Present Users, subject to the rights of the Present Users, so other person’s organisations or bodies which might wish in the future to use the premises on a regular basis (Present Non-

Attachment 1: Proposed Chelsworth Park Leade Submission Summary Users); and casual users (Casual Users). i) There is no requirement for the Reference Group to agree on what suggestions go to Council. One member of the Reference Group can raise issues however the majority of the group’s opinion will also be reported to Council. Council is ultimately responsible for making decisions in relation to all issues regarding Chelsworth Park.

5.1

26 ) Items 1.4 – 1.7 j) 1.4 - It is unclear whether this group must be formed in the first year of the lease operating – although it does say it will operate on a quarterly basis – This may be AFTER it gets going; – Could this be clarified in the lease please ? If the Council does NOT set up the Committee straight away - I imagine it could go without appointment for many years? My comment here requires a legal answer please - NOT a GUESS by a Council OFFICER based on an assumed or stated INTENTION in the lease. It also says in the lease that the Council will have meetings with this group “quarterly” or as “it may prescribe from time to time” Does this mean that the Council can call meetings more than quarterly or does it have absolute discretion in calling meetings? - Perhaps it may not need to have any meetings at all, if it so determines? If so, this would appear to make a mockery of having added the clause about quarterly meetings?

j) The Reference Group will be formed in the first year. The Reference Group will meet on a quarterly basis however Council has the right to review the frequency of the meetings.

Attachment 1

Item: 5.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 343

5.2

Attachment 1: WHO Global Network of Age-friendly Cities Brochure

Attachment 1

Item: 5.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 345

Attachment 1: WHO Global Network of Age-friendly Cities Brochure

Attachment 1

5.2

Item: 5.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 346

6.1

Attachment 1: Procurement Australia presentation for extension of Gas Contract 2013

Attachment 1

Item: 6.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 347

Attachment 1: Procurement Australia presentation for extension of Gas Contract 2013

Attachment 1

6.1

Item: 6.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 348

6.1

Attachment 1: Procurement Australia presentation for extension of Gas Contract 2013

Attachment 1

Item: 6.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 349

Attachment 1: Procurement Australia presentation for extension of Gas Contract 2013

Attachment 1

6.1

Item: 6.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 350

6.1

Attachment 1: Procurement Australia presentation for extension of Gas Contract 2013

Attachment 1

Item: 6.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 351

Attachment 1: Procurement Australia presentation for extension of Gas Contract 2013

Attachment 1

6.1

Item: 6.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 352

6.1

Attachment 1: Procurement Australia presentation for extension of Gas Contract 2013

Attachment 1

Item: 6.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 353

Attachment 1: Procurement Australia presentation for extension of Gas Contract 2013

Attachment 1

6.1

Item: 6.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 354

6.1

Attachment 1: Procurement Australia presentation for extension of Gas Contract 2013

Attachment 1

Item: 6.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 355

Attachment 1: Procurement Australia presentation for extension of Gas Contract 2013

Attachment 1

6.1

Item: 6.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 356

6.1

Attachment 1: Procurement Australia presentation for extension of Gas Contract 2013

Attachment 1

Item: 6.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 357

Attachment 1: Procurement Australia presentation for extension of Gas Contract 2013

Attachment 1

6.1

Item: 6.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 358

6.1

Attachment 1: Procurement Australia presentation for extension of Gas Contract 2013

Attachment 1

Item: 6.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 359

Attachment 1: Procurement Australia presentation for extension of Gas Contract 2013

Attachment 1

6.1

Item: 6.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 360

6.1

Attachment 1: Procurement Australia presentation for extension of Gas Contract 2013

Attachment 1

Item: 6.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 361

Attachment 1: Procurement Australia presentation for extension of Gas Contract 2013

Attachment 1

6.1

Item: 6.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 362

6.1

Attachment 1: Procurement Australia presentation for extension of Gas Contract 2013

Attachment 1

Item: 6.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 363

Attachment 1: Procurement Australia presentation for extension of Gas Contract 2013

Attachment 1

6.1

Item: 6.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 364

6.1

Attachment 1: Procurement Australia presentation for extension of Gas Contract 2013

Attachment 1

Item: 6.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 365

Attachment 1: Procurement Australia presentation for extension of Gas Contract 2013

Attachment 1

6.1

Item: 6.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 366

6.1

Attachment 1: Procurement Australia presentation for extension of Gas Contract 2013

Attachment 1

Item: 6.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 367

Attachment 1: Procurement Australia presentation for extension of Gas Contract 2013

Attachment 1

6.1

Item: 6.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 368

6.1

Attachment 1: Procurement Australia presentation for extension of Gas Contract 2013

Attachment 1

Item: 6.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 369

Attachment 1: Procurement Australia presentation for extension of Gas Contract 2013

Attachment 1

6.1

Item: 6.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 370

6.1

Attachment 1: Procurement Australia presentation for extension of Gas Contract 2013

Attachment 1

Item: 6.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 371

Attachment 1: Procurement Australia presentation for extension of Gas Contract 2013

Attachment 1

6.1

Item: 6.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 6 OCTOBER 2014 Page 372